The URL can be used to link to this page

sp ERC Packet 12-13-18CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 9:30 AM 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Room 100/EOC Thursday, December 13, 2018 Special Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Environmental Review Committee is hereby called for Thursday, December 13, 2018, commencing at 9:30 a.m., City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, EOC/Room 100, Cupertino, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading “Special Meeting”. SPECIAL MEETING: ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Draft Minutes of August 31, 2018 Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of August 31, 2018 Draft Minutes of August 31, 2018 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the members on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the members from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.Subject: A boutique hotel on a 1.72-acre site in the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. The project would also involve demolition of two existing commercial buildings on the sites. The development would be a new 5-story, 185-room boutique hotel including event meeting rooms, a restaurant, and roof top lounge and bar. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Application No(s).: GPA-2017-05, DP-2018-04, DA-2017-01, ASA-2017-09, TR-2017-46 (EA-2017-06); Applicant(s): Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty); Location: 10801 N Page 1 December 13, 2018Environmental Review Committee AGENDA Wolfe Road APN#316-45-017 Recommended Action: recommend that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration Cupertino Village Hotel - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment. Page 2 Community Development Department Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 ACTION MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON August 31, 2018 Committee Members:Geoff Paulsen Aarti Shrivastava Amy Chan Darcy Paul Chad Mosley Committee Members absent:Timm Borden Staff present:Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Consultant Presenters:Judy Shanley, David J Powers (Environmental Report) Franziska Church, Fehr & Peers (Traffic Analysis) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 5, 2018 The minutes of the July 5, 2018 were approved as written ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) Three speakers addressed the Committee regarding a new hotel project at Stern Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose. One of the speakers also mentioned concerns regarding street improvement plans that were received in response to a request for the Vallco frontage on Stevens Creek Boulevard. PUBLIC HEARING: 1.Application No.(s):EA-2017-05, GPA-2018-02, Z-2018-01, SPA-2017-01, MCA-2018-01, DA-2015-02 Applicant(s):City of C upertino (Specific Plan, General Plan and Municipal Code Amendments, Zoning and Environmental Review) Vallco Property Owner, LLC (Development Agreement) Location: 10101 to 10333 N Wolfe Rd APN#(s) 316-20-080, 316-20-081, 316- 20-103, 316-20-107, 316-20-101, 316-20-105, 316-20-106, 316-20-104, 316-20-088, 316-20-092, 316-20-094, 316-20-099, 316-20-100, 316-20-095 Consider the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has prepared the Vallco Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2018022021) to evaluate whether the proposed Vallco Shopping District Special Area Specific Plan (“Vallco Specific Plan”), which contains the vision and specific development parameters for redevelopment of the current Vallco Shopping District, associated changes to the General Plan (text amendments related to development at the current Vallco Shopping District Special Area, development allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential use and development standards for the current Vallco Shopping District, including amendments to Table LU-1 and Figure LU-2, and other conforming/clarifying edits), Zoning map and text amendments (related to rezoning of the parcels at the current Vallco Shopping District Special Area and amendments to the Zoning Title to allow implementation of the Vallco Specific Plan), and the proposed Development Agreement between the City and Vallco Property Owner, LLC (“Development Agreement”), would have a significant effect on the environment. Discussion o The EIR initiated in December 2017 and completed in May 2018. o Analyzed a range of alternatives in the Draft EIR including the proposed project, GP buildout with Maximum Residential Density, Retail/Residential and Occupied/Re- Tenanted Mall. o An EIR Amendment prepared upon receiving input from community member, charrettes and the June 4, 2018 Study Session to study another alternative – Housing Rich. It incorporated community benefits such as City Hall, Performing Arts Center and space for an adult education center etc. o Final EIR included further revisions to the project and included an analysis of another alternative called the Revised Project, included Responses to Comments and Text Revisions to the Draft EIR and the EIR Amendment. o Supplemental Text Revisions dated August 2018 prepared to refine Mitigation Measures and make corrections. No material changes to the analysis. o Table of comparison of alternatives shown o EIR includes Mitigation Measures for all topics of environmental study. o Traffic Analysis was discussed – 18 intersections out of 67 intersections study have Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. 31 freeway segments out of over 50 freeway segments studied have Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Many may be mitigated through the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program or may be located in an adjacent jurisdiction or some other agency (e.g. Caltrans) has jurisdiction. These mitigations are not guaranteed and the timing is unknown therefore called Significant and Unavoidable. Graphic shown of these impacts identified. Vehicle Miles Traveled data shared. o Significant and Unavoidable Impacts and mitigation measures identified discussed in the following environmental topics: Air Quality – Construction and Operational Noise –Construction, Operational and Long Term Noise level o Impacts reduced to Less than Significant with mitigation measures identified discussed in the following environmental topics: Construction Air Quality – TACs Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazardous Materials Construction Vibration Utilities o There was a comparison of Impacts for the different project and project alternatives studied. It was pointed out that there would be Significant and Unavoidable Impacts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Transportation in the Occupied/Re- Tenanted Mall Alternative since mitigation measures cannot be imposed in the event the mall is simply re-tenanted. However, in the other alternatives, mitigation measures can be imposed which will reduce some of the impacts though not below the thresholds of significance. o It was also pointed out that additional environmental studies would be required, if there was a desire to change the mix of land uses. Some study would be required to determine the reductions in allocation numbers (ie; maximum number of office units would need a reduction in number of residential and commercial units) if other allocations were to be increased. o Traffic technology innovations have been identified in the analysis (ITS) to aid in mitigating impacts to intersections in the future. Such technologies can be used in signal optimization and pedestrian crosswalks o Five speakers addressed the Committee: o Questioned the direction to staff to change the numbers in the proposals o Wanted to know how much of the traffic analysis was for commute traffic o Suggestions that the best option would be to re-tenant the mall o Spoke against excessive tree removal o Desire to maintain the Heart of the City setbacks o Wanted to slow the development process for more time to study the options o Questioned the logic that mitigation measures cannot be imposed if the mall were to be re-tenanted, mitigations could be handled through the tenant improvement construction process o Felt that the Air Quality study wasn’t inclusive of all types of air pollutants o Didn’t like the use of units (for residential uses) rather than square footage in the analysis o Wanted the ERC presentation to be posted online o Would like a clear answer to understand the mix of what was studied and how the envelope was established o Asked for a Phase II environmental report due to the discovery of an abandoned underground storage tank for waste oil, air quality concerns and soil remediation for the 50 acres that contain various chemicals o The Committee thanked Staff for their work in getting the EIR produced. o The power point presentation shall be included in the public record for the meeting. o The mitigations for the storage tank were addressed in the EIR. Additional soils studies were conducted. It was determined that the current soil and groundwater studies were sufficient, but not complete. A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan is being developed for implementation (additional testing requirements) as the project moves forward. The complete technical appendices can be found with the Fire Department. o Project Consultant Shanley confirmed that the purpose of an EIR is to do a complete analysis for all the proposed alternatives for a project calculated with the maximum numbers in order to be conservative. The original (previous) project, the revised project (preferred) and four alternatives were all analyzed fully in the EIR. ACTION: Recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the statement of overriding considerations, mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, EA-2017-05 MOTION: Paulsen SECOND: Mosley NOES: none VOTE: 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, /s/Piu Ghosh Piu Ghosh Principal Planner Cupertino Village Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Planning Submittal - 07.27.18 23 Arrival Court View The Cupertino Village Hotel Project for the City of Cupertino November 8, 2018 |Public Review Draft Initial Study Image Credit: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego www.placeworks.com Prepared By: PlaceWorks 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 510.848.4315 (f) The Cupertino Village Hotel Project for the City of Cupertino November 8, 2018 Public Review Draft Initial Study PLACEWORKS i PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Initial Study .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Report Organization ............................................................................................................. 1-2 2. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .............................................................................................................. 2-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Project Location and Site Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3 Required Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................ 3-32 3.4 Voluntary Community Benefits .......................................................................................... 3-32 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation .............................................................................. 4-1 I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 4-3 II. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 4-6 III. Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 4-16 IV. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4-21 V. Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 4-24 VI. Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 4-26 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 4-31 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 4-36 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 4-41 X. Land Use .................................................................................................................. 4-47 XI. Noise ........................................................................................................................ 4-50 XII. Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 4-58 XIII. Public Services ......................................................................................................... 4-60 XIV. Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................... 4-61 XV. Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................ 4-63 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 4-85 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 4-93 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .............................................................. 5-1 6. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ............................................................................... 6-1 THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS ii NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT APPENDICES Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Appendix C: Noise Data Appendix D: Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings ................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-5 Floor Plan: Level P1 & P2 ................................................................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-6 Floor Plan: Ground/Arrival Level ..................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-7 Floor Plan: Level 2 .......................................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-8 Floor Plan: Level 3 .......................................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-9 Floor Plan: Level 4 .......................................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-10 Floor Plan: Level 5 .......................................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-11 Floor Plan: Roof Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-12 Site Section: East/West ................................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-13 Site Section: North/South ............................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-14 Elevations: North and East ............................................................................................. 3-21 Figure 3-15 Elevations: South and West Elevation ............................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3-16 Pedestrian & Vehicular Circulation Map ......................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3-17 Conceptual Landscaping Plan ......................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-18 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan ............................................................................. 3-30 THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS PLACEWORKS iii PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Proposed Hotel Components ........................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-2 Demolition and Construction Phasing ............................................................................ 3-31 Table 3-3 Required Fees and Community Benefits ........................................................................ 3-32 Table 4-1 Existing Operation-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................. 4-7 Table 4-2 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates ................................... 4-10 Table 4-3 Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates .................................................. 4-11 Table 4-4 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated .................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-5 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated ........................................................................ 4-14 Table 4-6 Project GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-7 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ...................................................................... 4-52 Table 4-8 Architectural Damage Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment .......................... 4-53 Table 4-9 Project-Related Construction Noise, Energy-Average (Leq) Sound Levels, dBA ............... 4-56 Table 4-10 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .................. 4-66 Table 4-11 Freeway Level of Service Definitions Based on Density .................................................. 4-67 Table 4-12 Existing Intersection Level of Service Results ................................................................. 4-69 Table 4-13 Existing Freeway (I-280) Level of Service Results ............................................................ 4-70 Table 4-14 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................... 4-73 Table 4-15 Background Intersection Level of Service Results........................................................... 4-74 Table 4-16 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................. 4-76 Table 4-17 Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results .............................................. 4-77 Table 4-18 Background plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results ....................................... 4-78 Table 4-19 Freeway (I-280) Segment Capacity Analysis ................................................................... 4-80 Table 4-20 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Projects in Cupertino ........................................ 4-94 Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................ 5-2 THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO TABLE OF CONTENTS iv NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. PLACEWORKS 1-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Introduction 1. This document is an Initial Study for the Cupertino Village Hotel Project (“proposed project”) prepared by the City of Cupertino (City) to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.). Pursuant to section 15051 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The project site is located on a 1.72-acre site at 10765 - 10801 North Wolfe Road, which is currently developed with an existing restaurant building, Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant, and a vacant commercial building. The proposed project would involve demolishing the two commercial buildings and constructing a new 185-room boutique hotel including event meeting rooms and a restaurant. The project site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 316-45-017 and is currently zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) and located within the Commercial/Residential General Plan land use designation. Under the current zoning and land use designations, the permitted maximum height is 60 feet. The proposed project would require an amendment to the General Plan to increase the hotel room development allocation to 185 hotel rooms in the North Vallco Area to allow for the construction and operation of the proposed hotel. 1.1 INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,1 an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining what form of environmental review is required for a project. The CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing and applicable land use controls, and the name of persons who prepared the study. The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. This Initial Study incorporates by reference the discussions in the City’s General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in December 2014,2 the addendum to that 1 The CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title, 14, Section 15000 et seq. 2 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INTRODUCTION 1-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR that was approved by the City Council in October 2015,3 together hereinafter “General Plan EIR,” and the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan EIR, hereinafter “Vallco Specific Plan EIR” that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in September 2018.4 The analysis in this Initial Study concentrates on project- specific issues of the Cupertino Village Hotel project. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered document by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the program EIRs and by incorporating those analyses by reference. All documents cited in this report and used in its preparation are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Copies of documents referenced herein are available for review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview of the Initial Study document. Chapter 2: Initial Study Checklist. This chapter summarizes pertinent details for the proposed project, including lead agency contact information, proposed project location, and General Plan and Zoning designations. Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the location and setting of the proposed project, along with its principal components, as well as a description of the policy setting and implementation process for the proposed project. Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, this chapter identifies and discusses anticipated impacts from the proposed project, providing substantiation of the findings made. Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter lists the impacts found to be significant and identifies the recommended mitigation measures categorized by impact area. Chapter 6: Organizations and Persons Consulted. This chapter presents a list of City and other agencies and consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Initial Study. . 3 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014. 4 City of Cupertino, certified Vallco Special Area Specific Plan EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2018022021. September 19, 2018. PLACEWORKS 2-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Initial Study Checklist 2. 1. Project Title: The Cupertino Village Hotel Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Erick Serrano Associate Planner 408-777-3205 4. Location: 10765-10801 North Wolfe Road Cupertino, CA 95014 5. Applicant’s Name and Address: Kimco Realty Corporation 15 Southgate Avenue, Suite 201 Daly City, CA 94015 6. General Plan Land Use Designations: Commercial / Residential 7. Zoning: Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential P(CG/RES) 8. Description of Project: See Chapter 3, Project Description 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See page 3-6 of Chapter 3, Project Description 10. Other Required Approvals: See page 3-34 of Chapter 3, Project Description 11. Have California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?: The City has not received any request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects in Cupertino. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 2-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as shown in Chapter 4 of this Initial Study.  Aesthetics  Agriculture & Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Tribal Cultural Resources  Geology & Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology & Water Quality  Land Use & Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population & Housing  Public Services  Parks & Recreation  Transportation & Circulation  Utilities & Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Approved by: ___________________ Aarti Shrivastava, Date Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager City of Cupertino Community Development Department PLACEWORKS 3-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Project Description 3. Kimco Realty, the project applicant, is proposing the Cupertino Village Hotel Project (“proposed project”) that would involve the construction of a boutique hotel on a 1.72-acre site. The site is currently developed with two commercial buildings, one of which is occupied. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing commercial buildings and redeveloping the site with a new 185-room boutique hotel, including event meeting rooms and a restaurant. The proposed project would establish a five-story hotel with below-grade parking. This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, the principal project features, construction phasing and schedule, as well as a list of the required permits and approvals. 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION As shown on Figure 3-1, the project site is located in Cupertino, which is in the northwestern portion of Santa Clara County. Cupertino is roughly 45 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles west of downtown San Jose. Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access to the project site. 3.1.2 LOCAL SETTING The project site is located at 10765 - 10801 North Wolfe Road in the northeast region of the city. The site is at the southeast corner of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center (“Cupertino Village”), which has cafes and restaurants for nearby workers and serves as a village center for the residential uses in this area. As shown on Figure 3-2, the project site is bounded by Cupertino Village buildings and parking lots to the north, North Wolfe Road to the east, Pruneridge Avenue to the south, and Arioso Apartments to the west. As shown on Figure 3-2, the location of the site is within 0.5 miles of employment centers, including Cupertino Village and the new, completed Apple Park (formerly Apply Campus 2). Portal Park is located approximately 1 mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park is located approximately 0.75 miles to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park is located approximately 0.5 miles to the east of the site. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast in the City of Santa Clara. 280 280 880 680 85 85 237 17 87 101 Palo Alto Fremont San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Milpitas Campbell Los Gatos Saratoga SAN MATEO COUNTY ALAMEDA COUNTY SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Cupertino Oakland Berkeley PaloAlto Fremont San Jose SantaClara Sunny-vale Mt.View LosAltos Menlo Park Milpitas Hayward Dublin RedwoodCity San Mateo DalyCity UnionCity Campbell LosGatos Saratoga ALAMEDACOUNTY CITY &COUNTY OFSANFRANCISCO SAN MATEOCOUNTY SANTACLARACOUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARINCOUNTY SANTA CRUZCOUNTY SanFranciscoBay Pacific Ocean Cupertino 0 0.5 12 345 Miles Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Unincorporated AreasWithin Boundary Agreement Line 2-2 Land Use/Community Design City of Cupertino General Plan Figure 2-A. Cupertino Regional Location Regional Location Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map Source: City of Cupertino General Plan. Approximate Project Site Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Source: Google Earth Professional, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2018. Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and SurroundingsProject Site 0 Scale (Feet) 1,000 Apple Park (formally known as Apple Campus 2) Cupertino Village ShoppingCenter N. Wolfe RoadN. Tantau AveHomestead Road Pruneridge Ave Westwood Oaks Park Jenny Strand Park Cupertino High School Laurelwood Elementary School Sedgwick Elementary School Portal Park Vallco Shopping Mall Apple Park Way PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-4 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3.1.3 EXISTING SITE CHARACTER As shown on Figure 3-3, the site is currently developed with two commercial buildings: an occupied 3,385-square-foot building that is currently occupied by the Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant, and a vacant 10,044-square-foot commercial building. The site also contains parking and ornamental landscaping for the existing commercial spaces, including numerous trees. A recent tree inventory and assessment evaluated 68 trees on the site that represent 11 species. Although several trees were newly planted, most of the trees on the project site are mature. 5 All trees on the project site are protected trees under the City’s Municipal Code. While coast redwood is native to California, no trees of this species are indigenous to the project site (i.e., they were planted during the landscaping of the site with the prior development.6 Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)7 habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The site is generally flat with elevation of 170 feet above mean sea level.8 The surficial geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium,9 which is described as Holocene-age younger alluvium and coarse- grained alluvium that are composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt, sand, clay, and organic matter. Stormwater from the site would drain to a network of City-maintained storm drains that collect runoff from city streets and carry it to the creeks that run through Cupertino to the San Francisco Bay. Surrounding uses include one-story and two-story commercial buildings in the Cupertino Village and parking lots to the north, the new four-story (72 feet) Apple Park and existing three-story (up to 45 feet) Hamptons Apartment complex to the east across North Wolfe Road, the three-story (approximately 45 feet) Arioso Apartments to the west, and a five-story (45 feet) Hilton Garden Inn. 5 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Site Tree Inventory & Assessment, prepared for the Kimco Realty Corporation by Arborwell. November 27, 2017. 6 City of Cupertino Municipal Code (section 14.18.050) defines “Protected” trees. See section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, of this chapter for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. 7 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous. 8 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017. 9 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K. Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth. Apple Park Way Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-6 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3.1.4 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING GENERAL PLAN The project site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 316-45-017. In addition to the General Plan land use designation, the project site is located in a special planning area and designated gateway within the city. A description of the applicable General Plan policies and permitted development in these areas and designations is provided below. Planning Area and Gateway Under the adopted General Plan, the site is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area. As described in the General Plan, the North Vallco Park Special Area encompasses 240 acres and is an important employment center for Cupertino and the region allowing a mix of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses along North Wolfe Road between I-280 and Homestead Road.10 Amongst other commercial and residential development, there are two existing hotels in the North Vallco Gateway. The General Plan states that the North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become a sustainable, office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high-quality, pedestrian-oriented retail, hotels, and residential uses. Building Height Building height affects the city’s appearance and identity, particularly in the pedestrian-scaled areas. By regulating building heights, the City can protect view corridors, regulate building scale, and ensure consistency and compatibility within an area or along a street. As shown on the Community Form Diagram in the General Plan, the project site is located west of North Wolfe Road and a maximum building height of 60 feet is allowed at this location.11 Land Use Designation The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial/Residential. This land use designation allows primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two.12 Commercial use means retail sales, businesses, limited professional offices, and service establishments with direct contact with customers. This applies to commercial activities ranging from neighborhood convenience stores to regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods or harmful to the community identity would be regulated by the Commercial Zoning Ordinance and use permit procedure. Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be needed to provide local neighborhood serving retail; otherwise, they may be 10 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, page PA-9. 11 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design, page LU-18. 12 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Appendix A: Land use definitions, Planning Areas, page A- 4. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-7 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT redeveloped at residential densities compatible with the surroundings. Residential development is subject to the numerical caps and other policies described in the development priorities tables. ZONING Zoning District The project site is within the Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG,Res)) zoning district. As described in Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 19.80.010,13 the Planned Development zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. This zoning district is intended to accomplish the following:  Encourage variety in the development pattern of the community.  Promote a more desirable living environment.  Encourage creative approaches in land development.  Provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning.  Conserve natural features.  Facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces.  Encourage the creation of public or private common open space. All Planned Development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "P" followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. The general type of use allowed on the project site is General Commercial (CG) and Residential (Res). The General Commercial Ordinance allows hotel uses as a permitted/conditional use. Setbacks The project site does not require specific front, side, or rear yard setbacks unless the lot abuts any residential or agricultural zones. The project site must still adhere to the General Plan requirement of maintaining the primary bulk of the building behind a 1:1 slope line from the face of the curb along North Wolfe Road, the requirement for sufficient space for adequate light, requirement for air and visibility at intersections, and the requirement for general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot or parcels. 13 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planned Development, section 19.80.010, Purpose. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-8 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Landscaping Landscape Ordinance CMC Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general, any building or landscape project that involves more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area is required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for approval. Existing and established landscaped areas over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to submit water budget calculations and audits of established landscapes.14 Protected Tree Ordinance CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Tree Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes.15 Removal of a protected tree requires a permit from the City. “Protected” trees include trees of a certain species and size in all zoning districts; heritage trees in all zoning districts; any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit, or code enforcement action in all zoning districts; and approved privacy protection planting in single-family residential (R-1) zoning districts. Utilities and Energy The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in the code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation requiring new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The local building permit process enforces the building efficiency standards. CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted, includes the CALGreen requirements with local amendments for projects in the city. The City’s Green Building Ordinance codifies green building techniques, including measures affecting water use efficiency and water conservation. CMC Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 sets forth the standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in CMC Section 16.58.220, non-residential new construction exceeding 50,000 square feet is required to be Silver in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED).16 CMC Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate 14 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance. 15 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees. 16 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to landfills. LEED certified buildings are ranked in order of efficiency from Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum being the highest ranking with the greatest efficiency standard. LEED Silver certified buildings typically reduce is the third highest ranking out of the four, with just being certified being the lowest and Gold and Platinum being the second highest. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-9 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT green building standard for a project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in CMC Section 16.58.220 that meet the same intent of conserving resources and reducing solid waste. Consistent with CALGreen CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Division of Construction and Demolition Waste, requires that a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged and that all applicants have a waste management plan for on-site sorting of construction debris. Additionally, in December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.17 According to the Zero Waste Policy, the City will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement, steadfast and ongoing efforts by the City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial waste diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025. CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and gives legal effect to the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) issued to the City. This chapter also ensures ongoing compliance with the most recent version of the City’s MRP regarding municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements. This chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any private, public, developed, and undeveloped lands within the city. The CMC contains permit requirements for construction projects and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff. 3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a five-story hotel with up to 185 guest rooms and amenities including a restaurant, event meeting rooms, and fitness facilities. Table 3-1 shows a breakdown of the project components by square footage. TABLE 3-1 PROPOSED HOTEL COMPONENTS Level Guest Room Area Circulation Areaa Back of House Areab Restaurant/ Meeting Rooms/ Fitness Room Area Mechanical Equipment Area Total Net Aread Total Gross Areae Level 1 0 7,322 5,674 9,696c 1,595 24,287 26,160 Level 2 12,418 3,695 3,603 1,314 1,701 22,730 24,968 Level 3 18,066 3,894 477 0 349 22,786 24,968 Level 4 18,058 3,896 480 0 350 22,784 24,968 Level 5 18,064 3,895 480 0 352 22,791 24,968 Parking Level 1 -- -- -- - -- 41,098 42,265 Parking Level 2 -- -- -- - -- 41,269 42,323 Total Use Area 66,606 22,702 10,714 11,010 4,347 -- -- Grand Total -- -- -- -- -- 197,745 210,621 a. Circulation: hallways and other areas for staff and guest movement in the hotel. Level 1 includes a 3,669-square-foot lobby and 306 square feet for administration. b. Back-of-house uses include the area of the hotel that is for staff services only. c. Level 1 (ground level) includes the 4,008-square-foot restaurant and meeting rooms totaling 5,688 square feet. d. The net area is the actual useable area measured to the inside face of the wall within each room. e. The gross area is the full footprint of the building to the outside face of the exterior wall. Source: Kimco Realty Corporation (project applicant), Planning Submittal, July 27, 2018. 17 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-10 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Development of the proposed project would involve demolition of existing structures and associated surface parking lots, and construction of the principal project components that are described in detail in the following sections. The proposed project is shown on Figures 3-4 through 3-15. 3.2.1 HOTEL The proposed project site plan is shown on Figure 3-4 and the two proposed subterranean parking levels are shown on Figure 3-5. As shown on Figure 3-4, the proposed hotel includes one entrance to the lobby that is oriented to the west (fronting Arioso Apartments) with a roundabout style drop-off area. At-grade vehicular parking is located at this entrance. This west-fronting entrance is the only auto-oriented entrance for hotel guests, restaurant customers, and employees. The entrance to the two levels of the below-grade parking garage is also located at the west side of the hotel building to the north of the hotel main entrance. The outdoor seating for the restaurant and event meeting rooms would front North Wolfe Road. The first floor of the hotel is at ground level and would include the lobby, reception area, an event room, meeting rooms, restaurant/bar (for hotel and non-hotel guests), kitchen, mechanical rooms, laundry, electrical rooms, housekeeping, loading dock, employee lockers, and storage spaces. The second floor would include a fitness room, an administrative office, mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, housekeeping space, an employee breakroom, telecom room, storage space, and hotel rooms. Floors three through five consist of mostly guest rooms with the exception of space for mechanical equipment, housekeeping, and telecom rooms. The roof would have an outdoor lounge/bar that would be open to hotel guests and other customers not staying at the hotel. Guest rooms would be structured as follows: 164 king rooms, 14 double queen rooms, and seven junior suite rooms. The proposed floors are shown in Figures 3-6 through 3-11. The hotel would have a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.71. As shown in Figures 3-12 through 3-15, the building would have a maximum height of 59 feet 6 inches at the roofline, and the maximum height of the rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures would be 72 feet 8 inches as allowed in the General Plan.18 The proposed project would have an approximate front yard setback of 60 feet but no less than to allow a 1:1 slope line from the face of the curb, side setbacks of 9 feet on the south side and 11 feet on the north side, and rear setback of 90 feet, and side and rear setback of 0 feet, which is permitted by the General Plan.19 According to the project applicant, the operation of the proposed hotel would generate 93 new jobs.20 With an average of two guests per hotel room, the hotel would generate up to 370 guests at maximum capacity. The largest event meeting room would accommodate up to 450 people and the smaller meeting rooms would accommodate up to 350 people. 18 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design, page LU-18. 19 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design, page LU-18. 20 Assumes one job for two hotel rooms. Apple Park Way Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. Figure 3-5 Floor Plan: Level P1 & P20 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-6 Floor Plan: Ground/Arrival Level Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-7 Floor Plan: Level 2 Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-8 Floor Plan: Level 3 Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-9 Floor Plan: Level 4 Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-10 Floor Plan: Level 5 Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-11 Floor Plan: Roof Plan Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-12 Site Section: East/West Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-13 Site Section: North/South Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 40 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-14 Elevations: North and East Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. East Elevation North Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS Figure 3-15 Elevations: South and West Source: Hornberger + Worstell, July 27, 2018. West Elevation South Elevation PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-23 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3.2.2 CIRCULATION AND ACCESS VEHICULAR, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS As shown on Figure 3-16, direct access to the project site would occur from the existing roadways in the Cupertino Village off of Pruneridge Avenue to the south, an existing driveway located between the site and the existing Arioso Apartments to the west, and a roadway between the site and commercial buildings in the Cupertino Village to the north. The internal roadways are accessible to vehicles and bicycles from North Wolfe Road via the North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection and the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Parkway intersection. A third, but less direct access point off of North Wolfe Road is located approximately 30 feet north of the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection. The proposed project includes modifications to the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Parkway intersection. The modification could occur as one of two options: (1) restrict inbound trips to right turns only from North Wolfe Road and prohibit outbound trips to North Wolfe Road, or (2) close the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection. Accordingly, the environmental analysis provided in Chapter 4 of this Initial Study includes an evaluation of both options. The hotel would provide vehicular and bicycle access for guests and employees at the lobby/drop-off area and the below-grade parking garage, both of which are oriented to the west, facing the Arioso Apartments, and a loading dock and service vehicle entrance on the north side of the hotel, facing Cupertino Village. The hotel would provide Class II bicycle parking facilities21 along the pedestrian entrance along North Wolfe Road (see Figure 3-17). There would be 10 pedestrian entrances to the hotel, as shown in Figure 3-17. The entrance leading to the lobby and another entrance leading to the west meeting rooms face the Arioso Apartments to the west, three entrances are on the east side of the building facing North Wolfe Road, three entrances are on the north side of the building facing Cupertino Village shops, and two entrances are on the south side of the building facing Pruneridge Avenue. A walkway that connects to the North Wolfe Road sidewalk surrounds the project site for pedestrian access. TRANSIT The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrain provide transit services in Cupertino. Bus stops located near the northwestern and northeastern corners of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection, approximately a two-minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site, provide access to existing bus service (Local Bus Routes 26 and 81). Local Bus Route 26 provides service to Vallco Shopping Center, located less than one mile south of the project site, which allows riders to connect to Local Bus Routes 23, 101 and 182. A description of each of these routes is presented below. 21 Class II bicycle parking facilities include bicycle racks to which the frame and at least one wheel can be secured with a user-provided lock. Cupertino Village Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Planning Submittal - 12.08.17 25 PEDESTRIANS VEHICLES Figure 3-16 Pedestrian & Vehicular Circulation Map Source: Hornberger + Worstell, Cliff Lowe Associates, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 80 N. Wolfe RoadPruneridge AveApple Park WayPROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS N. Wolfe RoadPruneridge AveFigure 3-17 Conceptual Landscaping Plan Source: Hornberger + Worstell, Cliff Lowe Associates, July 27, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet) 80 Apple Park WayPROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-26 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Bus Routes that Serve the Project Site  Bus Route 26 provides service between Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center and the Eastridge Transit Center. Route 26 follows major arterials and travels through Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, and Campbell on Fair Oaks Avenue, Wolfe Road, Campbell Avenue, and Tully Road. Bus stops for Route 26 are provided immediately north of the project site along Wolfe Road.  Bus Route 23 provides service between De Anza College and Alum Rock Transit Center. Route 23 follows major arterials and travels through Santa Clara and San Jose. Bus stops for Route 23 are provided at the Vallco Shopping Center located less than a mile south of the project site.  Bus Route 81 provides service between Moffett Field/Ames Center and San Jose State University via the Santa Clara Transit Center and Downtown San Jose. This route operates on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Benton Street, West San Carlos Street, and San Fernando Street with nearby stops at Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue.  Bus Route 101 is an express bus route that operates on I-280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Lawrence Expressway; it connects a Park & Ride lot at the Camden Avenue interchange along SR 85 to Palo Alto. This route passes through the Winchester Transit Center and has a bus stop south of the project site at Wolfe Road/Vallco Mall, (approximately 0.5 miles south), which provides connections to Routes 26, 23, and 323.  Bus Route 182 is an express bus route that operates on I-280, Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard; it connects the Park & Ride lot at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto with the IBM Santa Teresa Facility at Bailey Avenue. Route 182 departs Palo Alto once in the morning. Route 182 travels northbound one time in the evening. Route 182 has stops at the Vallco Mall. Caltrain is a commuter rail service that runs from downtown San Francisco (4th and King Streets) to downtown San Jose (Diridon Station), with a limited number of commute period trains running farther south to Gilroy. The nearest station to the project site is the Lawrence Station, which is located on Lawrence Expressway approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the project site. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The proposed project will incorporate transportation demand management (TDM) measures to offset transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. The project applicant would implement these measures, which are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated July 2018 and included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The TDM measures to be implemented by the project include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the project. Such measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit and shuttles. Implementation of the proposed TDM measures is also designed to reduce project trips and parking demand by employees of the hotel. While the specific measures to be included in the proposed hotel’s TDM Plan will be refined during the development review process, the available measures include, but are not limited to, those described below. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-27 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Transportation Demand Management Measures  On-site TDM Coordinator and Services  Information Board/Online Kiosk  On-Site Design Features  Information Packet for Guests and Employees  Shuttle Services for Guests, Employees, and Local Residents  Bicycle Resources for Guests and Employees  Car Share Program for Guests and Employees  Transit Passes for Guests and Employees  Financial Incentives for Carpooling, Biking and Walking to Work for Employees  On-Site Ride Matching Assistance for Employees  Emergency Ride Home Program for Employees The proposed hotel would be responsible for ensuring that the TDM trip reduction measures are implemented. The designated on-site TDM coordinator would be responsible for implementing the ongoing TDM measures and reported to the City annually. 3.2.3 LANDSCAPING The proposed project would result in 21,149 square feet of pervious landscaped surfaces. As shown on Figure 3-17, the project site would include landscaping that surrounds the hotel structure. Maintaining a portion of the existing trees along the North Wolfe Road frontage is proposed to provide mature tree canopy as a buffer from the street for the hotel outdoor uses. Newly planted trees would consist of Chinese redbud, Evergreen dogwood, Forest knight oak, Urban pinnacle oak, Southern live oak, Engelmann oak, Coast redwood, and Marina strawberry tree. The existing trees that would remain include eight existing Evergreen ash trees and 10 Coast redwood trees. As stated above in Section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, the project is required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal for approval by the City. The proposed landscaping would be consistent with the surrounding Northern California landscape and would include native and/or adaptive and drought resistant plant materials grouped into hydrozones, which are areas where plants are organized based on similar water use.22 The majority of plantings would be drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees that, once established, are adapted to a dry summer and intermittent rain in the winter season. The exception to this is the existing Redwoods that require a more consistent level of potable irrigation throughout the year. The proposed project would also improve the landscaping in an existing planter adjacent to the Arioso Apartments. As previously stated in Section 1.1.3, Existing Site Character, a tree inventory and assessment prepared for the project site included an evaluation of 68 trees representing 11 species. According to the tree inventory and assessment, all of the trees on the project meet the criteria for protected status pursuant to the CMC and the removal of any trees would require a permit. 22 The California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance defines a hydrozone as a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-28 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3.2.4 LIGHTING The source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would generally be provided for the purpose of orienting site users and for safety needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare into surrounding buildings. In landscaped and paved areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from a public viewpoint. 3.2.5 UTILITIES The proposed utility infrastructure would retain existing connections to the water, sewer, storm drain system, natural gas, and electricity network in the area, and would be served by an existing solid waste landfill. WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District (LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. The proposed project would connect to existing water lines and reclaimed water lines along North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The project would extend a reclaimed water main from the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Homestead Road to Pruneridge Avenue, and incorporate the use of reclaimed water for the project’s irrigation and toilet flushing. The reclaimed water main extension would not encroach on undisturbed areas. The project incorporates a number of features meant to conserve water used for on-site irrigation. The irrigation water on the site would be dual sourced recycled water and potable water as available from the LASD. Any lawn areas can use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which as described in Section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE The project site is located within the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) service area and wastewater would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). With existing connections to the sanitary sewer system on North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue, new connections are not anticipated. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces from 61,502 in the existing condition to 59,468 square feet. As a result, the project would result in a decrease of runoff from the property. The project would comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-29 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Additionally, the project would comply with CMC Chapter 9.18 described above in Section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, which is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City. Existing connections to the storm drain line on North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue would not change. Additionally, the proposed project would provide four bioretention water treatment areas at ground level and as raised planters and 12 drainage management areas throughout the project site (see Figures 3-17 and 3-18). SOLID WASTE SERVICES Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the hotel.23 All non-hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise agreement is taken to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill for processing. Under the agreement between the City and Recology, Recology also handles recyclable materials (at no cost to customers). The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL) until 2023, and has not secured a new landfill contract. However, according to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026. 24 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. The proposed waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting. OTHER UTILITIES (NATURAL GAS, ELECTRIC, AND CABLE) Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would supply natural gas and electricity to the project site. The project is targeting to exceed current Title 24 energy requirements. A CALGreen rating of “Certified” is anticipated. Additionally, the proposed development would achieve LEED Silver, or Alternative Reference Standard, consistent with the City’s requirements. Sustainability features such as environmentally preferable building products and solar hot water panels are proposed. AT&T and other providers would provide telephone service. Cable television service would be available from a number of providers, including Comcast. 23 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed August 28, 2018. 24 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996. DMA 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4 DMA 5 DMA 6 DMA 7 DMA 8 DMA 9 DMA 10 DMA 11DMA 12 DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA Figure 3-18 Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan Source: Kier & Wright, July 27, 2018. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PLACEWORKS THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLACEWORKS 3-31 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3.2.6 DEMOLITION, SITE PREPARATION, AND CONSTRUCTION Demolition and construction would take place over a 24-month period, which is anticipated to begin in August 2019 and be completed 24 months later in 2021, subject to regulatory approval. DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing 13,400 square feet of commercial and restaurant buildings. As discussed above, 50 protected trees have been identified on the project site and 18 protected trees are within the right-of-way. The eight existing Evergreen ash trees and 10 Coast redwood trees in the public right-of-way along North Wolfe Road would not be removed. The remaining 50 trees, on the project site, would be removed as a part of the project, including Bigleaf maple, Coast redwood, Crape myrtle, European hornbeam, Evergreen ash, Honey locust, Maidenhair tree, Purple-leaf plum, Southern magnolia, Sweetgum, and Valley oak. New trees such as Chinese redbud, Urban pinnacle oak, Evergreen dogwood, Southern live oak, Forest knight oak, and Coast redwood trees would be planted to replace the trees that are removed. The removal of existing trees on-site would be required to comply with the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance.25 As shown in Table 3-2, demolition would take place over an approximately 10-day period and site preparation and grading activities would take place over a 5-day period and a 30-day period, respectively. Equipment used for demolition and site preparation would include a combination of concrete/industrial saws, rubber-tired bulldozers, graders, tractors, loaders, and backhoes. The proposed project would include 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill. Demolition debris would be off-hauled for disposal at the Zanker Materials Recovery and Landfill in San Jose, approximately 19 miles from the project site. This would be done in accordance with the CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste.26 CONSTRUCTION As shown in Table 3-2, the longest construction phase would be the construction of the building, which would take place over a 457-day period, and would be followed by much shorter time periods for paving and painting. Project construction would result in a 210,621-square-foot building with 17,733 square feet 25 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees. 26 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. TABLE 3-2 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING Activity Phase 1 Demolition 10 working days Site Preparation 5 days Grading 30 days Building Construction 457 days Paving 10 days Painting 20 days Kimco Realty Corporation (project applicant), PlaceWorks Construction Data Request, May 14, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-32 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT of paved area and 21,149 square feet of landscaping. The total area to be disturbed during construction would be approximately 1.72 acres. 3.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Following approval of this Initial Study, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required for the proposed project:  General Plan Amendment  Development Agreement  Development Permit  Architectural and Site Approval Permit  Use Permit  Tree Removal Permit In addition, permits for demolition, grading and building, and the certificate of occupancy would be required from the City. 3.4 VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY BENEFITS The proposed project would provide the following community benefits:  Non-paid educational internship;  Complementary use of conference and meeting space to certain groups;  Extended hotel-run shuttle services for employees, guests, and when capacity is available, to the community residents;  Preferential treatment for Cupertino residents for employment; and  Local negotiated rates for visiting dignitaries. Table 3-3 shows the estimated required and voluntary community benefit fees that the project applicant proposes to pay. Final fees and voluntary community benefits would be determined upon approval of the project. TABLE 3-3 REQUIRED FEES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS One Time Fee Annually Annual membership in the local Transportation Management Agency (TMA)a $10,000 Flexible Community Amenity Funding for Transportation Facilities, TMA, Public Facilities, and Public Open Spacea, b $1,850,000 Annual City Property Tax Proceeds TBD Estimated Totals $1,950,000 $10,000 a. Voluntary community benefit if TMA is formed. b. A one time contribution to the City that can be used for any public services at the City’s discretion. Source: City of Cupertino, August 1, 2017. PLACEWORKS 4-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Environmental Analysis 4. 4.1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The General Plan EIR included an analysis of the project site within Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village), which assumed potential redevelopment including mixed-use hotel, retail, and residential projects with a maximum height of 130 feet with retail development. The cumulative impacts, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout, were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is anticipated to be complete in 2021 (subject to regulatory approval); thus, this Initial Study presents a focused analysis to evaluate the near-term impacts of the proposed project under existing and cumulative conditions. Consistent with the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR, and due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized setting, the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry or mineral resources. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency categorize land within Cupertino as Urban and Built-Up Land.27 In addition, according to 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the city does not contain any woodland or forestland cover.28 Finally, the city does not contain land zoned for farmland or timberland production.29 Consequently, there would be no impacts with regard to agriculture and forestry resources. The project site is within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is an area containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data.30 Because the site has been developed and is not considered suitable for protection or conservation, there would be no impacts to mineral resources. For these reasons, these topics are not discussed further in this Initial Study. On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2014. Among other provisions, SB 743 amends CEQA by adding Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of aesthetics, parking, and traffic impacts for urban infill projects. The following is a discussion of how aesthetics and parking are treated in SB 743. Traffic is discussed in Section XV, Traffic and Circulation, further below in this Initial Study. 27 California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010, accessed on May 28, 2018. 28 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map, accessed on May 28, 2018. 29 City of Cupertino, Zoning Map, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=291, accessed on May 28, 2018. 30 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability, Figure ES-2, Mineral Resources. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, aesthetics and parking are no longer to be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all of the following three criteria: a) The project is in a transit priority area, b) The project is on an infill site, and c) The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center. As described below, the proposed hotel project is a qualified “employment center” that is located on a site that meets the definition of an infill site, but does not meet the definition of a designated “transit priority area” pursuant to SB 743:  Employment Center: An employment center is defined as means “a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a FAR of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.” The proposed hotel would have a FAR of 1.71.  Transit Priority Area: A transit priority area is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As shown in Table 4-14 in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, below, the project site is not within a half mile of a “major transit stop” as defined by CEQA Section 21064.3 (the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods) and CEQA Section 21155(b) (a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours). The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Stops 26 and 81 along North Wolfe Road are located approximately 0.1 mile (500 feet) north and south from the project site and do not meet the 15-minute frequency of service interval.31 Additionally, the Plan Bay Area 2040, which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS), does not list the site as a recognized Transit Priority Area.32  Infill Site: An infill site is defined as means “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” The site is currently developed with two commercial buildings: an occupied 3,385-square-foot building that is currently occupied by the Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant, and a vacant 10,044-square-foot commercial building. Surrounding uses include 31 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Bus Schedules for Bus 26 and 81. http://www.vta.org/routes/rt26 and http://www.vta.org/routes/rt81, respectively. Accessed August 24, 2018. 32 Plan Bay Area, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority Development Area (PDA) and Transit Priority Area (TPA) Map for CEQA Streamlining, https://www.planbayarea.org/pda-tpa-map. Accessed August 24, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-3 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT commercial buildings in the Cupertino Village and parking lots to the north, the new Apple Park and existing Hamptons Apartment complex to the east across North Wolfe Road, the Arioso Apartments to the west, and Hilton Garden Inn to the south. Accordingly, aesthetic-related impacts are discussed in Section I, Aesthetics, of this Initial Study. With respect to parking impacts, effective in 2010, parking inadequacy as significant environmental impact was eliminated from the CEQA Guidelines by The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA. Accordingly, parking is not discussed further in this Initial Study. Items identified in each section of the environmental checklist below are discussed following that section. Required mitigation measures are identified where necessary to reduce a projected impact to a level that is determined to be less than significant. All impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. I. AESTHETICS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?     c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site contains an existing one-story restaurant, a vacant one-story commercial building, and surface parking space. The site is immediately bordered by mature trees ranging in height from 10 to 60 feet, a driveway, and the mainly one-story Cupertino Village buildings to the north, North Wolfe Road and the Apple Park (four stories) and Hamptons Apartments (three stories) to the east, Pruneridge Avenue, and the four-story Hilton Garden Inn to the south, and a driveway and the three-story Arioso Apartment community to the west. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-4 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DISCUSSION a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would have the potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if the redevelopment on the project site blocked views of areas that provide or contribute to such vistas. Potential effects could include blocking views of a scenic vista/corridor from specific publically accessible vantage points or the alteration of the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. Such alterations could be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of the project site and the subjective perception of observers. Public views of scenic corridors are views seen along a linear transportation route and public views of scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views, while scenic corridors are comprised of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan does not have designated scenic corridors or vistas. However, for purposes of this analysis, the westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic vistas, and the segment of I-280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east also is considered a scenic corridor. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that an increase of building height to 130 feet would result in a less-than-significant impact to the long-range views of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range and foothills because the heights of the existing on-site and surrounding buildings and mature trees, which range from 10 to 60 feet, currently limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas from street-level public viewing and because the project location is not considered a destination public viewing point nor is it visible from scenic vistas. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the existing buildings would be removed and replaced by the proposed buildings that would consist of a five-story building over two levels of below-grade parking, and would be 60 feet tall at the highest point. All of the existing trees would be removed from the site with the exception of the eight Evergreen Ash trees and 10 Coast Redwood trees that surround the perimeter of the project site and range in height from 25 to 60 feet. Because the proposed project would involve height increases that are less than what was evaluated in then General Plan EIR, and because existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources combined with the fact that the site and surrounding areas are not destination viewing locations, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the segment of I-280 in Cupertino is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but is considered to be eligible to be designated as a State Scenic Highway. Any views of the mountains are currently impeded by the existing tree canopy along North Wolfe Road as well as the three-story Arioso Apartment complex and Apple Park from North Wolfe THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-5 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Road, but there would be no changes from the I-280 viewshed because the freeway is located south of the site and the project site is not visible from that location. Impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 view corridor were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR. Similar to the discussion above, because the project proposes height increases that would be less than what is evaluated in then General Plan EIR and existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources, including those from the I-280 viewshed, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? As discussed in criteria (a) and (b) above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial change to the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. The project would result in a change from the existing one-story commercial buildings to a five-story hotel; however, as stated above in criterion (a), the mature trees that surround the perimeter of the project site would remain as part of the project and would preserve the existing visual setting. The project site is separated from the Arioso Apartments to the west by landscaping and a two-lane driveway, from the Cupertino Village buildings to the north by a two- lane driveway, from the Apple Park building to the east by North Wolfe Road, which is made up of four-to- six-lanes with a landscaped median, and from Hilton Garden Inn building to the south by the four-lane Pruneridge Road. These roadways and existing landscaping would remain intact and serve as a buffer between the project site and the surrounding land uses; thus, the existing visual setting of surrounding land uses would remain unaltered by the project. Furthermore, the project is subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Chapters 19.12 and 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance, which would ensure the proposed project would harmonize with adjacent development and not degrade the existing visual quality of the site and surrounding land uses. Accordingly, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would remain less than significant. d) Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects on adjoining uses and areas of a project’s exterior lighting. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the project site and surrounding area contain many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing commercial buildings. Additional onsite light and glare is caused by surrounding land uses and traffic on surrounding roadways. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would be typical for orientation and safety needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare. In landscaped and paved areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from public views. All exterior surface and above-ground THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-6 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT mounted fixtures would be complementary to the existing architectural theme. The roadway and landscaping surrounding the project discussed in criteria (a) and (c), above, would act as a buffer to prevent light spilling on to adjacent land uses. For these reasons, and because the project proposes less development than what was evaluated in then General Plan EIR, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. II. AIR QUALITY Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative Standards for ozone precursors or other pollutants)?     d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is currently developed with a vacant 10,044-square-foot commercial building and the occupied 3,385-square-foot restaurant (Duke of Edinburgh). The restaurant generates criteria air pollutants from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment and architectural coatings. As discussed in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, the current land uses generate approximately 1,636 average daily trips. Existing emissions associated with the proposed project are included in Table 4-1 below. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-7 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-1 EXISTING OPERATION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Category Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Existing 2018 Emissions Area <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 On-Road Mobile <1 1 1 <1 Total <1 1 1 <1 Category Criteria Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Area <1 0 0 0 Energy <1 1 <1 <1 On-Road Mobile 2 2 4 1 Total 3 4 4 1 Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding; Reactive Organic Gases = ROG; Nitrogen Oxides = NOx; Coarse Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM10; Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM2.5 Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.25. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law under the federal Clean Air Act (National) and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-8 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Where available, the significance criteria established by the BAAQMD are relied upon to make the determinations discussed below. DISCUSSION a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SFBAAB to achieve National and California AAQS. In April of 2017 BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan, which is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air pollution in the SFBAAB. Regional growth projections are used by BAAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SFBAAB. For the Bay Area, these regional growth projections are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and transportation projections are provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections. The proposed project would construct a 185-room hotel, which is within the 1,339-hotel-room maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG and MTC. As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not exceed the level of population or housing projected in City or regional planning efforts (Plan Bay Area) through 2040, and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2017 Clean Air Plan projections. Furthermore, the net increase in regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds with mitigation (see criterion (b) below). These thresholds were established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-9 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes changes in regional impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project. Construction Impacts Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and fine PM2.5. Construction Fugitive Dust Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). The amount of dust generated during construction would be highly variable and is dependent on the amount of material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards. Consequently, BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices shown in Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District best management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.  Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.  Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.  Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand). THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-10 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. Construction Exhaust Emissions The proposed project would result in demolition debris and would require soil export for the underground parking that would occur near existing sensitive land uses. Thus, the BAAQMD screening criteria for construction-related impacts would not be met and a quantified analysis of the proposed project’s construction emissions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.25 based on information provided by the project applicant. Construction is assumed to begin in August 2019 and end 24 months later in 2021. Potential construction-related air quality impacts are determined by comparing the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions generated by the proposed project-related construction activities to the BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 4-2. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. As shown in Table 4-2, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily pounds per day thresholds and impacts from project-related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant. TABLE 4-2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Year Criteria Air Pollutants (pounds per day)a ROG NOx Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Average Daily Emissionsc 4 12 1 1 <1 <1 BAAQMD Average Daily Project- Level Threshold 54 54 BMPs b 82 BMPs b 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No NA No NA No Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; NA = not applicable; Reactive Organic Gases = ROG; Nitrogen Oxides = NOx; Coarse Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM10; Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM2.5 a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information regarding Project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. Includes implementation of best management practices for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping. c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of construction days is estimated to be 522. Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.25 Operation-Related Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by a hotel development are typically associated with the burning of fossil fuels in vehicle trips to and from the hotel (mobile sources); energy use for cooling, heating, and cooking (energy); and landscape equipment use and household products (area sources). The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed project would generate a net total of 1,856 THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-11 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT vehicle trips, an increase of 188 average daily weekday trips over the existing land uses at the site. Table 4- 3 identifies the net increase in criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project compared to the baseline operation. As shown in Table 4-3, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed the BAAQMD daily pounds per day thresholds. Additionally, the net change in tons per year would be 1 ton or less and therefore would not exceed BAAQMD’s annual tons per year project level threshold.33 Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB and impacts from project-related operation activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant. TABLE 4-3 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Category Criteria Air Pollutants (average pounds per day)a ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Existing 2021 Projected Emissions Area <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 1 <1 <1 On-Road Mobile 2 2 4 1 Total 2 3 4 1 Proposed Land Use 2021 Emissions Area 5 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 3 <1 <1 On-Road Mobile 2 2 7 2 Total 7 5 7 2 Net Change in 2021 Emissions Area 5 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 2 <1 <1 On-Road Mobile <1 <1 3 1 Net Change Total 5 2 3 1 BAAQMD Average Daily Project-Level lbs/day Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds BAAQMD’s lbs/day Threshold? No No No No Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; NA = not applicable a. Average daily emissions are based on the annual operational emissions divided by 365 days. Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.25. 33 Further details are shown in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Initial Study. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-12 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative Standards for ozone precursors or other pollutants)? This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from a combination of the proposed project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the SFBAAB. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (the SFBAAB), a project is cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the BAAQMD emissions thresholds. As described above in criterion (b), the proposed project would not have a significant long-term operational phase impact. However, as also discussed in criterion (b) above, without incorporation of fugitive dust control measures, construction activities associated with the proposed project could potentially result in significant regional short-term air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that required fugitive dust control measures are implemented to control project-related fugitive dust generated during construction activities. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Development of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the construction emissions shown above in Table 4-2 under criterion (b), described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. Construction Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards The proposed project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction for construction-related health risks associated with residential, commercial, and industrial projects.34 According to the screening tables, construction activities occurring within 328 feet (100 meters) of sensitive receptors would result in potential health risks and warrant a health risk analysis. The nearest sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project is the Arioso Apartment complex approximately 80 feet to the west of the project site. However, the maximum exposed receptor or maximally exposed individual35 would be located in the apartment complex approximately 200 feet to the 34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, Version 1.0, May 2010. 35 Maximally Exposed Individual is defined by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines as an existing off-site receptor with the highest acute, chronic, or cancer health impact. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, March 6, 2015, Section 5.1, page 5-1. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-13 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT southeast of the project site due to the meteorological conditions in the project vicinity. Thus, construction activities in relation to sensitive receptors could occur within the BAAQMD construction- related health risks screening distance of 328 feet (100 meters). Consequently, a construction HRA of TACs and PM2.5 was prepared (see Appendix B of this Initial Study). A quantified analysis of the project’s construction emissions was conducted using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.2.25. Construction emissions were based on a 24-month construction duration, construction schedule, and off-road equipment list provided by the project applicant. The United States Environmental Protection Agency AERMOD, Version 9.5, dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index for non-carcinogenic risk, and the PM2.5 maximum annual concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4-4. TABLE 4-4 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – UNMITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3)a Maximum Exposed Receptor – Residences at Arioso Apartments 24.5 0.014 0.04 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017). The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration over a 24-month construction exposure duration for off-site receptors, assuming 24-hour outdoor exposure.36 Risk is based on the updated Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual:37  Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off-site resident from only construction activities related to the proposed project were calculated to be 24.5 in a million and would exceed the BAAQMD’s 10 in one million significance threshold. Utilizing the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual, the calculated total cancer risk for the off-site residents incorporates the individual risk for infant and childhood exposures into one risk value. Therefore, only one cancer risk value for off-site residents was determined using the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual for the preparation of HRAs  For non-carcinogenic effects, the hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for off-site sensitive receptors from the proposed project. Therefore, chronic non- carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits.  The highest PM2.5 annual concentrations at the maximum exposed off-site sensitive resident would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. 36 Under the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual, the exposure duration has changed from 70 years to 30 years for operational risk to residents; however, the risk is still averaged over a 70-year lifetime. 37 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-14 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Because cancer risk and PM2.5 annual concentrations for the maximum exposed receptor would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds due to construction activities associated with the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is proposed: Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition and/or building permits, the construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate the following, during construction, on all plans:  The use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.  Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.  Ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 2 minutes, which is in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449, which limits idling to 5 minutes or less.  Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in the Table 4-5 below. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required BY General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2b, which was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan. The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risk and PM2.5 impacts would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for all sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. TABLE 4-5 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3)a Maximum Exposed Receptor – Offsite Residences 1.5 0.004 0.01 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No Notes: Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AIR-2, which includes using construction equipment with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017). Operation On-Site Community Risk and Hazards When siting new sensitive receptors, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend examining sources of TACs and PM2.5 emissions within 1,000 feet that would adversely affect individuals within the proposed project. BAAQMD has developed screening tools to identify stationary and mobile sources of TACs and diesel-PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses, and developed screening thresholds for assessing THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-15 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT potential health risks from these sources. Using the BAAQMD screening tools, it is determined that the project site is not within 1,000 feet of any sources of air emission (permitted or non-permitted stationary sources, freeways, or high volume roadways). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspot Analysis Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. The proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in the CMP or alter regional travel patterns. VTA’s CMP must be consistent with MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040. An overarching goal of the regional Plan Bay Area 2040 is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than locate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed project is an infill hotel development that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian routes (see Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, below), and for these reasons would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area 2040. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of 96 AM (morning) peak hour trips on a weekday and would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.38 Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Construction and operation of hotel developments would not generate substantial odors or be subject to odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. During operation, the onsite restaurant could generate odors from cooking. Odors from cooking are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain 38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-16 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT odorous compounds.39 In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, because existing sources of odors are required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7, impacts to siting of new sensitive land uses would be less than significant. III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special- status species?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites?     e) Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources?     f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?     39 It should be noted that while restaurants can generate odors, these sources are not identified by BAAQMD as nuisance odors because they typically do not generate significant odors that affect a substantial number of people. Larger restaurants that employ five or more people are subject to BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-17 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site and surrounding area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. Remnant native trees are scattered throughout these urbanized areas, together with non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)40 habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and type of landscaping and remaining open space, as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs used for landscaping provide nest sites and cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typical native bird species include the mourning dove, scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, brown towhee, American crow, and Anna’s hummingbird, among others. Introduced species include the rock dove, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow. Urban areas can also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as the California ground squirrel and striped skunk, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern red fox. Introduced pest species such as the Norway rat, house mouse, and opossum are also abundant in developed areas. Wetlands and jurisdictional waters within the city boundary include creek corridors and associated riparian scrub and woodland, and areas of freshwater marsh around ponds, seeps, springs, and other waterbodies. Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and woodland occur along segments of the numerous creeks through the urbanized valley floor. The project site does not contain these creek corridors or contain other regulated waters. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special-status plant or animal species on the project site or urbanized areas surrounding the project site. There is a possibility that birds could nest in trees and other landscaping on the project site. The nests of most bird species are protected under the MBTA when in active use and there is a possibility that one or more raptor species protected under the MBTA and CDFG Code could nest on the project site. These include both the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leuocurus), which have reported CNDDB occurrences within the city boundary, and also more common raptors such as red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and American kestrel, all of which are protected by the MBTA and CDFG Code when their nests are in active use. A recent tree inventory and assessment evaluated 68 trees on the site that represent 11 species.41 Although several trees were newly planted, most of the trees on the project site are mature. According to 40 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous. 41 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Site Tree Inventory & Assessment, prepared for the KIMCO Realty Corporation by Arborwell. November 27, 2017. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-18 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT the tree inventory and assessment, all trees on the project site are likely protected trees.42 While coast redwood is native to California, no trees of this species are indigenous to the project site.43 DISCUSSION a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species? As stated above in the existing conditions discussion, there are no known occurrences of special-status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, but there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the MBTA could nest in trees and other landscaping on the project site. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that impacts to special-status species, including nesting birds, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would also be required for the project to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. The construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31). Preconstruction surveys shall:  Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.  Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.  Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.  Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds. Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include:  Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance 42 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Site Tree Inventory & Assessment, prepared for the KIMCO Realty Corporation by Arborwell. November 27, 2017. 43 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (section 14.80.050) defines “Protected” trees. See section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, of this chapter for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-19 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.  Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.  An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type? Development of the proposed project would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive natural communities are absent; therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Development of the proposed project would occur in urbanized areas where no wetlands or jurisdictional waters occur on or near the project site; therefore, no impact would occur directly. Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants. Indirect impacts would be largely avoided through effective implementation of best management practices during construction and compliance with water quality controls. As discussed below in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which implements Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Adherence to these permit conditions requires the project to incorporate treatment measures, an agreement to maintain them, and other appropriate source control and site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Many of the requirements involve low impact development practices such as the use of onsite infiltration that reduce pollutant loading. Incorporation of these measures can even improve on existing conditions. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit (CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that require the incorporation of best management practices to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction. The indirect water quality-related issues are discussed further in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. As discussed in THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-20 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Impact HYDRO-1, water quality impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites? Development on the project site would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive wildlife resources and important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of the existing development. Wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be displaced where existing structures are demolished and landscaping is removed as part of future development, but these species are relatively abundant, and adapted to human disturbance. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would retain all protected trees and would also include landscaping that would provide replacement habitat for wildlife species that may have adapted to the project site. Also discussed in Chapter 3, the project applicant would prepare a Tree Management Plan to address the removal and addition of trees on the site over time. Consistent with General Plan Policies ES-5.1, Urban Ecosystem, and Strategy, and ES-5.1.2, Built Environment, the Tree Management Plan would include native, drought tolerant landscaping that is beneficial to the environment. Therefore, project impacts on the movement of fish and wildlife, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Would the project conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources? As discussed in criteria (a) through (d), above, development of the project site would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive biological and wetland resources are generally considered to be absent, and no major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances related to biological resources in the Cupertino General Plan and/or CMC would occur. As discussed in the existing conditions above, the recent tree survey for the project site found that all of the existing on-site trees meet the City of Cupertino’s criteria for protected status.44 Therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, CMC Section 14.80.050, which requires tree removal permits to be obtained for the removal of any “protected tree,” and replacement plantings to be provided as approved by the City. In addition if permitted, an appropriate in-lieu fee may be paid to the City of Cupertino as compensation for “protected trees” removed by the proposed project, where sufficient land area is not available on-site for adequate replacement and when approved by the City. Mandatory compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance would insure impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan includes the city or the project site, and the proposed project would not conflict with 44 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code (section 14.80.050) defines “Protected” trees. See section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, of Chapter 3, Project Description, for a summary of the City’s tree protection ordinance. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-21 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     EXISTING CONDITIONS As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources on the project site. Specifically, the project site was developed in 1977 and no historical architectural resources are located on the project site.45 Accordingly, the buildings on the project site do not fall within the over 45-year age limits established for historical resources that should be included in the California Department of Historic Preservation filing system.46 A review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s fossil locality database was conducted for the City of Cupertino. No paleontological resources have been identified on the project site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils indicates that the overall the city could contain paleontological resources. DISCUSSION a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites may qualify as historical resources.47 Archaeological resources are addressed in criterion (b), and human remains are addressed below in criterion (d), below. 45 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017, page 1 (Summary). 46 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions For Recording Historical Resources, March 1995, page 2. 47 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15064.5(c), Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archeological Resources. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-22 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT As discussed above, the project site is currently developed in 1977. As described in the existing conditions above, the existing buildings do not fall within the over 45-year age limits established for historical resources that should be included in the OHP filing system the California Register of Historical Resources.48 Accordingly, no impact to historical architectural resources would occur as a result of project development and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of historical resource under CEQA Section 21084.1 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 could be present at the project site and could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with development allowed under the proposed project. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either as containing information about prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired. While the project site is currently developed and the cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR49 did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site, the site could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Therefore, any project-related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to affect subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:  All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.  If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City of Cupertino Building Department and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.  All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.  In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine 48 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions For Recording Historical Resources, March 1995, page 2. 49 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, Tom Origer & Associates on July 24, 2013. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-23 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations.  If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be implemented.  Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As discussed above in existing conditions, while no paleontological resources have been identified within the project location, because the proposed project requires substantial excavation that could reach significant depths below the ground surface where no such excavation has previously occurred, there could be fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that have not been recorded. Such ground-disturbing construction associated with development of the proposed project could cause damage to, or destruction of, paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Impacts to paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading, demolition, and construction plans:  In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.  The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.  The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.  The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.  If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Similar to the discussions under criteria (b) and (c), there are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project could occur. Any human remains encountered during ground- THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-24 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT disturbing activities associated with the proposed project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations to ensure no adverse impacts to human remains would occur in the unlikely event human remains are found. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, who would, in turn, notify the person the Native American Heritage Commission identifies as the Most Likely Descendant of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the Native American Heritage Commission of the discovery. If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with the mandatory regulatory procedures described above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. V. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1.     THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-25 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe. EXISTING CONDITIONS Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which took effect on July 1, 2015, amended CEQA to add standards of significance that relate to Native American consultation and certain types of cultural resources. Projects subject to AB 52 are those that file a notice of preparation for an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. As of July 1, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research developed guidelines and the Native American Heritage Commission informed tribes which agencies are in their traditional area. AB 52 requires the CEQA lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if the Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of the proposed projects in the area. The consultation is required before the determination of whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required. In addition, AB 52 includes time limits for certain responses regarding consultation. AB 52 also adds “tribal cultural resources” to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA.50 CEQA Section 21084.3 has been added, which states that “public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources.” Information shared by tribes as a result of AB 52 consultation shall be documented in a confidential file, as necessary, and made part of a lead agencies administrative record. In regards to AB 52, the City of Cupertino has not received any request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects in the city. CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a tribal cultural resource is defined under AB 52 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included a local register of historical resources, or if the City, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. 50 California Environmental Quality Act Statute, Section 21074. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-26 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DISCUSSION a) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe? The discussion in Section VI, Cultural Resources, is applicable to impacts to tribal cultural resources. As discussed under criteria (b) and (d) in Section IV, no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites or Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed under criterion (b), implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including tribal cultural resources, to a less-than-significant level. As discussed under criterion (d), compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and compliance with State and federal regulations related to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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 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?     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?     b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-27 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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?     d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property?     e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     EXISTING CONDITIONS Geology Cupertino lies in the west-central part of the Santa Clara Valley, which is a broad, mostly flat alluvial plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. The surficial geology is described as young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium. The site is generally flat with elevation of 170 feet above mean sea level.51 Soils Web-accessible soil mapping data compiled by the USDA’s Soil Conservation Survey and the California Soil Resource Laboratory hosted by University of California at Davis was used to identify the major soil types on the project site. The predominant soil types for the project site are soils of the Urban Land-Flaskan, Urban-Land Stevens Creek, and Urban Land-Botella complexes generally formed on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. In almost all instances, these soils are reportedly deep and well drained, and are typified by low runoff.52 Fault Rupture The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal movement along well-defined active fault zones such as the San Andreas Fault system. Many of these zones exhibit a regional trend to the northwest. The site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo 51 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017. 52 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, 2014. California Soil Resource Lab, Online Soil Survey, URL: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb/, accessed on May 30, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-28 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone) or a Santa Clara County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.53 No active fault traces are known to cross the site. Liquefaction The site is not located within a seismically inducted liquefaction hazard zone, as mapped by the State of California and Santa Clara County. During cyclic ground shaking, such as seismic shaking during an earthquake, cyclically-induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures within the soil matrix, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soil may lose shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations and/or flow failure. Liquefied soil can also settle as pore pressures dissipate following an earthquake. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated, non-cohesive soils with poor drainage, such as sands and silts with interbedded or capping layers of relatively low permeability soil. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil are displaced laterally toward the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading at the site is also considered low. DISCUSSION a) Would the project 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 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; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards? Fault Rupture Only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped within the City of Cupertino, namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the southwestern most part of the city. Because the site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Santa Clara County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, and no active faults are known to traverse the site, the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The impacts from project development as they relate to surface fault rupture are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. 53 Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones, Map 18, updated October 26, 2012. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-29 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Strong Seismic Ground Shaking The hazards posed by strong seismic ground shaking during a major earthquake, while variable, are nearly omnipresent in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, in the event of a large, magnitude 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the city is projected to experience “strong” ground shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the northeast part of the city where the project is located. Adherence to applicable building code, including conformance to California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s building permit requirements would ensure that the impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The impacts of project development as they relate to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction As described above in Existing Conditions, the project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California and Santa Clara County as having a high potential for seismically induced liquefaction. The potential for seismically induced liquefaction in the vicinity appears low, and is limited to a very narrow strip of alluvial deposits that flank Calabazas Creek approximately 0.80 miles east of the project site. Accordingly, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced liquefaction would be less than significant. Landslides The site is generally flat with elevation of 170 feet above mean sea level.54 The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as having a high potential for seismically induced landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could, in theory, undermine structures and minor slopes during development of the project site. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as the implementation of grading erosion control measures specified in the CBC and the CMC, would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil. Examples of these control measures are best management practices such as hydroseeding or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; vegetated swales, silt fences, or other forms of protection at storm drain inlets; post-construction inspection of drainage structures for accumulated sediment; and post-construction clearing of debris and sediment from these structures. 54 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-30 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Section 16.08.110 of the CMC requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for all projects subject to City-issued grading permits, which would minimize the removal of topsoil, avoid overly steep cut and/or fill slopes, and protect existing vegetation during grading operations. These requirements are broadly applicable to residential development projects. Adherence to these regulations would help ensure that the impacts of project development as they relate to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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? As discussed in criterion (a), the project site is not located within an area mapped as having significant potential for seismically induced liquefaction. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of lateral spreading at the site would also be low. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they relate to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. The site is generally flat with elevation of 170 feet above mean sea level.55 The properties surrounding the project site are also typified by low topographic relief. The impacts of project development as they relate to landslides would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay. The proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in CMC Chapter 12.04 and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Thus, compliance with existing regulations and policies would ensure that the potential future development impacts permitted under the proposed project would be reduced. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they relate to expansive soils are considered less than significant. 55 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-31 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The development of the proposed project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed project associated with soils that are inadequate for the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     EXISTING CONDITIONS Current development on the project site consists of a vacant 10,044-square-foot commercial building and the 3,385-square-foot Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant. The restaurant generates greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources, energy use (natural gas and purchased energy), water use, generation of wastewater, generation of solid waste, and other sources such as landscaping equipment and architectural coatings referred to as area sources.56 As discussed in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, the existing restaurant generates approximately 1,636 average daily trips to the project site. Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the existing land uses are shown in Table 4-6 below. DISCUSSION a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. Development of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from transportation sources, energy use (natural gas and purchased energy), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. In addition, construction activities 56 Sources that emit less than 10 tons annually of a single hazardous air pollutant or less than 25 tons annually of a combination of hazardous air pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Area Source Standards, https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/area/arearules.html, accessed October 1, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-32 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT would generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions. The net increase in emissions generated by the project was evaluated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.25. The total and net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4-6. TABLE 4-6 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS Category GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Existing Emissions Project Emissions Percent of Total Net Change from Existing Area <1 <1 1% <1 Energy 217 848 44% 631 On-Road Mobile Sources 681 1,040 53% 360 Waste 6 53 2% 46 Water/Wastewater 6 6 1% <1 Amortized Construction Emissionsa NA 22 1% 22 Total 910 1,969 100% 1,059 BAAQMD Emissions Threshold (MTCO2e) 1,100 Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? No Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. New buildings would be constructed to the 2016 Building & Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2017); MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. a. One-time, short-term emissions are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building, which is assumed to be 30 years. Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.25. Construction Impacts BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, however, the BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Therefore, this impact discussion applies BAAQMD’s project-level operation threshold of 1,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year) for construction, which is based on BAAQMD’s operational-related threshold of 1,100 million MTCO2e/year.57 GHG emissions from construction activities are one-time, short-term emissions and, therefore, would not significantly contribute to long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project. One-time, short-term emissions are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30- year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires the first major renovation.58 As shown in Table 4-6 above, when amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, average annual construction emissions from the proposed project would represent a nominal source of GHG emissions and would not 57 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p.2-4, accessed July 31, 2018. 58 International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, March. While the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria in evaluating construction-related GHG emissions impacts, this methodology is consistent with the methodology utilized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-33 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT exceed BAAQMD’s operational-related threshold. Construction emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operational Impacts As shown in Table 4-6 above, development of the proposed project would result in a net increase of GHG emissions of 1,059 MTCO2e/year at opening year (2021), which would not exceed BAAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e per year for operations. Therefore, project-related GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the CARB Scoping Plan, the MTC’s/ ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below. CARB’s Scoping Plan In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan59 (Scoping Plan) contains the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030. The Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nevertheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest Scoping Plan (2017) include implementing Senate Bill 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement Senate Bill 375; creation of a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions. The proposed project would be constructed to achieve the standards in effect at the time of development and would not conflict with statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As stated above, while the measures in the State’s Scoping Plan are not directly applicable to individual 59 Note that the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is an update to the 2008 and 2014 Scoping Plans. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-34 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT development projects, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area 2040 land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled, and associated GHG emissions reductions. Although the proposed project is not within a PDA, as discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, growth associated with the proposed project is consistent with ABAG projections and would not exceed regional population and employment projections (see Chapter 4, General Plan EIR Consistency Analysis, of this Initial Study). The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the City that has access to existing infrastructure and services, including transit service (see Section XV, Transportation and Circulation). In addition, the proposed project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program (see Section 3.2.2.4, Transportation Demand Management Program, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study) that would include, but is not limited to, transit passes for guest and employees, car share program for guests, and a shuttle service for hotel guests, employees, and when there is capacity can provide service to the community at large. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan for the City of Cupertino identified in the Plan Bay Area 2040 and the impact would be less than significant. City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors. The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City followed the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011) and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the goals of CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan. After the adoption of the CAP in January of 2015, the Legislature adopted SB 32 (September 2016) and CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2017), aimed at meeting SB 32’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-35 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy A qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the following elements, described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. BAAQMD’s revised CEQA Guidelines provides the methodology to determine if a GHG reduction strategy meets these requirements. A. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area: Cupertino’s CAP identifies a baseline GHG emissions inventory for year 2010 and business-as-usual forecasts for 2020, 2035, and 2050 for land uses within the City. B. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable: The City of Cupertino has established a goal of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. The 2020 GHG reduction goal is in line with AB 32. However the 2030 goal was adopted prior to SB 32, which is 40 percent below 1990 levels; therefore, the 2030 goal is the standard. C. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area: The emissions sources calculated in the baseline GHG inventory include commercial, residential, and industrial electricity and natural gas use, on-road transportation, solid waste disposal, energy use related to water and wastewater, agricultural off-road equipment and emissions associated with fertilizer application, and off-road equipment use for construction and lawn and garden activities. GHG emissions from these activities were calculated from activity data such as kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, tons of waste disposed, and vehicle miles traveled from trips with an origin or destination in the City of Cupertino. D. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level: The CAP has identified groups of measures and performance standards aimed at achieving these targets: Reduce Energy Use/Improve Facilities; Encourage Alternative Transportation/Convert Vehicle Fleet; Conserve Potable Water; Reduce Solid Waste; and Expand Green Infrastructure. The City’s CAP strategies achieve the near-term (i.e., 2020) GHG reduction target. Strategies for the post-2020 targets were not quantified. E. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels: The City has a sustainability coordinator which implements and tracks the City’s GHG reduction strategies and progress toward GHG reduction targets. The City’s sustainability team prepares annual reports on CAP implementation and progress as part of the monitoring program, including projects and policies, data and metrics, as well as inventory updates to determine if the plan is achieving its targeted goals. F. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review: In January 2015, the City of Cupertino adopted an Addendum to the General Plan EIR, which found that that adoption of the City proposed CAP would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and adopted the CAP. Based on the analysis above, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan for the AB 32 targets. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-36 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it complies with the “required” GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. Of these previously adopted GHG reduction measures, the measures applicable to the proposed project are the following:  Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase resident and building owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used.  Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7: Implement water conservation policies contained within Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per capita water reduction by 2020.  Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion community-wide through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.  Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and Green Building Ordinances. The proposed project would not make any changes to current City standards. Development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The City ensures that the provisions of the Cupertino CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area?     THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-37 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area?     g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     h) Expose people or structures to a 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?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The search of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor Database and the GeoTracker database search did not reveal any hazardous materials or LUST sites on or within close proximity to the project site.60 The project site, developed in 1977, does not contain any asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint, which have been regulated in construction since the early 1970’s.61 There are no known hazardous materials sites located on the project site. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, and Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast in the City of Santa Clara. There are no moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones in the State Responsibility Areas in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. DISCUSSION a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Project Operation The proposed project, a hotel, would not involve the routine transport or disposing of hazardous materials. Project operation would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning 60 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Table 4.7-2, Hazardous Materials and LUST (leaking underground storage tanks) Sites. 61 Northgate Environmental Management, 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10765 – 10801 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, California. November 6, 2017, page 1 (Summary). THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-38 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Furthermore, such substances would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Any businesses that transport, generate, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials in Cupertino are subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division and hazardous materials permits from the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCCFD). The SCCFD also conducts inspections for fire safety and hazardous materials management of businesses and multi-family dwellings, in accordance with the City of Cupertino Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance in Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Materials Storage. Thus, associated impacts from the operational phase of the project would be less than significant. Project Construction Construction activities at the project site would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than would operation of the proposed project, such as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in construction, which would be transported to the site periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities on-site to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment, and would their use during construction would be short- term. Additionally, as with proposed project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction- related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Consequently, associated impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As described in criterion (a), above, operation and construction of the proposed project would involve the storage and use of common cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints, and solvents, as well as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in construction. Also, as described in the existing conditions, all of the existing buildings on the project site were developed in 1977; thus, the buildings would not contain asbestos-containing materials and lead- based paints. An impact could occur if construction and operation of the proposed project creates conditions where hazardous materials could easily contaminate surrounding soil, water, or air. The most likely scenarios would be from rainwater runoff spreading contaminated waste. Stormwater runoff is discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study and the impacts were found to be less than significant. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-39 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Project Operation The proposed project, a hotel, is not considered the type of project that would create an unacceptable hazardous materials risk to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. The Santa Clara County HMCD is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for Santa Clara County including the City of Cupertino, and is responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is required to regulate hazardous materials business plans (HMBP) and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk-management plans. The HMBP is required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of on development sites. The HMBP also contains an emergency- response plan, which describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release, procedures, and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and provisions for immediate notification of the California Emergency Management Agency and other emergency-response personnel, such as the SCCFD. Implementation of the emergency response plan facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse impacts. Furthermore, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations; to identify safety hazards that could cause or contribute to an accidental spill or release; and to suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill or release of hazardous substances. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the risk of accidents and spills is minimized to the maximum extent practicable during the operation of the proposed project. Consequently, associated impacts would be less than significant. Project Construction Similar to the operation of the proposed project, the type of construction materials and equipment would be considered standard for this type of development. All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be implemented through the duration of the construction of each individual development project. Therefore, substantial hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during project construction would not occur. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve the storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities to pose a significant risk to the public. Thus, no impact related to hazardous emissions or hazardous material handling within one-quarter mile of a school would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-40 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? As stated in the existing conditions discussion above, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would occur. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public use airport. Thus, there would be no impact related to public airport hazards. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? There are no private use airstrips or airports within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to private airstrip hazards as a result of implementing the proposed project. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters and other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)62 establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with county and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management of volunteers. The proposed project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods. Emergency vehicle access would be provided at two points; the hotel lobby along the western side of the project site and the hotel loading zone on the northern side, which is accessible through the driveway on the northern end of the project site. During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would occur in the public right-of-way. A combination of on- and off-site parking facilities for construction workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and construction. The proposed project would 62 City of Cupertino, Office of Emergency Services. Emergency Operations Plan. September 2005. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-41 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildland are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is fully developed and is surrounded by built-out urban uses. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino and there are no high or very high fire risk areas as shown on the City’s adopted Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map.63 The proposed project would not subject people or structures to wildfire hazards, and no impact would occur. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater 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 (the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.     d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area?     g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     63 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.74. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-42 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact h) Potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site lies within the Calabazas Creek watershed. No creeks are present on the project site. In addition to the natural drainage system, a network of storm drains collects runoff from city streets and carries it to the creeks and San Francisco Bay. The City of Cupertino Department of Public Works is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of City-owned facilities including public streets, sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm drains. The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino were evaluated and documented in the 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies the areas within the system that do not have the capacity to handle runoff during the 10-year storm event, which is the City’s design standard. The project site is not located in an area where the storm drains are potentially deficient in conveying the 10-year storm.64 The project site, as does the entire city, lies within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. In 2012, approximately 40 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County was pumped from groundwater.65 The rest of the water used in the County is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which receives surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP). Additional details on water usage and local water purveyors are provided in Section XVI, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. Santa Clara Valley streams do not receive discharges from industrial or municipal wastewater.66 Industrial discharges are routed to municipal sanitary sewers and then to regional municipal wastewater treatment plants that discharge treated effluent to the tidal sloughs of San Francisco Bay. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Municipal storm water discharges in the City of Cupertino is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the new Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-0049) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which became effective on January 1, 2016. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the State Water Regional Water Control Board (SWRCB) 64 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Table 4.8-3, Under Capacity Storm Drainage Infrastructure. 65 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012. 66 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative, 2003. Volume 1, Watershed Characteristics Report, http://www.scbwmi.org/ accessed May 30, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-43 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Construction General Permit (2009-0009-DWQ) as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are now submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara subbasin is generally considered to be good and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of the County water supply wells without the use of treatment methods.67 The project site is not located in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area. The project site is not within a dam inundation zone. The City of Cupertino is more than 8 miles south of San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet above mean sea level, which places the city at a distance that is considered too far to be affected by a tsunami.68 There are no large bodies of water within the City of Cupertino or near the project site; thus, the project site would not be impacted by a seiche. DISCUSSION a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Because the project would disturb one or more acres during construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with Construction General Permit and submit PRDs to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a NOI and a site-specific construction SWPPP that describes the incorporation of best management practices to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction. New requirements by the SWRCB would also require the project applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes post construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. With implementation of these measures, water quality impacts during construction would be less than significant. In addition, all new development or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces would be required to incorporate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures into the project, pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 requirements. The requirements include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are 67 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan. 68 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed May 30, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-44 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT maintained in perpetuity. The proposed project would implement a treatment system – two bioretention areas on the north and south side of the property totaling 2,309 square feet. Implementation of these measures and compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure that post-development impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Adherence to applicable water quality regulations, preparation of a SWPPP, implementation of best management practices during construction, and compliance with the CMC would ensure that water quality standards are not violated during construction. Implementation of stormwater site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures and compliance with C.3 provisions of the MRP and the City of Cupertino’s stormwater requirements would result in less-than-significant impacts during operation of the project. Consequently, potential impacts associated with water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater 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 (the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project would be connected to municipal water supplies and does not propose any groundwater wells on the property. The project site is supplied by California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which obtains its water from groundwater production (35 percent) and purchases of surface water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Los Altos Suburban District, which includes the area for the project site, states that there is sufficient water for their customers for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years and that additional groundwater can be pumped to meet demand through 2040.69 Therefore, the project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or result in a lowering of groundwater levels. Water supply is discussed in Section XVI, Utilities and Service Systems, below. Furthermore, due to the project’s location, the development of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge that takes place in the McClellan Ponds recharge facility located within the City of Cupertino or the creeks and streams that run through the city. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to groundwater recharge. The proposed project would be located on a site that is already developed and currently has a high percentage of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces of approximately 2,034 square feet as compared to existing conditions. The project would install two bioretention areas and multiple landscaped areas, which would contribute to groundwater recharge by infiltration. As a result, the project would result in a decrease in the amount of runoff from the property. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge and no mitigation measures are needed. 69 California Water Service Company, 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos Suburban District. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-45 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site? The proposed project would take place within the boundaries of a fully developed site that is currently connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed redevelopment does not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse. As shown on Figure 3-18 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would provide bioretention water treatment areas throughout the project site (see Figures 3-17 and 3-18 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study). These would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, sidewalks and streets for treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the internal storm drain system, which connects to the City’s storm drain system in North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The project applicant would be required, pursuant to the C.3 provisions of the MRP, to implement construction phase best management practices, post-construction design measures that encourage infiltration in pervious areas, and post-construction source control measures to help keep pollutants out of stormwater. In addition, post-construction stormwater treatment measures would be required since the project would create and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. These measures would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the project. During construction, the project applicant would be subject to the SWRCB Construction General Permit requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes erosion and sediment control measures to stabilize the site, protect slopes and channels, control the perimeter of the site, minimize the area and duration of exposed soils, and protect receiving waters adjacent to the site. Once constructed, the requirements for new development or redevelopment projects include source control measures and site design measures that address stormwater runoff and would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation. In addition, Provision C.3 of the MRP would require the project to implement stormwater treatment measures to contain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate. With implementation of these erosion and sediment control measures and regulatory provisions to limit runoff for new development sites, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in erosion and sedimentation or contribute to flooding on-site or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? There are two potential impacts to stormwater runoff hydrology with urban development. Impervious surfaces, such as roads, sidewalks, and buildings prevent the natural infiltration of stormwater into the soil and thus create higher runoff volumes. In addition, more rapid transport of runoff over impermeable surfaces combined with higher runoff volumes result in elevated peak flows. This increase in flows could adversely impact stormwater drainage systems. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-46 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT As stated above in criterion (b), the proposed project involves construction of a hotel on an existing developed property that is currently connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed project would result in a decrease of approximately 2,034 square feet of impervious surfaces over existing conditions and would install bioretention areas on the project site as shown on Figures 3-17 and 3-18 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study. This reduction in pervious surface would reduce the amount of runoff when compared to existing conditions resulting in less demand to the existing storm drain system. The bioretention areas would provide both treatment of site runoff, reduction in peak flow rates, and flow control prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system. Furthermore, as described above in the existing conditions section, the project site is not located in an area where the storm drains are potentially deficient in conveying the 10-year storm. The existing storm drain system would be able to handle the stormwater flow from the site and the impact to stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. In addition, with the implementation of stormwater treatment measures, the project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and the impact would be less than significant. e) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? As required by storm water management guidelines discussed under criterion (a), best management practices and low impact development measures would be implemented across the project site during both construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures would control and prevent the release of sediment, debris, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. Implementation of best management practices during construction would be in accordance with the provisions of the SWPPP, which would minimize the release of sediment, soil, and other pollutants. Operational best management practices would be required to meet the C.3 provisions of the MRP and these requirements include the incorporation of site design, source control, and treatment control measures to treat and control runoff before it enters the storm drain system. The proposed treatment measures would include the use of bioretention areas to treat and detain runoff prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system. With implementation of these best management practices and low impact development measures in accordance with City and MRP requirements, the potential impact on water quality would be less than significant. f) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area? The project would not result in the development of residential structures in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site is in the dam inundation zone for the Stevens Creek Reservoir Dam. Dam inundation zones are based on the highly unlikely scenario of a catastrophic dam failure occurring in a very short THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-47 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT period of time. The General Plan EIR assessed the risk to people and structures in Cupertino as a result of a failure of the Stevens Creek Reservoir Dam. This analysis determined that the potential risk was less than significant based on existing policies and regulations.70 The proposed project was evaluated as a hotel development site under the General Plan EIR and as such, this finding is applicable to the proposed project. Existing State and local regulations address the potential for flood hazards as a result of dam failure. The Stevens Creek Reservoir is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Safety of Dams which conducts annual inspections and reviews all aspects of safety. The dam has been assessed for seismic stability and was determined to be capable of withstanding the maximum credible earthquake. Dam owners also maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. In addition, the City of Cupertino, in conjunction with Santa Clara County, addressed the possibility of dam failure in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which also provides emergency response actions. The probability of dam failure is extremely low and the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County have never been impacted by a major dam failure. Moreover, analysis in the General Plan EIR determined that the potential risk was less than significant based on existing policies and regulations. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam failure and the impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. h) Would the project potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is not located in close proximity to San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean, and is not within a mapped tsunami inundation zone.71 Because there are no large bodies of water, such as reservoirs or lakes, in the vicinity of the project site, there would be no potential for seiches to impact the project site. In addition, the site is in a relatively flat area of the City and is outside of the ABAG mapped zones for earthquake-induced landslides or debris flow source areas.72 Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to these issues. X. LAND USE Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Physically divide an established community?     70 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. 71 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2016. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed on January 20, 2016. 72 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2016. Rainfall-Induced Landslides, Debris Flow Source Areas and Earthquake Induced Landslides. Accessed at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/landslides/ on January 20, 2016. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-48 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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?     c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     EXISTING CONDITIONS General Plan The General Plan land use designation is Commercial/Residential. The maximum height of 60 feet is permitted for buildings located to the west of North Wolfe Road. The project is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North Vallco Park Special Area. As described in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan, the North Vallco Park Special Area is an important employment center for Cupertino and the region. The North Vallco Gateway includes two hotels, the Cupertino Village Shopping Center west of North Wolfe Road, and the Hamptons Apartment complex east of North Wolfe Road. The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center, hotels and residential uses. Taller building heights and additional density may be allowed in the North Vallco Gateway. Zoning The project site is within the Planned Development with Residential (P(CG,Res)) zoning district. As described in CMC Section 19.80.010,73 the planned development zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. This zoning district is intended to accomplish the following:  Encourage variety in the development pattern of the community.  Promote a more desirable living environment.  Encourage creative approaches in land development.  Provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning.  Conserve natural features.  Facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open spaces. 73 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planed Development, section 19.80.010, Purpose. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-49 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  Encourage the creation of public or private common open space. All planned development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "P" followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning district. The project site does not require specific front, side, or rear yard setbacks unless the lot abuts any residential or agricultural zones. The project site must still adhere to general setback, including the General Plan slope line requirement of 1:1, requirement for sufficient space for adequate light, requirement for air and visibility at intersection, and requirement for general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot or parcels. DISCUSSION a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Because the development of the proposed project would occur on a site that is currently developed, would retain the existing roadway patterns, and would not introduce any new major roadways or other physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create new barriers, the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Would the project 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? The proposed project would develop a hotel development with a five-story building, which would be consistent with the types of development envisioned in the General Plan for the North Vallco Special Area and North Vallco Gateway. The proposed project would be approximately 60 feet tall at the top of the roofline, with the exception of the rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures, which would exceed the 60-foot height limit. Accordingly, as described above in the existing conditions discussion, the proposed project would be consistent with types of development specified in the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project would have an approximate front yard setback of 60 feet from the property line (with a 1:1 slope line from the face of the curb), side setbacks of 8 feet on the south side and 11 feet on the north side, and rear setback of 90 feet, which comply to the minimum 1:1 slope line required per the General Plan and side and rear setback of 0 feet allowed by the General Commercial ordinance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City of Cupertino is located outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The city is not located within any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would not conflict with any such plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-50 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT XI. NOISE Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards?     b) Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels?     c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     EXISTING CONDITIONS Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Cupertino have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise-related terminology/descriptors, pertinent existing regulations and Cupertino General Plan Health and Safety Element guidelines, calculations for traffic noise levels, and calculations for construction noise and vibration levels can be found in Appendix C, Noise Data, to this Initial Study. The principal noise sources affecting the project site are traffic noise from I-280 and North Wolfe Road and from stationary noise sources from exterior mechanical and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment noise from the on-site and surrounding buildings. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are Mc Candless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-51 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DISCUSSION a) Would the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards? A significant stationary-source impact would occur if the activities or equipment at the proposed project site produce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors in excess of local standards. With respect to projected-related increases, noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is “audible” impacts, which refer to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in general community noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 decibels (dB) or more since this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The second category, “potentially audible” impacts, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dB. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dB that are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations (i.e., 3 dB or more) are considered potentially significant. Note that a doubling of traffic flows (i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day) would be needed to create a 3 dB increase in traffic-generated noise levels. An increase of 3 dB is often used as a threshold for a substantial increase. Project-Related Stationary Noise The exterior mechanical and HVAC equipment associated with the proposed use are expected to be similar to the equipment at surrounding commercial, multi-family residential, and hotel uses. Typical HVAC units range from approximately 70 to 75 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. Future mechanical equipment associated with the proposed hotel would be located at least 70 feet from the nearest residential receptor (Arioso Apartments to the west). At this distance, the sound pressure level associated with a common central air conditioning unit would be reduced to approximately 48 dBA or less. Future mechanical equipment associated with the proposed hotel would be located at least 45 feet from the nearest nonresidential receptor (commercial uses to the north). At this distance, the sound pressure level associated with a common central air conditioning unit would be reduced to approximately 51 dBA or less. Thus, the noise level associated with future central air conditioning units would be below CMC Section 10.48.040, limiting noise to 50 dBA at nearby residential uses during the nighttime and to 55 dBA at nearby commercial uses. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment would be within enclosures, which would further attenuate the sound emanating from the mechanical equipment. Noise from sources such as people talking, employees using outdoor common areas, or property maintenance may also contribute to the total noise environment within the direct vicinity of the proposed project site. However, these are commonly associated with commercial uses that already exist on the project site. As mentioned above, noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property is exempted from the provisions of the CMC, provided said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Therefore, impacts from stationary noise sources, and occasional property maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-52 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Project-Related Traffic Noise The peak hour traffic volumes along roadways in the project area were provided for the proposed project. To determine the permanent traffic noise level increase, the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes were compared to the Existing traffic volumes. The permanent noise level increase was estimated to be less than 1 dBA on study roadway segments. Since the permanent noise level increase due to project- generated traffic increase at the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors would be less than 1 dBA, the proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent noise level increase at the surrounding noise- sensitive receptors and would have a less-than-significant impact. b) Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Operations Vibration Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not result in less than significant groundborne vibration impacts. No mitigation measures would be required. Construction Vibration Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration- sensitive uses. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4-7 lists reference vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment. It is expected that groundborne vibration from project-related construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion on surrounding residents and residential structures. Project-related demolition and construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts include:  Heavy Construction Equipment. Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. It is not expected that heavy equipment such as large equipment would operate close enough to any residences to cause a vibration impact. TABLE 4-7 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Equipment Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 0.210 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2008. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-53 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  Trucks. Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem. Proposed construction would include grading, which would include equipment such as loaders. Paving activities may also generate high levels of construction vibration and would include equipment such as pavers and rollers. Some of these equipment types may generate substantial levels of vibration at close distances. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table 4-7 above and the construction vibration assessment guidelines published by the FTA, the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project were assessed in terms of potential architectural damage due to vibration. Construction Vibration-Induced Architectural Damage The City does not have specific, vibration-related standards. Thus, project-related construction vibration was evaluated for its potential to cause minor architectural damage74 based on Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) architectural damage criteria. For reference, a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.2 inches/second is used as the limit for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings” (which would apply to the surrounding structures). Small construction equipment generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet away. The term ‘architectural damage’ is defined as minor surface cracks (in plaster, drywall, tile, or stucco) or the sticking of doors and windows. This is below the severity of ‘structural damage’ which entails the compromising of structural soundness or the threatening the basic integrity of the building shell. Building damage is typically not a concern for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing activities would be required during project construction. Since vibration-induced architectural damage could result from an instantaneous vibration event, distances are measured from the receptor façade to the nearest location of potential construction activities. Table 4-8 shows the vibration levels from typical earthmoving construction equipment at the nearest receptors. TABLE 4-8 ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE VIBRATION LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second PPV Limit Arioso Apartments to West (70 feet) Commercial Uses to North (45 feet) Hilton Garden Inn to South (125 feet) Good Samaritan Preschool to Northwest (750 feet) Vibratory Rollera 0.20 0.05 0.09 0.02 <0.01 Large Bulldozer 0.20 0.02 0.04 0.01 <0.01 Loaded Trucks 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.01 <0.01 Jackhammer 0.20 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Small Bulldozer 0.20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Note: Distances are from the nearest portion of potential construction activity to the nearest receptor building within each land use type. a. This analysis shows a “vibratory roller”, which may be more vibration-intensive than the roller used during the paving phase Source: Federal Transit Administration: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. 74 The term architectural damage is typically used to describe effects such as cracked plaster, cracks in drywall seams, sticking doors or windows, loosened baseboard/crown moldings, and the like. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-54 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Construction-generated vibration levels at the nearest receptors would be less than the vibration damage criteria for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings,” per FTA guidelines. Impacts related to architectural damage due to construction vibration would not be significant and mitigation is not necessary. c) Would the project create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As presented in criterion (a) above, project-generated operational noise from traffic, stationary noise sources (i.e., mechanical systems), and operational activities will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, these on-going activities would generate less-than-significant noise impacts and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The total duration for project construction would be approximately 2 years. In terms of the proposed construction activities, demolition, site preparation, rough grading, and site paving activities are expected to generate the highest noise levels since they involve the largest and most powerful equipment. Construction equipment for the proposed project would include equipment such as concrete saws, graders, excavators, scrapers, tractor/loader/backhoes, paving equipment, forklifts, rollers, and a crane. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment. The following discusses construction noise impacts to the off-site sensitive receptors. Construction Vehicles The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along Pruneridge Avenue and North Wolfe Road. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would generally be infrequent and short lived. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vehicles would be less than significant. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes and no mitigation measures would be required. Construction Equipment According to CMC Section 10.48.053, construction is allowed during “daytime hours” (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends), provided that such construction activities do not exceed 80 dBA at the nearest affected property or individual equipment items do not THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-55 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT exceed 87 dBA at 25 feet.75 Construction is prohibited on holidays and within 750 feet of residential areas on weekends, unless a special exception has been granted, and during nighttime hours unless it meets the nighttime noise level standards. Even with these restrictions, project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise. However, noise levels would subside again after construction. Noise generated by onsite construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable. The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the on-going time-variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels in excess of 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dB per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and/or shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power requirements. Noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site) to the property line of the nearest receptors. Although construction may occur across the entire phase area, the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors. Using information provided by the applicant, the expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model. The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 4-9. 75 These 80 and 87 dBA sound levels are taken to be the maximum continuous or repeated peak value measured by the use of a sound level meter and the “A” weighting network and the “SLOW” metering response, per CMC section 10.48.010. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-56 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-9 PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE, ENERGY-AVERAGE (LEQ) SOUND LEVELS, DBA Construction Activity Phase Sound Level at Various Distances from Construction Activities, dBA Leq Residential Uses to West (125 Feet)a Demolition 77 Site Preparation 77 Grading 77 Building Construction 73 Paving 74 a. As measured from the acoustical center of the construction site to the nearest property line Construction activities would increase noise levels at and near the proposed area of improvements. The highest expected construction-related noise levels—up to approximately 77 dBA Leq—would occur at the residential receptors to the west during the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases, which would be less than the 80 dBA Leq limit in the CMC. However, the CMC also requires that no individual piece of equipment generate noise levels above 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. Conservatively assuming that this requirement is in terms of maximum noise level (Lmax), the concrete saws, tractor/loader/backhoes, graders, and scrapers would exceed this limit. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, project-related construction noise impacts to the surrounding residences would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all demolition, grading, and construction plans, as required by the CMC, construction activities shall take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition, the following best management practices shall be observed:  At least 90 days prior to the start of construction activities, all offsite businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned construction activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.  The project applicant and contractors will prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan, including those details listed herein, will be included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set.  At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-57 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.  During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re- design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.  Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting temporary plywood noise barriers between areas where concrete saws will be used and nearby sensitive receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.  During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.  During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will be conducted simultaneously to the degree feasible in order to reduce the time periods of these operations.  Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.  Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.  During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. At these distances from the aircraft facilities, the proposed project would not expose residents or patrons to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise. No impacts related to noise from public airport would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-58 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is not located within the immediate vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. The nearest heliports are Mc Candless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 6.1 miles to the northwest. At these relatively long distances from the aircraft facilities, the proposed project would not expose residents to excessive noise levels from private airstrip or heliport noise. No impacts related to noise from private airstrip would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is anticipated to be complete within the buildout projections of the General Plan (2040). According to ABAG, Cupertino would have 33,350 jobs by 2040.76 The site is currently developed with commercial uses only. Applying a generation rate of 1 job to 450 square feet for commercial land uses to the existing 3,385 square feet restaurant, the existing restaurant generates up to approximately 7 jobs. The existing 10,044 square feet commercial building on the project site is currently vacant and, therefore, does not have any existing jobs. 76 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area 2040, Appendix A: Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdf/JHCS/May_2012_Jobs_Housing_Connection_Strategy_Appendices_Low_Re s.pdf, accessed May 30, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-59 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DISCUSSION a) Would the project induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project would construct a 185-room hotel and would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan. Persons staying temporarily in a place, such as the proposed hotel, are not considered permanent residents. Thus, the proposed project would not directly increase permanent population through guests at the hotel. In addition, the proposed project is not a regionally significant employer and it is anticipated that future employees of the proposed project would come from Cupertino and the surrounding Bay Area communities. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the operation of the project is estimated to generate up to 93 employees on the project site. As described under Existing Conditions above, the existing land uses on the site have the potential to generate up to 7 employees, resulting in about 86 net new employees on the site. According to the ABAG, Cupertino is projected to have 30,110 jobs by 2020 about the time project would be completed (i.e., 2021). The estimated 86 net new jobs generated by project operation would be well within forecast employment increases in Cupertino. The proposed project’s potential impact on growth from new employment would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project does not include the construction of infrastructure or roads which would indirectly induce additional population growth. Therefore, a less than significant impact would result in this respect. No mitigation measures would be required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project site does not contain any residential units and would not directly displace housing. Additionally, the project is not a regional employer, and would not cause additional housing to be constructed elsewhere. It is anticipated that future employees of the proposed project would come from Cupertino and the surrounding Bay Area communities. Therefore, the project would have no impact associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of housing. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project site does not contain any residential units and would not directly displace people. Therefore, the project would have no impact associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-60 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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?     Police protection?     Schools?     Libraries?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The public service providers for the project site are as follows:  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection, emergency, medical, and hazardous material services.  The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West Valley Patrol Division for police protection services.  Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast in the City of Santa Clara.  The Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) governs and administers seven community libraries, one branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24-7 online library for all library users. The closest library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in Cupertino. A recent discussion of the existing conditions for each of these service providers is provided in Chapter 4.12 of the General Plan EIR. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-61 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DISCUSSION a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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, police protection, schools, and libraries? The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction, renovation or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in population. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities. As discussed above in Section XII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in a 185-room hotel and no new permanent residents. The proposed project is within the 1,339-hotel-room maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. Because impacts to public service providers were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR, impacts to public services providers as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the property tax generated from the proposed hotel would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain some City services. Likewise and pursuant to Senate Bill 50,77 the project applicant would be required the school impact fees required for commercial development that would deem any impacts to the Cupertino Union School District less than significant. XIV. PARKS AND RECREATION Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) 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?     77 Senate Bill 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-62 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact b) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts?     EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s 14 parks and seven community and recreational facilities. The City of Cupertino has an adopted parkland dedication standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. There is a total of approximately 156 acres of parkland in Cupertino, or approximately 2.7 acres per 1,000 residents, based on an existing population of 58,302. The City parks nearest to the project site are Portal Park, located approximately one mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park, located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park, located approximately one-half mile to the east of the site. Regional park facilities operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Santa Clara County Parks could be used by residents of the project site. The closest Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District parks to Cupertino are the Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonia, which are located just southwest and west of the city boundaries, respectively. Santa Clara County Park facilities that serve Cupertino include Rancho San Antonio County Park, south of I-280 and west of Foothill Boulevard, and the Stevens Creek County Park. DISCUSSION 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? The proposed project would increase the number of persons and level of activity of the project site; however, no families with children or other permanent residents that are assumed to frequently use the existing neighborhood and regional parks would be introduced as a result of the proposed hotel. Accordingly, the project is not expected to increase the use of any existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. As described above in Section XII, Population and Housing, the estimated 93 total employees (86 net new employees) would likely be residents of Cupertino or the surrounding Bay Area and would not relocate from other locations thus generating new population to the city. The proposed project would construct a 185-room hotel, which is within the 1,339-hotel-room maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. Because impacts to parks were determined to be less than THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-63 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR, impacts to parks and recreational services as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the Transient Occupancy Tax generated from the proposed hotel would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain the City’s recreational facilities. b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? As discussed in criterion (a) above, unlike permanent residents in Cupertino, future patrons of the hotel are not expected to use park and recreational facilities, therefore the proposed project would not result in substantial deterioration or trigger the construction of new built facilities over and beyond foreseen in the long-range planning completed for the regional park facilities of the project site. The Transient Occupancy Tax generated from the proposed hotel would also support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain the City’s recreational facilities. Because impacts to parks were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR, impacts to parks and recreational services as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?     d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-64 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     METHODOLOGY The following is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project. The TIA is included in Appendix D, Transportation Impact Analysis, of this Initial Study. The cumulative impacts, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR; thus, the project’s traffic impact analysis evaluates the near-term impacts of the project under Existing and Background conditions. The TIA was prepared following the guidelines of the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) TIA Guidelines (last updated in October 2014) are guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects and identifying whether improvements are needed to roadways, bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit services for CMP roadways The TIA guidelines have been adopted by local agencies within Santa Clara County, and are applied to analyze the regional transportation system. For projects that would generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips, a CMP analysis is not required. Although the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 net peak hour trips, a CMP analysis was prepared because the calculated number of net new peak hour trips nearly meets the 100-trip threshold.78 Thresholds of Significance Thresholds of significance are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections is based on the level of service standards of the city in which the intersection is located: Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Project impacts also were analyzed according to the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology for the CMP study intersections and freeway segments. Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts A project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale or Santa Clara if for either AM or PM peak hour: 78 The proposed project is anticipated to generate 96 AM (morning) and 89 PM (evening) trips. See Table 4-16 under impact discussion TRANS-1. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-65 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1. The level of service at the intersection under background conditions drops below the applicable level of service standard when project traffic is added, or 2. An intersection that operates below the applicable level of service standard under background conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) increases by 1 percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added. An exception to these significance thresholds applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the significance threshold is an increase in the critical V/C value by 1 percent (0.01) or more. CMP Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as described above, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service is LOS E or better. Thus, a CMP intersection that operates at LOS F would fail to meet the CMP level of service standard. A significant impact according to the standards used by the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and CMP standards is mitigated to a less-than-significant level when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to its level of service standard or to an average delay that eliminates the project impact. Freeway Segment Impact Criteria The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. A project is said to create a significant impact on traffic conditions on a freeway segment if for either AM or PM peak hour: 1. The level of service on the freeway segment degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project trips, or 2. The level of service on the freeway segment is already operating at an unacceptable LOS F and the number of project trips added to the segment constitutes at least 1 percent (0.01) of capacity of the segment. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore freeway conditions to existing conditions or better. Intersection Level of Service Signalized Study Intersections The cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara evaluate level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-66 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT time for all vehicles at the intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service at signalized intersections is shown in Table 4-10. TABLE 4-10 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON CONTROL DELAY LOS Description Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most Vehicles are during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or less B+ B- B- Operations characterized by good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 12.0 12.1 to 18.0 18.1 to 20.0 C+ C+ C- Higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.1 to 23.0 23.1 to 32.0 32.1 to 35.0 D+ D+ D- The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 39.0 39.1 to 51.0 51.1 to 55.0 E+ E+ E- This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to- capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. 55.1 to 60.0 60.1 to 75.0 75.1 to 80.0 F This level of delay is considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contribution causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) page 10 to 16. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), Table 2. See Table 1 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better, except on roadways considered “regionally significant” within Sunnyvale and on CMP facilities within Santa Clara, which have a standard of LOS E. Of the four study intersections located in the City of Sunnyvale, one is designated a CMP intersection. The Santa Clara study intersection is also a CMP intersection. CMP Intersections The designated level of service methodology for the CMP also is the 2000 HCM operations method for signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections within Sunnyvale and Santa Clara is LOS E or better. Within the City of Cupertino, the level of service standard for all signalized intersections, including CMP intersections, is LOS D or better. Freeway Segment Level of Service As prescribed in the CMP technical guidelines, the level of service for freeway segments is estimated based on vehicle density where density refers to the number of vehicles per mile per lane (vpmpl) THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-67 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT The CMP specifies that a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) be used for mixed-flow lane segments that are three lanes or wider in one direction, and a capacity of 2,200 vphpl for mixed-flow lane segments that are two lanes wide in one direction. A capacity of 1,800 vphpl was used for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. The correlation between vehicle density and level of service on freeway segments is shown in Table 4-11. TABLE 4-11 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON DENSITY LOS Description Density (Vehicles Per Mile Per Lane) A Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. 11.0 or less B Speeds at the free-flow speed are generally maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. 11.1 to 18.0 C Speeds at or near the free-flow speed of the freeway prevail. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and land changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. 18.1 to 26.0 D Speeds begin to decline slightly with increased flows at this level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. 26.1 to 46.0 E At this level, the freeway operates at or near capacity. Operations in this level are volatile, because there are virtually no useable gaps in the traffic stream, leaving little r0om to maneuver within the traffic stream. 46.1 to 58.0 F Vehicular flow breakdowns occur. Large queues form behind breakdown points. greater than 58.0 Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Updated March 2009 (Based on the Highways Capacity Manual (2000), Washington D.C.) See Table 2 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Intersection Queuing The analysis of intersection level of service was supplemented with an analysis of traffic operations for intersections where the project would add a significant number of left turns. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high demand left-turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of the number of vehicles for a vehicle turning movement to determine the average number of vehicles in the queue per lane. The basis of the queuing analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the morning (AM) or evening (PM) peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length longer THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-68 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length.” Vehicles Miles Traveled As discussed in the Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the General Plan EIR, Senate Bill (SB) 743 will eventually alter how transportation and traffic impacts are analyzed under State CEQA Guidelines; however, this process is still underway.79 SB 743 requires the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service as the metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Particularly within areas served by transit, the alternative criteria must promote the reduction of GHG emissions, development of multimodal transportation networks, and diversity of land uses. Measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles travelled (VMT), VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Once alternative criteria are incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. SB 743 also amended State congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of level of service standards in certain infill areas. Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to address SB 743 are scheduled to apply statewide as soon as January 1, 2020. VMT is a useful metric in understanding the overall effects of a project on the transportation system. VMT is the sum of all of the vehicle trips generated by a project multiplied by the lengths of their trips to and from the site on an average weekday. A vehicle driven one mile is one VMT. Therefore, a project with a higher VMT would have a greater environmental effect than a project with a low VMT. The trip lengths vary by the land use type and the trip purpose. For example, a trip from a residence to a job may be longer than the trip from a residence to a neighborhood school. The VMT values stated below represent the full length of a given trip, and are not truncated at city, county, or region boundaries. Many factors affect travel behavior and trip lengths such as density of land use, diversity of land uses, design of the transportation network, distance to high-quality transit, and demographics. Low-density development separated from other land uses and located in areas with poor access to transit generates more automobile travel and higher VMT compared to development located in urban areas with more access to transit. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the VMT per capita is projected to increase from 10.5 to 10.9 under General Plan buildout conditions. The proposed project would construct a 185-room hotel, which is consistent with the land use evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General 79State of California Office of Planning and Research, Transportation Impacts (SB 743), http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb- 743/, accessed August 24, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-69 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Plan EIR. Accordingly, implementation of the project would be consistent with and would have no effect on the VMT estimates presented in the General Plan EIR. EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The existing conditions without the proposed project for intersections, freeway segments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as transit services are discussed below. Existing without Project Intersection Operations The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all but one of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road currently operates at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, which is considered acceptable when measured against the CMP standard (LOS E). Therefore, all the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. The results of the level of service analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 4-12. TABLE 4-12 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID # Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Threshold Peak Hourb Delay LOS 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 53.6 43.0 D- D 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 51.9 45.6 D- D 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 10.6 15.9 B+ B 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 12.5 15.2 B B 5 De Anza Boulevard / Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 35.7 36.4 D+ D+ 6 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 38.5 43.2 D+ D 7 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara (CMP) E AM PM 69.7 74.8 E E 8 Wolfe Road / Apple Park Way Cupertino D AM PM 14.1 21.3 B C+ 9 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 21.2 18.3 C+ B- 10 Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 8.3 7.0 A A 11 Wolfe Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 13.9 7.5 B A 12 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 22.1 20.1 C+ C+ 13 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 39.9 39.9 D D Notes All of the study intersections are signalized. a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. Source: See Table 4 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-70 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Existing without Project Freeway Operations Traffic volumes for the study freeway segments were obtained from the 2016 CMP Annual Monitoring Report, which contains the most recent data collected for freeway segments located in Santa Clara County. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4-13. The results show that the following directional freeway segments currently operate at an unacceptable LOS F:  I-280, eastbound between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard – AM Peak Hour  I-280, eastbound between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road – AM Peak Hour  I-280, eastbound between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway – AM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue – AM peak hour TABLE 4-13 EXISTING FREEWAY (I-280) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS Freeway Segment Peak Hour Number of Lanes Density LOS Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Eastbound SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 3 1 22 106.0 12.1 83.0 C F B F De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road AM PM 3 1 22.0 61.0 22.1 42.0 C F C D Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 3 1 21.0 77.0 12.1 52 C F B E Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue AM PM 3 1 37 26 14 15 D C B B Westbound Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 3 1 78.0 25.0 70 12 F C F B Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road AM PM 3 1 72.0 26.0 70 14 F C F B Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 3 1 75.0 26.0 48 10 F C E A De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 AM PM 3 1 76.1 26.0 42.6 10.0 F C E A Notes: Bold font indicates substandard level of service. Source: See Table 5 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-71 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Existing without Project Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along both sides of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site; however, sidewalks are missing on Pruneridge Avenue along the project frontage. Marked crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided on most approaches of the signalized study intersections except the intersections along Wolfe Road at Apple Park Way, Pruneridge Avenue, and the I-280 northbound and southbound ramps. Marked crosswalks are provided along the following approaches:  North and east crossings at Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way  North, east, and west crossings at Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue  West crossing at Wolfe Road and I-280 northbound ramps  East crossing at Wolfe Road and I-280 southbound ramps Although some sidewalk and crosswalk connections are missing, the overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. The 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Pedestrian Plan) contains goals, policies, and specific recommendations to increase the walkability of Cupertino, including the Pedestrian Guidelines. The 2018 Pedestrian Plan is a companion document to the City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (discussed below). It includes specific recommendations to improve pedestrian conditions. Consistent with the 2018 Pedestrian Plan and any other applicable recommendations, the project applicant would be required to contribute to implementing any recommended pedestrian improvements in the project area. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities in the study area are comprised of Class II bicycle lanes, and Class III bicycle routes. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally 5 feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. Bike lanes in the area include the following:  North-south bicycle connections in the study area include Class II bike lanes along Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Fremont Avenue in Sunnyvale, where it transitions into a Class III bike route. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are existing streets that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Bike routes are typically designated THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-72 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT only with signage or with painted shared lane markings (Sharrows) on a road that indicate to motorists that bicyclists may use the full travel lane.  East-west bicycle connections in the study area consist of Class II bike lanes along Homestead Road between Lafayette Street and Foothill Expressway, Stevens Creek Boulevard between Lawrence Expressway and California Oak Way, and along Vallco Parkway between Tantau Avenue and Wolfe Road.  Class III bike routes are also present in the vicinity of the project site, along Marion Way between Oriole Avenue and Wolfe Road. In 2016, the City of Cupertino adopted its Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (Bike Plan), which is a citywide plan to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical and healthy alternative to the use of the family car. The Bike Plan illustrates Cupertino’s current bicycle network, identifies gaps in the network, and proposes improvement projects to address the identified gaps.80 The 2016 Bike Plan includes standards for engineering, encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure in the City to enable people to bike to work and school, to use a bicycle to run errands, and to enjoy the health and environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age. Consistent with the 2016 Bike Plan and any other applicable recommendations the project applicant would be required to contribute to implementing the recommended bike improvements in the project area. The VTA adopted the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP guides the development of major bicycle facilities in the County by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other bicycle projects of countywide or intercity significance. Several of the Cross County Bicycle Corridors travel through the study area, including routes along Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, and Tantau Avenue. Public Transportation Facilities Transit Service Nearby transit services are described below and Table 4-14 summarizes the destinations, closest stop to the project site, hours/days of operation, and service frequencies for transit services within walking distance. 80 City of Cupertino, 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Figure 3-7: Bikeway projects. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-73 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-14 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Routes From To Distance to Nearest Stopa Weekdays Saturdays Operating Hoursb Peak Headwayc Operating Hoursb Peak Headwayc VTA BUS SERVICE Local Bus Routes 26 Sunnyvale / Lockheed Martin Transit Center Eastridge Transit Center 0.10 5:20 am to 11:20 pm 30 7:17 am to 10:40 pm 30 23d De Anza College Alum Rock Transit Center 0.80 5:20 am to 1:05 am (next day) 15 to 20 6:10 am to 12:11 am (next day) 15 to 20 81 Moffett Field/Ames Center San Jose State University 0.10 6:15 am to 9:05 pm 25 to 35 9:30 am to 4:30 pm 60 Express Bus Routes 101 d Camden & Highway 85 Palo Alto 0.55 6:20 am to 8:20 am 4:10 pm to 6:45 pm 2 NB Runs (AM) 2 SB Runs (PM) No Service 182 d Palo Alto IBM/Bailey Avenue 0.60 7:30 am to 8:30 am 5:05 pm to 6:10 pm 1 SB Run (AM) 1 NB Run (PM) No Service Notes: AM = morning commuter period; PM = evening commute period; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority a. Approximate distance in miles from nearest stop to project site. b. Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the project site. c. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route. d. These routes provide access to the Vallco Shopping Center Park and Ride Lot. Source: See Table 3 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Commuter Rail Service Caltrain is a commuter rail service that runs from downtown San Francisco (4th and King Streets) to downtown San Jose (Diridon Station), with a limited number of commute period trains running farther south to Gilroy. During commute periods, Caltrain offers express service (“Baby Bullet”) between downtown San Jose and San Francisco. Currently, Baby Bullet service is provided both in the northbound and southbound directions during the morning and evening commute periods at the Mountain View Caltrain station. Baby Bullet trains serve the Sunnyvale Caltrain station in the northbound direction during the morning peak and in the southbound direction during the evening peak hours. The nearest station to the project site is the Lawrence Station, which is located on Lawrence Expressway approximately three miles northwest of the project site. During the weekdays, service in the northbound direction begins at 4:40 a.m. and ends at 10:40 p.m. In the southbound direction, service at this station begins at 6:14 a.m. and ends at 1:20 a.m. During the weekends, northbound service begins at 7:10 a.m. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-74 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT and ends at 10:40 p.m. Southbound service begins at 9:40 a.m. and ends at 1:26 a.m. For passengers arriving by bicycle, there are 18 bike racks and 24 bicycle lockers. Vehicle parking at this location includes 122 parking spaces. BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS This section describes the background traffic conditions without the proposed project. The background traffic conditions are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions consist of volumes from existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by other approved projects in the vicinity of the site. The transportation network under background conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections. Background peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet completed or occupied projects in the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. Trip generation estimates for the approved projects were based on their respective traffic studies, if available, and on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates. Background without Project Intersection Operations As shown in Table 4-15, the results of the level of service analysis show that most of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under background conditions. The CMP intersections of Wolfe Road/El Camino Real (#1) and Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road (#7) both would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour of traffic, which is considered acceptable when measured against the CMP standard. However, the Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road (#7) intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour due to additional traffic from approved developments in the study area. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C of the TIA, which is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. TABLE 4-15 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID # Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Threshold Peak Hourb Existing Conditions Background Conditions Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 53.6 43.0 D- D 55.3 44.1 E+ D 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 51.9 45.6 D- D 53.2 47.5 D- D 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 10.6 15.9 B+ B 10.5 15.9 B+ B 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 12.5 15.2 B B 12.5 15.3 B B 5 De Anza Boulevard / Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 35.7 36.4 D+ D+ 36.2 37.3 D+ D+ THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-75 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-15 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID # Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Threshold Peak Hourb Existing Conditions Background Conditions Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 38.5 43.2 D+ D 40.7 46.2 D D 7 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara (CMP) E AM PM 69.7 74.8 E E 72.3 82.1 E F 8 Wolfe Road / Apple Park Way Cupertino D AM PM 14.1 21.3 B C+ 19.4 27.8 B- C 9 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 21.2 18.3 C+ B- 26.6 22.4 C C+ 10 Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 8.3 7.0 A A 9.9 6.9 A A 11 Wolfe Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 13.9 7.5 B A 18.4 8.3 B- A 12 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 22.1 20.1 C+ C+ 24.4 21.7 C C+ 13 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 39.9 39.9 D D 40.8 40.7 D D Note: All of the study intersections are signalized. a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. Source: See Table 6 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. DISCUSSION a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? After applying the ITE trip rates for hotels, appropriate trip reductions for being within walking distance of services at Cupertino Village and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program with financial and dedicated shuttle provisions as well as trip credits for the existing uses (Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant only), the proposed hotel project would generate 1,636 net new daily vehicle trips, with 96 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project is estimated to generate 272 net new weekday morning (AM) peak hour vehicle trips (48 inbound and 224 outbound) and 421 net new weekday evening (PM) peak hour vehicle trips (268 inbound and 153 outbound). Using the inbound/outbound splits contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the project would produce 56 new inbound and 40 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 36 new inbound and 53 new outbound trips during the PM peak hour. A summary of the project’s trip generation is shown in Table 4-16 below. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-76 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-16 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses Boutique Hotel with 185 roomsa 12.23 2,263 0.62 67 48 115 0.73 66 69 135 Hotel and Retail Internal Mixed-Use Reduction (10%)b -226 -6 -5 -11 -7 -7 -14 TDM Reduction for Financial Incentives (5%)c -113 -3 -2 -5 -3 -3 -6 TDM Reduction for Shuttle Program (5%)c -68 -2 -1 -3 -2 -2 -4 Subtotal 1,856 56 40 96 54 57 111 Existing Uses Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant (3,385 square feet)c -220 0 0 0 18 4 22 Net Project Trips 1,636 56 40 96 36 53 89 Note: TDM = Transportation Demand Management a. Trip generation based on average trip rates for Hotel (land use 310. Occupied Rooms) published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. b. Trip reduction based on Standard Auto Trip Reduction Rates published in VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2014. c. Trip credits base on PM peak hour count conducted on March 27, 2018. Daily trip credit calculated by multiplying PM peak hour trips by a factor of 10. Source: See Table 7 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The following analysis was performed to evaluate traffic conditions during the weekday morning (AM) and weekday evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios:  Existing plus Project Conditions. In addition to the Existing conditions without the project discussed previously, the Existing plus Project conditions were evaluated by adding traffic from the proposed project.  Background plus Project Conditions. In addition to the Background conditions without the project discussed previously, the Background plus Project conditions were evaluated by adding traffic from the other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection levels of service were calculated with the project traffic added to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Existing plus Project conditions are presented in Table 4-17. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-77 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 4-17 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc Existing without Project Existing plus Project Delay LOS Delay LOS Increment in Critical Delay 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 53.6 43.0 D- D 53.7 43.1 D- D 0.0 0.2 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 51.9 45.6 D- D 52.1 45.7 D- D 0.3 0.4 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 10.6 15.9 B+ B 10.6 15.9 B+ B 0.0 0.0 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 12.5 15.2 B B 12.5 15.2 B B 0.0 0.0 5 De Anza Boulevard / Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 35.7 36.4 D+ D+ 35.7 36.5 D+ D+ 0.0 0.1 6 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 38.5 43.2 D+ D 38.6 43.3 D+ D 0.0 0.3 7 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara (CMP) E AM PM 69.7 74.8 E E 69.7 74.9 E E 0.2 0.1 8 Wolfe Road / Apple Park Way Cupertino D AM PM 14.1 21.3 B C+ 14.0 21.3 B C+ 0.0 0.0 9 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 21.2 18.3 C+ B- 22.8 20.6 C+ B- 1.4 2.7 10 Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 8.3 7.0 A A 8.3 6.9 A A 0.1 -0.1 11 Wolfe Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 13.9 7.5 B A 14.0 7.5 B A 0.1 0.0 12 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 22.1 20.1 C+ C+ 22.0 20.1 C+ C+ 0.0 0.0 13 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 39.9 39.9 D D 40.0 40.0 D D 0.2 0.1 a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. b. LOS Threshold is the lowest acceptable LOS (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service). c. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. Source: See Table 8 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. As shown on Table 4-17 above, the level of service analysis shows that all the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better for City-controlled intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. However, because it would take approximately 2 years to complete the construction of the project and begin operating the hotel, the proposed project would not have any effect on the existing 2018 conditions. For this reason, no impact conclusions are drawn from the existing 2018 conditions scenario. The criteria that define a significant project impact at a signalized intersection in the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara are based on comparing Background plus Project conditions to Background without Project Conditions that would be in effect at the time the proposed project would operating, which is discussed below. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-78 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Background plus Project Conditions The level of service analysis from the Background plus Project conditions is summarized in Table 4-18. TABLE 4-18 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ID # Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc Background without Project Conditions Background plus Project Conditions Delay LOS Delayd LOS Increment in Critical Delay Increment in Critical V/C 1 Wolfe Road / El Camino Real Sunnyvale (CMP) E AM PM 55.3 44.1 E+ D 55.4 44.2 E+ D 0.0 0.2 0.001 0.003 2 Wolfe Road / Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 53.2 47.5 D- D 53.3 47.6 D- D 0.4 0.4 0.007 0.006 3 Wolfe Road / Marion Way Sunnyvale D AM PM 10.5 15.9 B+ B 10.4 15.9 B+ B 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.004 4 Wolfe Road / Inverness Avenue Sunnyvale D AM PM 12.5 15.3 B B 12.5 15.3 B B 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.003 5 De Anza Boulevard / Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 36.2 37.3 D+ D+ 36.3 37.3 D+ D+ 0.0 0.1 0.001 0.001 6 Wolfe Road / Homestead Road Cupertino D AM PM 40.7 46.2 D D 40.8 46.4 D D 0.3 0.4 0.007 0.005 7 Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road Santa Clara (CMP) E AM PM 72.3 82.1 E F 72.4 82.3 E F 0.2 0.5 0.002 0.002 8 Wolfe Road / Apple Park Way Cupertino D AM PM 19.4 27.8 B- C 19.4 27.8 B- C 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.003 9 Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D AM PM 26.6 22.4 C C+ 27.9 24.5 C C 1.2 2.7 0.014 0.026 10 Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 9.9 6.9 A A 10.1 6.9 B+ A 0.3 0.0 0.009 0.007 11 Wolfe Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 18.4 8.3 B- A 18.8 8.3 B- A 0.5 0.0 0.006 0.002 12 Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway Cupertino D AM PM 24.4 21.7 C C+ 24.4 21.7 C C+ 0.0 0.0 0.002 0.002 13 Wolfe Road / Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) D AM PM 40.8 40.7 D D 40.9 40.7 D D 0.2 0.1 0.005 0.002 Note: All of the study intersections are signalized. a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. b. LOS Threshold is the lowest acceptable LOS (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service). c. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour. d. Bold indicates a substandard level of service; however, it does not indicate a significant impact because it does not increase delay by 4 seconds or 1 percent compared to existing conditions. Source: See Table 9 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The results presented in Table 4-18 show that all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better for City-controlled intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under background plus project conditions. The CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road (#7) would operate at THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-79 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under Background plus Project conditions. However, the project would not cause the intersection’s critical-movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds and the V/C to increase by 1 percent (0.01) or more compared to Background without Project conditions. Therefore, the project’s impact at all intersections is considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to pay the required City of Cupertino Traffic Impact fees, which supports the ongoing improvements to the citywide roadway infrastructure.81 Construction Traffic Demolition and construction would take place over a 24-month period, which is anticipated to begin in August 2019 and be completed 24 months later in 2021, subject to regulatory approval. During this period, the project would generate changes to the existing transportation conditions. New traffic would be generated by construction employees and construction activities, including haul trucks. Construction traffic is temporary and would generate fewer trips than the projected trips during project operation. As discussed above, the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. Therefore, traffic impacts during project construction would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The VTA Congestion Management Program TIA Guidelines (last updated in October 2014) present guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects and identifying whether improvements are needed to adjacent roadways, bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit services affected by the project. The TIA guidelines have been adopted by local agencies within Santa Clara County, and are applied to analyze the regional transportation system. The CMP requires that its facilities operate at LOS E or better. The following evaluates intersections and freeway segments per CMP criteria. CMP Intersection Analysis The impact discussion in criterion (a) above includes an evaluation of study intersections including intersections in the CMP network (#s 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 13). Tables 4-17 and 4-18 above present the results of the intersection level of service under Existing and Background conditions without and with the project. The analysis in criterion (a) concluded that the proposed project would result in less-than- significant impacts per CMP criteria. CMP Freeway Segments Analysis Traffic volumes on the study freeway segments with the project were estimated by adding project trips to the existing volumes obtained from the 2016 CMP Annual Monitoring Report. As shown on Table 4-19, 81 City of Cupertino, City-Wide Traffic Impact Fee, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public- works/permitting-development-services/proposed-city-wide-traffic-impact-fee, accessed on September 20, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-80 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT the results of the freeway segment analysis show that the project would not cause significant increases in traffic volumes (1 percent [0.01] or more of freeway capacity) on any of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS F, and none of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS E or better would worsen to LOS F as a result of the project. Therefore, based on CMP freeway impact criteria, impacts would be less than significant. TABLE 4-19 FREEWAY (I-280) SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Freeway Segment Peak Hour Existing plus Project Total Volume Project Trips Impact? Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Capacity (vph) LOS Capacity (vph) LOS Volume % Capacity Volume % Capacity Eastbound SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 6,900 6,900 C F 1,800 1,800 B F 8 5 6 4 0.1 0.1 2 1 0.1 0.1 No No De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road AM PM 6,900 6,900 C F 1,800 1,800 C D 8 5 6 4 0.1 0.1 2 1 0.1 0.1 No No Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 6,900 6,900 C F 11,800 1,800 B E 10 13 8 10 0.1 0.2 2 3 0.1 0.2 No No Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue AM PM 6,900 6,900 D C 1,800 1,800 B B 10 13 8 10 0.1 0.2 2 3 0.1 0.2 No No Westbound Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway AM PM 6,900 6,900 F C 1,800 1,800 F B 14 9 11 7 0.2 0.1 3 2 0.2 0.1 No No Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road AM PM 6,900 6900 F C 1,800 1,800 F B 14 9 11 7 0.1 0.1 3 2 0.1 0.1 No No Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard AM PM 6,900 6,900 F C 1,800 1,800 E A 6 8 5 6 0.1 0.1 1 2 0.1 0.1 No No De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 AM PM 6,900 6,900 F C 1,800 1,800 E A 6 8 5 6 0.1 0.1 1 2 0.1 0.1 No No Notes Bold font indicates substandard level of service. Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 2016. See Table 10 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project is a five-story hotel building that would be 60 feet tall at the highest point and is not located in an airport influence area or within an airport land use plan. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 5.1 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the northwest. Given the distance from the nearest public use airport, the project would not be THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-81 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT subject to any airport safety hazards. The project would also not have an adverse effect on aviation safety or flight patterns. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Project Access Points As shown on Figure 3-16 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study, vehicular and bicycle access to the project site would be from; 1) the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) intersection and 2) the North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection. These locations are evaluated in criterion (a) and the level-of-service impacts were determined to be less than significant. The driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) intersection currently allows inbound and outbound right turns only from North Wolfe Road. The project proposes to modify this intersection in one of two options, which are discussed below. Wolfe Road Access Option #1: Approval of Option #1 would result in no modifications to the turn movements at the North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection and modifications to the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) would prohibit outbound trips but continue to allow inbound trips limited to right turns only from North Wolfe Road. This driveway is currently limited to inbound right turns only from North Wolfe Road because the driveway does not squarely line up with the Apple Park Way leg of the intersection. This misalignment is shown on Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study. As shown on Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would install a strip of landscaping between this access point and the existing Cupertino Village to the north. The landscaping improvements and narrowing of this access point would improve pedestrian and bicycle movement at this intersection, which aligns with City’s General Plan visions to improve walkability by eliminating an additional and potentially unsafe driveway opening (General Plan Policy M-3.5). The incorporation of this modification to prohibit outbound trips, would shift existing traffic from the Cupertino Village currently utilizing this right-turn exit only driveway (two outbound trips during the AM, and 20 outbound trips during the PM) to the other existing right-turn only shopping center driveway located just under 300 feet to the north. Because these volumes are considered to be a small amount, the shift would not have a noticeable effect on the driveway operations to the north. The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection are 34 inbound trips and 40 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 32 inbound trips and 57 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the traffic volumes near the project site and observations of existing traffic operations along North Wolfe Road, vehicle queues are not expected to exceed a few (two to three) vehicles in length during the peak hours. Given that this driveway positioned as the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection, inbound and outbound left-turning project trips are made under a protected left-turn signal. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-82 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) intersection are 22 inbound trips during both the AM and PM peak hours and no outbound trips would be permitted. Based on the traffic volumes near the project site and the proposed turn-restrictions at this entrance, vehicle queuing issues would not occur. Accordingly, no hazards are anticipated at these entrance points under Option #1. Impacts related to hazardous intersection conditions would be less than significant. Wolfe Road Access Option #2: Approval of Option #2, like Option #1, would result in no modifications to the turn movements to the North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection. However, Option #2 would result in the closure of the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) intersection. Accordingly, the existing right-turn entry/exit restrictions at this intersection would be removed. The incorporation of this modification would shift existing traffic to/from the Cupertino Village currently utilizing this right-turn entrance/exit only driveway (two inbound and two outbound trips during the AM, and 15 inbound and 20 outbound trips during the PM) to the other existing right-turn only shopping center driveway located just under 300 feet to the north. Because these volumes are considered to be a small amount, the shift would not have a noticeable effect on the driveway operations to the north. Project-generated traffic entering the project site from the north (22 AM and PM inbound trips) would be shifted south to the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection. With implementation of this site access option, the level of service at the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue (#9) intersection would remain unchanged at LOS C or better during both peak hours under all traffic scenarios. Thus, with Option #2, project site access would remain adequate. Accordingly, no hazards would occur at these entrance points under this option and impacts would be less than significant. Like Option #1, landscaping would be installed but would be expanded from the strip shown on Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3 to the entire width of the closed intersection and the sidewalk and bike lanes would be continued through the closed intersection gap. While both options would improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in the project area aligns with City’s General Plan visions to improve walkability by eliminating a driveway opening (General Plan Policy M-3.5). In summary, both options would result in less than significant impacts, but Option #2, which would completely close the driveway to the Cupertino Village at the at the North Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way (#8) intersection would eliminate the potential for illegal left turns into the site from northbound North Wolfe Road and illegal attempts to align with the lane allowing U-turns to go in the northbound direction on North Wolfe Road at the Apple Park Way intersection that have been observed and reported to City staff. Additionally, Option #2 would more fully align with General Plan Policy M-3.5 improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in the project area. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-83 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Sight Distance There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage to obscure sight distance at the project driveways. All proposed landscaping would be routinely maintained at the project access points to be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on North Wolfe Road. In addition, the proposed hotel signage would be located to maintain the existing Caltrans- acceptable sight distance of 300 feet for North Wolfe Road to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Note this site distance is based on a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. However, Wolfe Road is posted at 35 miles per hour; therefore, this is a conservative distance. Safety impacts associated with sight distance would be less than significant. Truck Circulation The designated loading area for delivery trucks is proposed to be located on the northern edge of the project site, adjacent to Cupertino Village. A truck loading dock would be accessed through the loading area. The preliminary site plan was reviewed for truck access using truck turning-movement templates for a truck types similar in size to small emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and small to medium delivery and moving trucks (e.g., single-unit 30-foot (SU-30) trucks). Based on the preliminary site plan configuration, the off-street loading space would measure 18 feet wide by 38 feet long by 14 feet high and would provide adequate access for SU-30 truck types. While the 14-foot height would not cause a safety concern, the City standard is 15 feet high and the project may need to be revised during the approval process. Due to this loading dock dimension, trucks at this site would be limited to SU-30 or less and signs will be posted at this location identifying these limits. Safety impacts associated with truck circulation would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Access to the proposed project would generally be the same as under existing conditions. As described in criterion (d) above, no hazardous driving conditions due to a design feature would occur and adequate access for emergency vehicles would be provided. Emergency vehicles would continue to access the site in much the same way it is accessed today. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits. All access driveways would be designed in accordance with City of Cupertino standards and would have to be reviewed and approved by SCCFD. Project plans include approved fire and emergency access through all phases of construction and operation. Compliance with the provisions of the CFC and the CBC (described above), would ensure that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-84 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks in the area. Project plans show existing sidewalks of approximately 8 feet in width backed by landscaping along its Wolfe Road frontage. The project would also construct a new 5-foot wide sidewalk along the southern frontage of the site. Although some sidewalk and crosswalk connections are missing along Pruneridge Avenue, the overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest. Note that the project would not eliminate any existing pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies any of the proposed for new pedestrian facilities. There are some existing bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site (see Chapter 2 for details). There are also many planned additional bicycle facilities in the study area, including buffered bike lanes along Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, and De Anza Boulevard, as well as a Class I bikeway along Blaney Avenue and the Cupertino Loop Trail south of I-280. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. However, the project applicant would still be required to pay the required City of Cupertino Traffic Impact fees, which supports the ongoing improvements to the citywide bicycle infrastructure. The project site is well-served by VTA bus routes. The closest bus stops are located a two-minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site, providing access to local bus routes 26 and 81. Additional bus routes are available at the Vallco Shopping Center Park & Ride Lot, located about a mile south of the project site, and Bus Route 26 provides direct access to the Vallco Shopping Center. The VTA has not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. The new transit trips generated by the project are not expected to create demand in excess of the transit service that is currently provided. In summary, there would be adequate availability of alternative modes of travel including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The proposed project would not displace modify or interfere with any transit stop, sidewalk, or bicycle lanes. In addition, the project would not generate a demand for transit that would exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-85 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposed project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     d) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing and identified entitlements and resources?     e) Result in a determination by the 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?     f) Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the buildout of the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     h) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands requiring new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities?     EXISTING CONDITIONS Chapter 4.14 includes a recent discussion of the existing conditions for each of the utility providers listed below:  The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County. The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District (LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. Water supply for the LAS District is a combination of groundwater from wells in the LASD and treated water purchased from SCVWD.  Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer services for the project site. Wastewater would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-86 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the residents of the project. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023, which, according to CalRecycle, had a remaining capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards and daily disposal capacity is 4,000 tons per day as of October 31, 2014.82 However, according to the Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026. 83 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s existing contract with NISL ends in 2023.  Gas and electricity would be supplied to the project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). A water supply assessment (WSA) is required pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) for certain projects such as hotel or motel developments exceeding 500 rooms. Because this development is within the 500-room threshold, a WSA would not be required and was not prepared for this project. DISCUSSION a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The CSD sewer collection system directs wastewater to the SJ/SCWPCP, which is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara. The San Francisco RWQCB established wastewater treatment requirements for the SJ/SCWPCP in an NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038), adopted April 8, 2009 and effective June 1, 2009.84 The NPDES Order sets out a framework for compliance and enforcement applicable to operation of the SJ/SCWPCP and its effluent, as well as those contributing influent to the SJ/SCWPCP. This NPDES Order currently allows dry weather discharges of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271 mgd with full tertiary treatment. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in a violation of the sanitary wastewater treatment requirements established in the NPDES Permit issued by the RWQCB. The SJ/SCWPCP, serving as the Discharger, has an approved pretreatment program, which includes approved local limits as required by prior permits. The SJ/SCWPCP is required to monitor the permitted discharges in order to evaluate compliance with permit conditions. The proposed hotel project does not involve industrial uses likely to substantially increase pollutant loading levels in the sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to exceed 82 CalRecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN-0003/Detail/, accessed May 8, 2018. 83 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996. 84 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2009/april/SJSC_FinalOrder%20-%204-09.pdf, accessed May 8, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-87 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT treatment standards established by the RWQCB. Impacts to sanitary wastewater quality would be less than significant. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would have a significant effect on the environment. As discussed above in criterion (a) above and criterion (e) below, future demands from the proposed project would not exceed the design or permitted capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future water treatment demand was assessed in consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not require any improvements not already considered and the impact of the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP would be less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As discussed under criterion (d) in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, above, the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing storm drain facilities. The project would involve the redevelopment of a previously developed site and a decrease in impervious surface is expected. All new development that, like the proposed project, creates or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface would be subject to Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Provision C.3 guidelines for stormwater control, as described under criterion a. Through C.3 compliance, the proposed project would involve actions to minimize runoff from the project site as described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, above. Consequently, the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or the construction of new facilities, the construction of which could otherwise have significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing and identified entitlements and resources? As shown in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply at project buildout year 2020 would be 13,078 acre feet85 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040 would be 16,984 afy. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies from Cal Water under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. The water supply evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR included new development in the City at a greater number 85 One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-88 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT of hotel rooms than proposed under the project (1,000 rooms compared to 185 rooms); therefore, water supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. The applicable water use generation rate for hotel rooms and banquet areas, such as the proposed project, would be 0.50 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). Therefore, the estimated water demand is 185 hotel rooms x 390 square foot per room x 0.50 gpd/sf for a total of 72,151 gpd or 81 afy.86 The Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR estimated a total of 1,339 hotel rooms (1,000 new rooms plus 339 existing rooms) would generate water demand of 261,100 gpd or 293 afy. Accordingly, the proposed project’s water demand would not exceed the available water supply in 2020 at project buildout or by the General Plan buildout year (2040). Accordingly, impacts to water supply under the proposed project would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in a determination by the 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? The proposed project would have a significant impact if project demand exceeds the wastewater service capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP, or the contractual wastewater limits for the collection systems of the CSD or City of Santa Clara. Based on the May 2007 City of Santa Clara Sewer Capacity Assessment, the estimated wastewater generation rate for hotel uses is 100 gpd per room. Applying this generation rate, the proposed 185-room hotel would generate up to 18,500 gpd or approximately 0.0185 mgd of wastewater. The SJ/SCWPCP’s current total capacity of 450 mgd. Combined, the proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.0185 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated (105 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP’s current total capacity of 450 mgd. The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd, on average, with the SJ/SCWPCP. At the time of the General Plan EIR, the wastewater generation of 5.3 mgd was estimated by the CSD.87 Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.0185 mgd) would not exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the proposed 185-room hotel is within the 1,339-hotel-room limit evaluated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, no new impact would result. The CSD wastewater system flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara sewer system, allows 13.8 mgd during peak wet weather flows. The existing CSD peak wet weather flow into the 86 The SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, prepared for CalWater by Yarne & Associates, Inc., March 1, 2016 for the certified General Plan EIR. 87 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, 4.3 Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B-93. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-89 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Santa Clara system is 10.7 mgd.88Therefore, there is an available capacity of approximately 3.1 mgd during peak wet weather flows for the CSD service area, which includes the project site. A peak wet weather flow multiplier of four times the average dry weather flow was used to establish the available wastewater generation capacity for average wastewater flows for the proposed project.89 Therefore, the available sewer capacity of 3.1 mgd during peak wet weather flow equates to approximately 0.775 mgd of available capacity for average dry weather flow. Incorporating estimated wastewater generation from the proposed project and from other potential projects as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, the total capacity needed to serve these projects is approximately 0.749 mgd.90 Because the needed capacity (0.749 mgd) is less than the total available average dry weather capacity (0.775 mgd), there is adequate sewer capacity in the contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara to serve the project and the General Plan buildout. According to the City, there is the possibility that additional hydraulic modeling could be completed by the CSD on the CSD wastewater system prior to issuing building permits for the proposed project, which is anticipated to be operating by year 2021. If additional hydraulic modeling is performed on the CSD system prior to issuing building permits for the Cupertino Village Hotel project that indicates that construction and operation of the proposed hotel would exceed the 13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara and CSD a significant impact would occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed Cupertino Village Hotel Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant may demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods: 1) Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or 2) Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD. The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation rates used by the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table in the May 2007, City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment,91 unless 88 Mark Thomas. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018. 89 A four times multiplier is generally considered a conservative figure. 90 Sewage coefficients use to calculate the sewer generation rates for the various uses in the project and the General Plan buildout were taken from the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table and from the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007. 91 Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-90 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. Alternatively, if the prior agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara that currently limits the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system were to be updated to increase the permitted peak wet weather flow, this would also render any impacts to be less than significant. If this were to occur prior to the City’s approval of building permits, then Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would no longer be required to be implemented. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would guarantee that no development on the project site could occur that would exceed 13.8 mgd peak wet weather flow contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara and CSD by ensuring that no building permit would be issued for any structures or units that result in the contractual limit being exceeded until: (1) additional capacity is available through the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system; (2) improvements would be made to the CSD sewer system that reduce the peak wet weather flows that enter the City of Santa Clara system; (3) improvements would be made on the project site that ensure the contractual limit is not exceed; or (4) the completion of any combination of these approaches that adequately addresses potential capacity issues. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the buildout of the project’s solid waste disposal needs? As discussed in the existing conditions, above, the City contracts with Recology South Bay (Recology) to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023 and has not secured a new landfill contract. However, according to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026. 92 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill. Waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting. Solid waste generated by construction of the proposed project would largely consist of demolition waste from the existing buildings as well as construction debris. The project would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste Policy, which requires the recycling or diversion at least 65 percent of all generated construction and 92 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-91 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT demolition (C&D) waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility.93,94 Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, and/or building permits, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan. The Waste Management Plan shall do the following:  Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale.  Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.  Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. Compliance with CMC Chapter 16.72 and the City’s Zero Waste Policy would reduce solid waste and construction-related impacts on the landfill capacity. The operation of the project is estimated to generate approximately 86 net new employees on the site. In 2016, the city of Cupertino’s actual disposal rate for employees was 4.5 pounds per person per day (PPD), a much lower disposal rate than the estimated target disposal rate of 8.1 PPD.95 The city of Cupertino’s disposal rates for employees have been below target rates and steadily decreasing since 2007, with the exception of 2014, when the rate (9.8 PPD) exceeded the target (8.10 PPD).96 The project would also include temporary residents at the hotel. According to CalRecycle, the disposal rate of hotels is estimated to be 2 pounds per day for each room.97 Applying these disposal rates, the project would generate approximately 1,067 pounds per day or 0.5 tons per day of new waste,98 which is well within the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill permitted daily disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day. Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to staying within the target disposal rates, and the project would comply with the City’s current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies, which would further reduce solid waste disposed of in the landfill. Thus, operation-related impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with standards relating to solid waste or litter control. The City’s per capita disposal rate is below the target rate 93 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement. 94 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018. 95 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed June 10, 2018. 96 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed June 10, 2018. 97 CalRecycle, “Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rate,” https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed June 10, 2018. 98 (8.1 PPD x 86 net new employees) + (2 PPD x 185 rooms) = 1,067 PPD THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-92 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT established by CalRecycle. As part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to address waste management conditions within Santa Clara County, Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE)99 and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)100 in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act.101 The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing several programs, including the City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program, and Environmental Recycling Day events offered to residents three times per year by Recology. Implementation of the referenced strategies, programs and plans, as well as the Climate Action Plan that was adopted in January 2015, will enable the city to meet the 75 percent solid waste diversion rate by the year 2020. Additionally, in December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.102 According to the Zero Waste Policy, the City will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement, steadfast and ongoing efforts by the City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial waste diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025.These programs will be sufficient to ensure that future development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, would not compromise the ability to meet or perform better than the State mandated target. Additionally, construction and any demolition debris associated with the project would be subject to CMC Chapter 16.72, requiring that a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris be diverted from landfill.103 Additionally, the City’s Zero Waste Policy also requires that all private construction projects that come through the City’s permitting process, and all City projects (through contract requirements), to recover and divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated by the project. Compliance with applicable statutes and regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. h) Would the project result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands requiring new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? The proposed project would demolish the existing commercial buildings and replace them with new structures that would meet the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards became effective July 1, 2014. The 2013 Standards are 30 percent more energy efficient than previous standards for non-residential buildings. The project provides connectivity to existing transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and locates a hotel development in close proximity to existing hotel-serving land uses and employment centers. The project site is currently served by existing PG&E distribution systems that would provide natural gas and electricity. As described in Section X, Land Use, above, the proposed project complies with the General Plan land use designation requirements as well as the Zoning district requirements and would not 99 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, September 21, 1992. 100 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Household Hazardous Waste Element, September 21, 1992. 101 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.6, Solid Waste, Non-Organic Recycling and Recycling Areas, Section 9.16.010(a), Purpose. 102 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment- sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018. 103 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-93 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT result in new growth potential from what was considered in the General Plan. The project would include appropriate on-site infrastructure to connect to the existing PG&E systems and would not require new off- site energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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 examples 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 effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     DISCUSSION 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project site is in an urbanized and extensively developed area of Cupertino. Almost entirely built out with commercial and residential development, and associated surface parking, the project site has few green spaces and trees within and surrounding the on-site buildings. There are no sensitive natural communities, no areas of sensitive habitat, and no areas of critical habitat occurring at the project site. Additionally, there are no buildings currently listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, no recorded archaeological sites, and no known paleontological resources located on the project site. The implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CULT-1, CULT-2, and TCR-1 would serve to protect nesting birds and unknown cultural resources. Therefore, implementation of the THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-94 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the quality of the environment, wildlife, and 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)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) advises that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. To accomplish these two objectives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methodologies for completion of a cumulative impact analysis and allows for a reasonable combination of the two approaches:  The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and  The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling. Table 4-20 shows the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino and how they relate to the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. TABLE 4-20 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CUPERTINO Hotel Residential Commercial Office General Plan EIR: Maximum Development Potential 1,339 4,421 1,343,679 4,040,231 Total Foreseeable Development 86 3,938 620,000 1,833,000 Marina Plazaa 122 188 23,000 The Hamptons Redevelopmenta 600 The Foruma 23 Westport Cupertinob 204 20,000 De Anza Hotelb 140 Vallcoc 339 2,923 600,000 1,810,000 General Plan EIR: Remaining Development Potential 738 483 723,679 2,207,231 Notes: a. The project has been approved. b. The project is under review. c. The buildout numbers are a sum of the greatest buildout potential for this site and are derived from the approved Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and the approved Vallco SB 35 Application. Source: City of Cupertino, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-95 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT The General Plan EIR evaluated the cumulative effects using the summary of projections approach provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The General Plan EIR took into account growth from the General Plan within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG. The General Plan EIR included an assessment of the redevelopment of the project site with mixed-use, hotel, retail, and residential projects. The hotel assumptions included an evaluation of up to 300 hotel rooms, which is greater than the proposed 185-room Cupertino Village Hotel. Therefore, as shown in Table 4-20, the project when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino would not exceed the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The impact discussions in Section I through Section XVI above describes the proposed project‘s relationship to and consistency with the scope of development, land use designations, population projections, and cumulative impacts analyses contained in the General Plan EIR. As shown, the project’s impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation in the cumulative context. However, since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has approved new development at the Vallco project site. While, as shown in Table 4-20, this development at the Vallco site is consistent with the maximum buildout potential in the General Plan EIR for citywide cumulative discussions (e.g., population and housing, water supply, etc.), the General Plan EIR did not evaluate the specific amount of buildout at the Vallco site that is shown in Table 4-20, therefore, localized cumulative impacts such as traffic, noise, and utilities infrastructure were not captured in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the cumulative impact discussion presented below includes a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with the Vallco site specific development. The discussion below addresses two aspects of cumulative impacts: (1) would the effects of the cumulative development result in a cumulatively significant impact on the resources in question and, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, (2) would the contributions to that impact from the project, which is the subject of this Initial Study, be cumulatively considerable. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1), “cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. The CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency has discretion to determine if a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. As discussed in the sections below, the implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to contribute to or result in significant cumulative impacts. The following provides cumulative impact analysis for each impact area discussed in this Initial Study under both scenarios:  Aesthetics: The cumulative impact for aesthetics includes potential future development under the proposed project combined with effects of development on lands in close proximity to the project site that together would result in a substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista or if it would result in a substantial degradation of the visual quality or character in the vicinity of the project site. Due to the existing buildings and natural topography, the new buildings at the Vallco site together with the proposed project would not obstruct any public views to the distant scenic mountains. Therefore, the cumulative development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to scenic resources and impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-96 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT The project site is not located on a State scenic highway and no cumulative impact would occur; therefore, the project would also not contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to scenic highways. Due to the distance of the Vallco site, the cumulative development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to the visual character or light and glare of the Cupertino Village area and impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Like the proposed project, other development in the city of Cupertino, including development at the Vallco site would be subject to the City’s design review process to ensure that project features such as building design, landscaping, site planning, and signage, are consistent with the City’s adopted plans, regulations, and design standards, as required. Moreover, similar to the proposed project, other projects would be required to be in conformance with General Plan goals and policies that seek to preserve and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods in Cupertino. The uniform application of these regulations, goals, and policies would ensure that all development in Cupertino is compatible with its surroundings upon approval. Additionally, the design review requirement as well as subsequent CEQA review, if necessary, would give the City the opportunity to evaluate projects’ potential impacts on scenic resources prior to approval. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to or result in a significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Air Quality: Emissions affecting air quality are, by their nature, regionally and globally cumulative impacts; therefore, the discussion in Section II, Air Quality, of this Initial Study, evaluates cumulative conditions. As discussed in Section II, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for California and national O3, California and national fine inhalable particular matter (PM2.5), and California coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance levels will not result in a significant or cumulatively considerable impact. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to or result in a cumulative impact with respect to air quality. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Biological Resources: The potential impacts of a proposed project on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the overall cumulative effect is dependent on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well- developed native vegetation (e.g., marshlands, native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian scrub and woodland, etc.), populations of special-status plant or animal species, and wetland features (including seasonal wetlands and drainages). Environmental review of specific development proposals in the vicinity of a development site should serve to ensure that important biological resources are identified, protected, and properly managed, and to prevent any significant adverse development- related impacts, including development for the remaining undeveloped lands in the surrounding area. As discussed in Section III, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, the footprint of the project site lacks any sensitive biological resources. In addition, compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, CMC Section 14.80.050 the projects impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-97 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands. And the impacts associated with future development facilitated by the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative reduction of important wildlife habitat. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to biological resources.  Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: The cumulative impact for cultural and tribal cultural resources includes development under the proposed project combined with effects of development on lands within Cupertino and the region. The proposed project, in conjunction with development on lands within the city, has the potential to cumulatively impact cultural resources including archaeological and paleontological deposits, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. As discussed in Sections IV Cultural and Section V, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, the project site is not included in the California Register and is not included as a designated historic resource in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory database; thus, the proposed project would result in no impact to historic architectural resources. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CULT-1, CULT-2, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, or tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, the proposed project would not create or contribute to a cumulative impact on cultural resources. Additionally, the existing federal, State, and General Plan policies serve to protect cultural resources Cupertino. Other projects in Cupertino would be required to comply with these regulations to avoid impacts to historical, archaeological, paleontological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to cultural resources.  Geology and Soils: The proposed project or another project the surrounding vicinity would be required to meet the latest standards set forth in the California Building Code. The California Building Code requirements, along with requirements in the CMC, ensure that any development on unstable soil or expansive soil is regulated to minimize potential hazards. The CMC includes requirements for the performance and review of geological investigations prior to the issuance of building permits in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo fault zone. Moreover, in combination with foreseeable development in the surrounding area, implementation of the proposed project would not change the geology or soil characteristics of the project area as a whole. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to geology and soils, and would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in this regard. Therefore, the cumulative impacts associated with potential future development allowed by the proposed project, together with anticipated cumulative growth, would result in a less- than-significant cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions contributing to the accumulation of GHG emissions are by nature regionally and globally cumulative impacts; therefore, the discussion in Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Initial Study, evaluates cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section VII, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD’s bright-line screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). The proposed project as well as cumulative projects would also be subject to measures in the City’s CAP in addition to statewide measures to reduce GHG THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-98 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to long-term cumulative GHG emissions and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials: As discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the project site includes no hazardous materials. The proposed project would introduce a hotel development on the project site, which could release hazardous materials into the environment during construction, but this type of use would not involve the use of hazardous materials large enough quantity (cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers) to create a hazard to the public or the environment. Standard precautions and best management practices to prevent spills would minimize exposure of hazardous materials to people and the environment would be carried out in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws described in Section VIII. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative hazardous materials impact. In addition, the project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport, located in a wildfire hazard area, and would not obstruct any routes identified in the City of Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to airports, wildfires, or interference with an emergency response plan. Future development on the project site and other future development in Cupertino would be required to comply with the existing regulations, which ensure the protection of worker and community safety during construction, in addition to other local, State and federal regulations discussed in Section VIII aimed at protecting public safety. As such, the cumulative impacts from of the proposed project would be less than significant.  Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of water quality and hydrology impacts is the Calabazas Creek watershed. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local policies that would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to less-than-significant levels. Any new development in Cupertino and the Calabazas Creek watershed would be subject, on a project-by- project basis, to independent CEQA review, if necessary, as well as policies in the General Plan, design guidelines, zoning codes, adherence to applicable City requirements that protect water quality. More specifically, potential changes from cumulative development related to stormwater quality, stormwater flows, drainage, impervious surfaces, and flooding would be minimized via the implementation of stormwater control measures, retention, and low impact development measures, and review by City personnel that could require additional measures to reduce potential flooding impacts. Compliance with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) would require best management practices and low impact development features to be included in any proposed project. These best management practices include site design, source control, and treatment control measures that provide both flow control and treatment to runoff before it enters the storm drain system or receiving water bodies. In addition, all projects that disturb over 1 acre or more would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion and sediment controls that address construction impacts. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-99 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT All cumulative projects would be subject to similar permit requirements. The water quality regulations implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB take a basin-wide approach and consider water quality impairment in a regional context. For example, the NPDES Construction Permit ties receiving water limitations and basin plan objectives to terms and conditions of the permit, and the MRP works with all municipalities to manage stormwater systems to be collectively protective of water quality. For these reasons, impacts to water quality for the proposed project are not cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.  Land Use: As discussed in Section X, Land Use, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. In addition, the proposed project would not physically divide an existing community, nor would the proposed project conflict with an adopted conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to or result in a significant cumulative impact land use and planning impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Noise: As discussed in Section XI, Noise, of this Initial Study, the proposed hotel could increase the community noise environment around the area due to stationary sources from construction equipment and building operation (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment on top of the future buildings) and from vehicles trips traveling to and from the project site. However, operation of the proposed hotel would not exceed the City’s noise standards, and impacts from construction noise could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. There are no reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects in the area of the proposed project that could increase the community noise level. To determine the cumulative traffic noise level increase, the Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes in the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis 104 were compared to the existing traffic volumes. The permanent noise level increase was estimated to be 2.9 dBA or less on study roadway segments. A noise level increase of 3 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is considered barely perceptible in outdoor environments and would not represent a potentially significant noise increase. Accordingly, the proposed project would not contribute to or result in a significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Population and Housing: Impacts of cumulative growth are considered in the context of their consistency with regional planning efforts. As described in Section XII, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce a substantial amount of growth or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As shown in Table 4-20, the cumulative projects are within the scope of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR which was found to be consistent with the regional growth projections (i.e., Plan Bay Area). The proposed project would be an infill hotel development and would not indirectly induce substantial growth through the extension of roads or other new infrastructure that would lead to additional growth outside the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with these regional growth projections and would not induce substantial regional population growth. Thus, the proposed project would not 104 Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were obtained from the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, May 22, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-100 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT contribute to cumulative growth that would displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth. As future projects are proposed, they would be required to demonstrate consistency with regional growth projections the same as the proposed project. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Public Services: The primary purpose of a public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction, renovation or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in population. A significant environmental impact would occur if a proposed project would exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities resulting in a physical impact to the environment. As with the proposed project, future development in Cupertino would be required to undergo project review and comply with the most recent California Building Code as California Fire Code as incorporated into the CMC and General Plan policies required to reduce impacts to public services. In addition, future projects would also be required to pay all developer impact fees to the school districts that serve their sites pursuant to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, which is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not cause any of the public service providers that serve the project site to construct a new facility or modify an existing facility in order to meet their performance objectives. Accordingly, the cumulative development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to public services and impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Parks and Recreation: Like the proposed project, the cumulative projects in Cupertino that introduce new residents to Cupertino would be required to comply with the parkland requirements in the CMC, which requires new housing projects to provide 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population or pay the equivalent parkland in-lieu fee. The use of parkland fees supports the development, acquisition, and renovation of park facilities and recreational facilities. In addition, other proposed hotels, like the proposed project would be pay the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax that would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain the City’s recreational facilities. Accordingly, the cumulative development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to park and recreation facilities and impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.  Transportation and Circulation: As discussed in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, the TIA for the proposed project includes additional traffic generated by approved projects only. The Future Growth scenario volumes were calculated by applying a 1.2 percent annual growth factor that would capture new growth in the area to the project’s buildout year of 2021. The TIA does not consider specific development projects, such as the development permitted on the Vallco site. Furthermore due to the minimal trips generated (less than 100 daily trips) the TIA evaluated CMP intersections only per the CMP Guidelines. As shown in Section XV, the proposed project’s traffic-related impacts were found to be less than significant at project buildout year of 2021. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLACEWORKS 4-101 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT The EIR prepared for the Vallco development under the Specific Plan scenario was required to evaluate the cumulative long-range transportation impacts, which included the proposed Cupertino Village Hotel. The Vallco EIR found that the proposed Vallco development, under the Specific Plan option, would result in significant impacts to the CMP intersections that would be affected by the proposed project as follows:  Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue #2 (Vallco intersection 23)  De Anza/Homestead #5(Vallco intersection #8);  Homestead/North Wolfe #6 (Vallco Intersection #26)  Homestead/Lawrence #7 (Vallco Intersection #48)  Vallco/North Wolfe #12(Vallco intersection #31) Accordingly, the cumulative development would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The proposed Cupertino Village Hotel project is anticipated to be constructed and operating by 2021. Because the full buildout development at Vallco is not anticipated to be online prior to this time, the proposed project’s analysis that captured the 1.2 percent growth rate in the City would adequately address the level of cumulative development that could occur by year 2021 and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to pay the required City of Cupertino Traffic Impact fees, which supports the ongoing improvements to the citywide roadway infrastructure.105 No other significant cumulative impacts would occur with respect to safety, transit and impacts to other modes of transportation (i.e., pedestrians and bicycle infrastructure). Accordingly, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.  Utilities and Service Systems: Impacts evaluated under Section XVI, Utilities and Service Systems, are assessed in their cumulative context. Same as the proposed project, future projects developed in Cupertino would be required to demonstrate there are adequate supplies and capacity to serve their projects in addition to the other users in the service provider’s area. Cumulative development would also be required to comply with regulations that reduce water use, solid waste disposal, and conserve energy as described in Section XVI. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, thus the proposed project’s environmental effects would be less than significant. 105 City of Cupertino, City-Wide Traffic Impact Fee, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public- works/permitting-development-services/proposed-city-wide-traffic-impact-fee, accessed on September 20, 2018. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-102 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. PLACEWORKS 5-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 5. Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Cupertino Village Hotel Project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:  The full text of the mitigation measures;  The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and  The monitoring action and frequency. The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District best management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.  Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.  Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.  Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).  Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. Applicant During construction City of Cupertino Public Works and Building Departments Plan Review and Approval During scheduled construction site inspections Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition and/or building permits, the construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate the following, during construction, on all plans: Applicants During construction City of Cupertino Public Works and Building Plan Review and Approval During scheduled construction site inspections THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 5-3 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency  The use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.  Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.  Ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 2 minutes, which is in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449, which limits idling to 5 minutes or less.  Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. Departments BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. The construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31). Preconstruction surveys shall:  Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.  Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.  Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.  Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young Applicant Prior to construction During construction Qualified biologist in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife as needed Preconstruction Survey Once for survey; ongoing if nesting birds identified and until they have left the nest THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5-4 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency birds. Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include:  Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.  Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.  An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:  All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.  If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City of Cupertino Building Department and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other Applicant During construction Consulting archeologist and City of Cupertino Public Works Department Plan Review and Approval As needed if resources are unearthed THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 5-5 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency appropriate mitigation.  All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.  In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations.  If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be implemented.  Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading, demolition, and construction plans:  In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.  The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.  The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.  The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.  If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the Applicant During construction Consulting paleontologist and City of Cupertino Public Works Department Plan Review and Approval As needed if resources are unearthed THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5-6 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Applicant During construction Consulting archeologist and City of Cupertino Public Works Department Plan Review and Approval As needed if resources are unearthed NOISE Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all demolition, grading, and construction plans, as required by the CMC, construction activities shall take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition, the following best management practices shall be observed:  At least 90 days prior to the start of construction activities, all offsite businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned construction activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.  The project applicant and contractors will prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan, including those details listed herein, will be included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set.  At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the Applicant During construction City of Cupertino Public Works and Building Departments Plan Review and Approval During scheduled construction site inspections THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PLACEWORKS 5-7 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.  During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.  Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting temporary plywood noise barriers between areas where concrete saws will be used and nearby sensitive receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.  During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.  During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will be conducted simultaneously to the degree feasible in order to reduce the time periods of these operations.  Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.  Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5-8 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Action Monitoring Frequency  During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed Cupertino Village Hotel Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant may demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods: Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet 1. weather flows; or Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or 2. reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD. The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation rates used by the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table in the May 2007, City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment,106 unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. Applicant Prior to construction City of Cupertino Public Works and Building Departments Plan Review and Approval During scheduled construction site inspections 106 Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018. PLACEWORKS 6-1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Organizations and Persons Consulted 6. This Initial Study was prepared by the following consultants and individuals: LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CUPERTINO Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Erick Serrano, Associate Planner REPORT PREPARERS LEAD EIR CONSULTANT PlaceWorks Terri McCracken, Associate Principal, Principal-in-Charge Jessica Setiawan, Associate, Project Manager Alexis Mena, Associate Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Steve Bush, Senior Engineer John Vang, Senior Associate, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Josh Carman, Senior Associate, Noise Specialist Jacqueline Protsman, Project Planner Torina Wilson, Planner Grant Reddy, Graphics Specialist TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Brian Jackson, Senior Associate Lance Knox, Transportation Planner THE CUPERTINO VILLAGE HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF CUPERTINO ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 6-2 NOVEMBER 8, 2018 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. ........................................................................................................................ APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DATA ........................................................................................................................ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 1. Air Quality Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at State and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the State and federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The City of San Francisco is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as well as the California AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and national AAQS adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. The discussion also identifies the natural factors in the air basin that affect air pollution. 1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 1.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the U.S. Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS. Criteria air pollutants are the air pollutants for which AAQS have been developed that are regulated under the CAA. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 1. These pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Page 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Respirable Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)4 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3-Month Average * 0.15 µg/m3 Sulfates (SO4)5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes. Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hours ExCo =0.23/km visibility of 10≥ miles No Federal Standard Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 3 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal Standard Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal Standard Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2016, May 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:  AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards  Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards  Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code 1.1.2 Air Pollutants of Concern A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Page 4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 1.1.2.1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that AAQS have been established for them. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.  Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little or no wind, when surface- based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the air basin. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a vehicle is moving at low speeds. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile are lowest at about 45 miles per hour (mph) for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin to increase again at higher speeds. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity1. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.2 The air basin is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels.3  Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.  Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. The principal component of NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form 1 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017, April 7. Six Common Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 3 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 5 NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 is an acute irritant and at equal concentrations more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish- red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure.4,5 The air basin is designated an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and California AAQS.6  Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When SO2 forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.7 The air basin is designated an attainment area for SO2 under the California and National AAQS.8  Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004-inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Some particulate matter, such as pollen, occurs naturally. Most particulate matter in the air basin is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. An EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms (e.g. irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 5 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017, April 7. Six Common Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. 6 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 8 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Page 6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the air basin. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.9 Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individual with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms.10 Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified a carcinogen by CARB. The air basin is designated nonattainment under the California AAQS for PM10 and nonattainment under both the California and National AAQS for PM2.5.11,12  Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOx,— both by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions to the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. O3 levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon. Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also damage plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.13 The air basin is designated nonattainment of the 1-hour California AAQS and 8-hour California and National AAQS for O3.14  Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. 11 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 12 On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule to determine that the SFBAAB has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 National AAQS. This action suspends federal State Implementation Plan planning requirements for the Bay Area. The SFBAAB will continue to be designated nonattainment for the National 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as BAAQMD elects to submit a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to EPA and EPA approves the proposed redesignation. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 14 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 7 converters. The EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.15 The air basin is designated in attainment of the California and National AAQS for lead.16 Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project. 1.1.2.2 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S. Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e. a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that it identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings. At the time of the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs.17 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. 15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 16 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 17 California Air Resources Board , 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. Page 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:  13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling  13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools  13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities.18 This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3 butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations. 1.1.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD is responsible for:  Adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources.  Issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants.  Inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants.  Responding to citizen complaints.  Monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions.  Awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions. 18 California Air Resources Board. 2005, April. Air Quality Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 9  Conducting public education campaigns.  Air quality management planning. Air quality conditions in the air basin have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955.19 The BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMPs) to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans (OAPs) for the National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard. The BAAQMD prepares these AQMPs in coordination with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19, 2017, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. 1.1.3.1 BAAQMD BAY AREA CLEAN AIR PLAN 2017 Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues in providing the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. Similar to the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, the 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California CAA. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent by 2020. Furthermore, the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following 20:  Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.  Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.  Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.  Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use. A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-development. Page 10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following key priorities:  Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.  Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.  Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).  Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.  Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.  Decarbonize the energy system.  Make the electricity supply carbon-free.  Electrify the transportation and building sectors. 1.1.3.2 BAAQMD’S COMMUNITY AIR RISK EVALUATION PROGRAM (CARE) The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. Based on findings of the latest report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant contributors: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions, and benzene contributed 3 percent. Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor craft (13 percent). A 75 percent reduction in DPM was predicted between 2005 and 2015 when the inventory accounted for CARB’s diesel regulations. Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.21 Modeled cancer risks from TAC in 2005 were highest near sources of DPM: near core urban areas, along major roadways and freeways, and near maritime shipping terminals. The highest modeled risks were found east of San Francisco, near West Oakland, and the Maritime Port of Oakland. BAAQMD has identified seven impacted communities in the Bay Area: 1. Western Contra Costa County and the cities of Richmond and San Pablo 2. Western Alameda County along the Interstate 880 (I-880) corridor and the cities of Berkeley, Alameda, Oakland, and Hayward 3. San Jose 4. Eastern side of San Francisco 5. Concord 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Program (CARE) Retrospective and Path Forward (2004–2013), April. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 11 6. Vallejo 7. Pittsburgh and Antioch The project site is not within a CARE-program impacted community. The major contributor to acute and chronic non-cancer health effects in the air basin is acrolein (C3H4O). Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and military airports.22 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for acrolein. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not available, the BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analysis for acrolein emissions.23 1.1.3.3 REGULATION 7, ODOROUS SUBSTANCES Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the City. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance. 1.1.3.4 OTHER BAAQMD REGULATIONS In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers a number of specific regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to individual development projects allowed under the proposed General Plan, including:  BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review  BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants  BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements  BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment  BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings  BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations  BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities  BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, Phase I Findings and Policy Recommendations Related to Toxic Air Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay Area. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program, Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines. Page 12 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 1.1.4 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision making and air quality. VTA’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2015 Congestion Management Program. VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, VTA’s updated CMP includes multi-modal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional VMT in accordance with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Strategies identified in the 2015 CMP for Santa Clara County, where local jurisdictions are responsible agencies, include:24  Traffic Level of Service: Monitor and submit report on the level of service (LOS) on CMP roadway network intersections using CMP software and procedures.  Transportation Model and Database: Certify that member agency models are consistent with the CMP model.  Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare a transportation impact analysis (TIA) for projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines schedule.  Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for projects generating TIAs.  Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to the CMP on all land use projects approved from July 1 to June 30 of the previous year.  Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit an annual statement certifying that the member agency has complied with the CMP Land Use Impact Analysis Program.  Monitoring and Conformance: Outline the requirements and procedures established for conducting annual traffic LOS and land use monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and Community Form and Impact Analysis Elements.  Capital Improvement Program: Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the level of service on the designated system and to maintain transit performance standards.  Deficiency Plan: Prepare deficiency plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that are projected to violate LOS standards using the adopted deficiency plan requirements.  Deficiency Plan: Submit a deficiency plan implementation status report as part of annual monitoring. 24 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2013. 2013 Congestion Management Program, http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Q7pt, October. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.1.5 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.25 1.1.5.1 METEOROLOGY The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits, resulting in a western coast gap, Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, Carquinez Strait, which allow air to flow in and out of the SFBAAB and the Central Valley. The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential. 1.1.5.2 WIND PATTERNS During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only 7 knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon Islands. The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part 25 This section describing the air basin is from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Page 14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result. In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB. 1.1.5.3 TEMPERATURE Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large- scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold water from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually decreases to less than 10ºF. In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large. 1.1.5.4 PRECIPITATION The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys. During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low (i.e. air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, when mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up. 1.1.5.5 WIND CIRCULATION Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 15 1.1.5.6 INVERSIONS An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e. the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions. 1.1.6 Existing Ambient Air Quality 1.1.6.1 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE SFBAAB Areas that meet AAQS are classified attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. The attainment status for the air basin is shown in Table 2. The air basin is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS. Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005) Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment1 CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Unclassified SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 1 In December 2014, US EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 National AAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, January 5. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status). 1.1.6.2 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site are best documented by measurements made by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD monitoring station closest to the project site is the San Jose – Jackson Street Avenue Monitoring Station. Data from this station is summarized in Table 3. The data show occasional violations of the State and federal O3 standards, as well as state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the vicinity of the project site. Page 16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ozone (O3) State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm State 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Maximum 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 0 0.083 0.067 0 1 1 0.091 0.078 0 0 0 0.089 0.066 0 2 2 0.094 0.081 0 0 0 0.088 0.061 Carbon Monoxide (CO) State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Federal 8-Hour ≥ 9.0 ppm Maximum 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 0.73 0 0 * 0 0 * 0 0 * 0 0 * Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 (ppm) Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppb) 0 44.7 0 41.9 0 58.4 0 49.3 0 51.1 Coarse Particulates (PM10) State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 0 0 41.5 0 0 33.5 1 0 54.7 1 0 58.0 0 0 40.0 Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) * 27.5 * 38.9 2 60.4 2 49.4 0 22.6 Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards ( 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), Accessed May 4, 2016, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Data from Cupertino Monitoring Station for years 2010–2013. Data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station for years 2014-2015. Notes: ppm: parts per million; ppb: parts per billion; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter * = insufficient data 1.1.6.3 EXISTING EMISSIONS The project site is currently developed with a 3,500 square foot restaurant and vacant office building. The current site uses generate criteria air pollutants emissions from energy use, transportation, and area sources associated with the operational restaurant. 1.1.7 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since the majority of the workers tend to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 17 stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the population. The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residences at the Arioso Apartments to the east of the project site. These residences are approximately 70 feet from the edge of the project site. 1.2 METHODOLOGY The BAAQMD “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts; however, this later amendment regarding risk and hazards was the subject of the December 17, 2015 Supreme Court decision (California Building Industry Association v BAAQMD), which clarified that CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts of the environment on a project.26 1.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions The proposed project qualifies as a project-level project under BAAQMD’s criteria. For project-level analyses, BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria that would be applicable to the proposed project. If a project exceeds the screening level, it would be required to conduct a full analysis using BAAQMD’s significance criteria. 26 On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. Following the court’s order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The Alameda County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science or evidence supporting the thresholds, and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science and reasoning contained in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. (California Building Industry Association versus BAAQMD, Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013).) Page 18 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Regional Significance Criteria BAAQMD’s criteria for regional significance for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in Table 4. Criteria for both construction and operational phases of the project are shown. Table 4 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (Tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10 PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification. Local CO Hotspots Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which is 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the California and National AAQS, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined. Because CO concentrations have improved, BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are met:  Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.  The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.  The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g. tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).27 Odors BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 19 Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30- day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants.28 1.2.2 Community Risk and Hazards The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to the siting of a new source. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369 [Case No. S213478]). CEQA does not require an environmental evaluation to analyze the environmental effects of attracting development and people to an area. However, the environmental evaluation must analyze the impacts of environmental hazards on future users when the proposed project exacerbates an existing environmental hazard or condition or if there is an exception to this exemption identified in the Public Resources Code. Schools, residential, commercial, and office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards, so these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects. For assessing community risk and hazards, sources within a 1,000-foot radius are considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and permitted sources.29,30 The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the surrounding residential receptors. The BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.31 Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site receptors, as applicable.32 The project threshold identified below is applied to the proposed project’s construction phase emissions: 28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification. 30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluations during Construction. 32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification. Page 20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Community Risk and Hazards – Project Project-level construction emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from the proposed project to individual sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a potentially significant community health risk:  Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;  An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution;  An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.5 from a single source would be a significant, cumulatively considerable contribution.33 Community Risk and Hazards – Cumulative Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone. A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:  Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or  An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or  0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.34 Current BAAQMD guidance recommends the determination of cancer risks using the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) methodology, which was originally adopted in 2003.35,36 In February 2015, OEHHA adopted new health risk assessment guidance which includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health. These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rates.37 However, BAAQMD has not formally adopted the new OEHHA methodology into their CEQA guidance. To be conservative, the cancer risks associated with project implementation and significance conclusions were determined using the new 2015 OEHHA guidance for risk assessments. 33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification. 34 Ibid. 35 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. 37 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 21 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.38,39,40 The major GHG are briefly described below.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.  Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.  Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.  Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol. 38 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University Press. 39 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant because it is considered part of the feedback loop of changing radiative forcing rather than a primary cause of change. 40 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon yet due to ongoing work related to resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon. Page 22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced, along with HFCs, as alternatives to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas, soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator. • Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs. 41,42 GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases. Table 5 lists the GHG and their relative GWP compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalent (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, GWP values for CH4 are such that a project generating 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 210 MT of CO2. 41 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html. 42 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University Press. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 23 Table 5 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHGs Second Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) Fourth Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) Second Assessment Report Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 50 to 200 1 1 Methane2 (CH4) 12 (±3) 12 21 25 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 114 310 298 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 270 11,700 14,800 HFC-32 5.6 4.9 650 675 HFC-125 32.6 29 2,800 3,500 HFC-134a 14.6 14 1,300 1,430 HFC-143a 48.3 52 3,800 4,470 HFC-152a 1.5 1.4 140 124 HFC-227ea 36.5 34.2 2,900 3,220 HFC-236fa 209 240 6,300 9,810 HFC-4310mee 17.1 15.9 1,300 1,030 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 50,000 6,500 7,390 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 10,000 9,200 12,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 NA 7,000 8,860 Perfluoro-2-methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 NA 7,400 9,300 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 NA 23,900 22,800 Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996, Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1996, New York: Cambridge University Press; and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University Press. Notes: The IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values in its Fifth Assessment Report (2013) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in the Second Assessment Report are still used by SCAQMD to maintain consistency in GHG emissions modeling. In addition, the 2008 Scoping Plan was based on the GWP values in the Second Assessment Report. 1 Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. 2.1 CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES AND RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION California is 20th largest GHG emitter in the world and the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas.43 However, California also has over 12 million more people than the State of Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2015, California ranked third lowest in energy- related carbon emissions per capita.44 In 2016, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2014 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).45 Based on these GWPs, California produced 442 MMTCO2e 43 California Air Resources Board. 2014, March. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012 - by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2012/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014- 03-24.pdf. 44 US Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018, January 22. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the State Level, 2000-2015. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/.. 45 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006). Page 24 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data GHG emissions in 2014. California’s transportation sector remains the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 36.1 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent and electric power generation made up 20.0 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential (8.7 percent), agriculture (8.2 percent), high global warming potential GHGs (3.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.0 percent).46 2.2 HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.47 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone.48 Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.49 In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.50 Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historic trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:  Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas;  Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas;  An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas;  An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas;  Areas affected by drought increases; 46 California Air Resources Board . 2017, June. 2017 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory. 2017 edition. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge University Press. 48 At the end of the last ice age, the concentration of CO2 increased by around 100 ppm (parts per million) over about 8,000 years, or approximately 1.25 ppm per century. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of increase has accelerated markedly. The rate of CO2 accumulation currently stands at around 150 ppm/century—more than 200 times faster than the background rate for the past 15,000 years. 49 California Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March. 50 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge University Press. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 25  Intense tropical cyclone activity increases;  Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis). 2.3 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR CALIFORNIA Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signals of climate change. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada. By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures could increase by 4.1–8.6°F, depending on emissions levels.51 In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the springs, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms.52 According to the California Climate Action Team, even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 6 and include public health impacts, water resources impacts, agricultural impacts, coastal sea level impacts, forest and biological resource impacts, and energy impacts. 51 California Climate Change Center. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. July 52 California Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. Page 26 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Table 6 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk Public Health Impacts Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer Fewer extremely cold nights Poor air quality made worse Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels Water Resources Impacts Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack Challenges in securing adequate water supply Potential reduction in hydropower Loss of winter recreation Agricultural Impacts Increasing temperature Increasing threats from pests and pathogens Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds Declining productivity Irregular blooms and harvests Coastal Sea Level Impacts Accelerated sea level rise Increasing coastal floods Shrinking beaches Worsened impacts on infrastructure Forest and Biological Resource Impacts Increased risk and severity of wildfires Lengthening of the wildfire season Movement of forest areas Conversion of forest to grassland Declining forest productivity Increasing threats from pest and pathogens Shifting vegetation and species distribution Altered timing of migration and mating habits Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower Increased energy demand Sources: California Energy Commission, 2006, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center, CEC-500-2006-077; California Energy Commission, 2008, The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California, CEC-500-2008-0077. California Climate Change Center. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. July. Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include:  Water Resources Impacts. By late-century, all projections show drying, and half of the projections suggest 30-year average precipitation will decline by more than 10 percent below the historical average. This drying trend is caused by an apparent decline in the frequency of rain and snowfall. Even in projections with relatively small or no declines in precipitation, central and southern parts of the State can be expected to be drier from the warming effects alone as the spring snowpack will melt sooner, and the moisture contained in soils will evaporate during long dry summer months.53  Wildfire Risks. Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures and longer dry periods over a longer fire season will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climate-related changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Human activities will 53 California Climate Change Center. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. July. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 27 continue to be the biggest factor in ignition risk. The number of large fires statewide are estimated to increase from 58 percent to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same emissions scenario, estimated burned area will increase by 57 percent to 169 percent, depending on location.54  Health Impacts. Many of the gravest threats to public health in California stem from the increase of extreme conditions, principally more frequent, more intense, and longer heat waves. Particular concern centers on the increasing tendency for multiple hot days in succession, and heat waves occurring simultaneously in several regions throughout the State. Public health could also be affected by climate change impacts on air quality, food production, the amount and quality of water supplies, energy pricing and availability, and the spread of infectious diseases. Higher temperatures also increase ground-level ozone levels. Furthermore, wildfires can increase particulate air pollution in the major air basins of California.55  Increase Energy Demand. Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat events combined with new residential development across the State will drive up the demand for cooling in the increasingly hot and longer summer season and decrease demand for heating in the cooler season. Warmer, drier summers also increase system losses at natural gas plants (reduced efficiency in the electricity generation process from higher temperatures) and hydropower plants (lower reservoir levels). Transmission of electricity will also be affected by climate change. Transmission lines lose 7 percent to 8 percent of transmitting capacity in high temperatures while needing to transport greater loads. This means that more electricity needs to be produced to make up for the loss in capacity and the growing demand.56 2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 2.1.1 Federal Laws The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.57 The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions from the onsite land uses, and per BAAQMD guidance are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a GHG emissions inventory. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment, Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity, December, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252. Page 28 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 2.1.1.1 US MANDATORY REPORTING RULE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (2009) In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report. 2.1.1.2 UPDATE TO CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS (2010/2012) The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate stricter fuel economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon [mpg] by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these new standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be considered to be in compliance with State requirements. The federal government issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025, which will require a fleet average of 54.5 mpg in 2025. 2.1.1.3 EPA REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT (ONGOING) Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA has been developing regulations for new stationary sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA was directed to also develop regulations for existing stationary sources. However, the EPA is reviewing the Clean Power Plan under President Trump’s Energy Independence Executive Order. 2.1.2 State Laws Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05, Executive Order B-30-15, Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375. 2.1.2.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER S-03-05 Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the State:  2000 levels by 2010  1990 levels by 2020  80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 2.1.2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 32, THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-03-05. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 29 2.1.2.3 CARB 2008 SCOPING PLAN The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state.58 In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. 2.1.2.4 FIRST UPDATE TO THE SCOPING PLAN CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, adopted at the May 22, 2014, board hearing, highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. As part of the update, CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated AR4 GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, are slightly higher at 431 MMTCO2e.59 As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32. However, the update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The post- 2020 element provides a high level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the trajectory created by statewide goals.60 CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit.61 2.1.2.5 EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15 Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions within the state to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions. 58 California Air Resources Board. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 59 California Air Resources Board. 2014, March 24. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012: By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. Page 30 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 2.1.2.6 SENATE BILL 32 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 197 In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 into law, making the Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update includes the regulations and programs to achieve the 2030 target, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.62 California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short- lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning, to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement efforts by the local air districts to tighten criteria air pollutants and TACs emissions limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:  Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks.  Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).  Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.  California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency and utilizes NZE technology and deployment of ZEV trucks.  Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing methane and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030.  Continued implementation of SB 375. 62 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 31  Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.  Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identified local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the state’s sustainable development objectives, and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the state’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals. To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on- site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and direct investments in GHG reductions in the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts through purchasing and retiring carbon credits.63 The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual yardstick—that is, what GHG emissions would look like if the state did nothing beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit, as shown in Table 7, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap. It includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” LCFS, and the SB 375 program for more vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. As shown in the table, the known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved. Table 7 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions MMTCO2e Reference Scenario (Business-as-Usual) 389 With Known Commitments 320 2030 GHG Target 260 Gap to 2030 Target with Known Commitments 60 Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. 63 Ibid. Page 32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Table 8, 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target, provides estimated GHG emissions by sector compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for 2030. Table 8 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Sector 1990 MMTCO2e 2030 Proposed Plan Ranges MMTCO2e % Change from 1990 Agricultural 26 24-25 -8% to -4% Residential and Commercial 44 38-40 -14% to -9% Electric Power 108 30-53 -72% to -51% High GWP 3 8-11 267% to 367% Industrial 98 83-90 -15% to -8% Recycling and Waste 7 8-9 14% to 29% Transportation (including TCU) 152 103-111 -32% to -27% Net Sink1 -7 TBD TBD Sub Total 431 294-339 -32% to -21% Cap-and-Trade Program NA 24-79 NA Total 431 260 -40% Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined. 1 Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector. 2.1.2.7 SENATE BILL 1383 On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter (PM) produced during incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 requires the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing that comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, as specified. The bill also establishes targets for reducing organic waste in landfill. In April 2016, CARB adopted the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.64 In-use on- road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020. 64 California Air Resources Board. 2017, March. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 33 2.1.2.8 SENATE BILL 375/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted in 2005 to connect the Scoping Plan’s GHG emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. MTC’s targets are a 7 percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 by 2020, and 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2035.65 2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets SB 375 requires CARB to periodically update the targets, no later than every 8 years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the draft 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035, translate into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted SCSs. As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of over 10 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of SCS updates, CARB’s updated targets for the MTC/ABAG region are a 10 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2020 from 2005 levels (compared to 7 percent under the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels (compared to the 2010 target of 15 percent).66 The updated targets and methodology will take effect on January 1, 2018, and SCS adopted in 2018 and later would be subject to these new targets. Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS and was adopted jointly by ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017. It lays out a development scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area, with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years. 65 California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report, Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, August. 66 California Air Resources Board. 2018, February. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb2018.pdf. Page 34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas in existing communities. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth in the Bay Area by 2040 is allocated in PDAs. Per the Final Plan Bay Area 2040, while the projected number of new housing units and new jobs within PDAs would increase to 629,000 units and 707,000 jobs compared to the adopted Plan Bay Area 2013, its overall share would be reduced to 77 percent and 55 percent.67 However, Plan Bay Area 2040 remains on track to meet a 16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent per capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.68 The proposed project site is not within a PPA.69 2.1.2.9 ASSEMBLY BILL 1493 California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles.70 In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.71 2.1.2.10 EXECUTIVE ORDER S-1-07 On January 18, 2007, the State set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in California. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle,” using the most economically feasible methods. 67 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan. 68 Ibid. 69 Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG). July 2015. Priority Development Area Showcase, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/. 70 See also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under federal laws, above. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. 71 See also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under Federal Laws, above. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 35 2.1.2.11 EXECUTIVE ORDER B-16-2012 On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g. electric vehicle charging stations). The executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s State vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector 80 percent below 1990 levels. 2.1.2.12 SENATE BILLS 1078 AND 107 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008, which expanded the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SBX1-2). The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. 2.1.2.13 SENATE BILL 350 Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. 2.1.2.14 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2013 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Most recently, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards will continue to improve upon the current 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards went into effect on January 1, 2017. Under the Page 36 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data 2016 Standards, residential buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards while non- residential buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards.72 The 2016 standards will not get us to zero net energy (ZNE). However, they do get us very close to the State’s goal and make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California.73 The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of 3 stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements.74 Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.75 2.1.2.15 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – CALGREEN On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR). CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.76 The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011, was last updated in 2016. The CEC adopted the 2019 CALGreen on May 9, 2018. The 2019 CALGreen standards become effective January 1, 2020. 2.1.2.16 2006 APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand. 72 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015, June 10. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing Presentation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents. 73 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf. 74 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html. 75 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf. 76 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 37 2.1.2.17 SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity. AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, California Public Resources Code Sections 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own. Section 5.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. 2.1.2.18 WATER EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with the department, to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water. 2.1.3 Local Regulations 2.1.3.1 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City of Cupertino published the public draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December, 2014 to achieve the GHG reduction target of AB 32 for target year 2020. The CAP serves to support California’s statewide climate change efforts through identification of actions that can be taken locally, by residents, businesses, and Page 38 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data the City itself, to ensure the State’s ambitious reduction goals can be achieved. The strategies outlined in the CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City.77 The goals established by the City’s CAP are the following:  Goal 1 – Reduce Energy Use: Increase energy efficiency in existing homes and buildings and increase use of renewable energy community-wide.  Goal 2 – Encourage Alternative Transportation: Support transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling as viable transportation modes to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips within the community.  Goal 3 – Conserve Water: Promote the efficient use and conservation of water in buildings and landscapes.  Goal 4 – Reduce Solid Waste: Strengthen waste reduction efforts through recycling and organics collection and reduced consumption of materials that otherwise end up in landfills.  Goal 5 – Expand Green Infrastructure: Enhance the City’s existing urban forest on public and private lands. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Emissions The project site is currently developed with surface parking and two structures, one operational restaurant and one vacant office building. Existing site uses generate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile, area, and energy sources. 2.3 METHODOLOGY The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential GHG emissions impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background information. 2.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions BAAQMD has a tiered approach for assessing GHG emissions impacts of a project. If a project is within the jurisdiction of an agency that has a “qualified” GHG reduction strategy, the project can assess consistency of its GHG emissions impacts with the reduction strategy. BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria for development projects that would be applicable for the proposed project. If a project exceeds the Guidelines’ GHG screening-level sizes, the project would be required to conduct a full GHG analysis using the following BAAQMD significance criteria: 77 City of Cupertino, 2015. Climate Action Plan. January, 2015. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=13531 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 39  1,100 MT of CO2e per year; or  4.6 MT of CO2e per service population (SP) for year 2020 AB 32 requires the statewide GHG emission be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing the annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman, and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.78 Hence, BAAQMD’s per capita significance threshold is calculated based on the State’s land use sector emissions inventory prepared by CARB and the demographic forecasts for the 2008 Scoping Plan. The land use sector GHG emissions for 1990 were estimated by BAAQMD, as identified in Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, to be 295.53 MMTCO2eand the 2020 California service population (SP) to be 64.3 million. Therefore, the significance threshold that would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 is estimated at 4.6 MTCO2e/SP for year 2020.79 Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land use facilities. Direct sources of emissions may include on-site combustion of energy, such as natural gas used for heating and cooking, emissions from industrial processes (not applicable for most land use development projects), and fuel combustion from mobile sources. Indirect emissions are emissions produced off-site from energy production, water conveyance due to a project’s energy use and water consumption, and non-biogenic emissions from waste disposal. Biogenic CO2 emissions are not included in the quantification of a project’s GHG emissions, because biogenic CO2 is derived from living biomass (e.g. organic matter present in wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, food, animal, and yard waste) as opposed to fossil fuels. Although GHG emissions from waste generation are included in the GHG inventory for the proposed project, the efficiency threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population for 2020 identified above does not include the waste sector, and it is therefore not considered in the evaluation. BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, but requires quantification and disclosure of construction-related GHG emissions.80 For operational phases, if projects exceed the bright line and per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. Post-2020 GHG Thresholds For projects that would be implemented beyond year 2020, the efficiency targets have been adjusted based on the GHG reduction targets of Senate Bill 32, which set a goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which includes the regulations and programs to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.81 As shown in Table 9, 2030 GHG Reduction Targets, using the 78 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. 79 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 80 Ibid. 81 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Page 40 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data latest land use emissions inventory developed for the 2017 Scoping Plan, the estimated 2030 GHG project- level efficiency target would be 3.1 MTCO2e per service population per year. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 41 Table 9 2030 GHG Reduction Targets GHG Sector1 Scoping Plan Scenario GHG Emissions MMTCO2e 2017 Scoping Plan End Use Sector 2030 – Land Use Only Sectors Residential – residential energy consumption 41.4 Commercial – commercial energy consumption 30.1 Transportation – transportation energy consumption 105.1 Transportation Communications and Utilities – energy that supports public infrastructure like street lighting and waste treatment facilities 5 Solid Waste Non-Energy GHGs 9.1 Total 2017 Scoping Plan Land Use Sector Target 260 2030 Project-Level Efficiency Target 2030 Population2 44,085,600 2030 Employment3 19,210,760 2030 Service Population 63,296,360 2030 Efficiency Target 3.1 MTCO2e/SP Sources: 1 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.. 2 California Department of Finance. 2016. Report P-2: State and County Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity and Age (5-year groups). http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/documents/P-2_Age5yr_CAProj_2010-2060.xls.. 3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2016. Traffic Census Program. Year 2015 Truck Traffic. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/. Without industrial and agricultural sectors. ........................................................................................................................ APPENDIX B: HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data 1. Health Risk Assessment 1.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT The proposed project would construct a boutique hotel on a 1.72-acre site in the City of Cupertino. The project site is located at 10765 - 10801 North Wolfe Road in the northeast region of the City. The following provides the background methodology used for the construction health risk assessment for the proposed project. The latest version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines requires projects to evaluate the impacts of construction activities on sensitive receptors (BAAQMD, 2017). Project construction is anticipated to take place starting at the beginning of August 2019 and be completed by the end of July 2021 (approximately 522 work days). The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include the residents at the apartments approximately 80 feet to the west of the project site along Pruneridge Road. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (2017) that evaluate construction-related health risks associated with residential, commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the residences are closer than the distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen out potential health risks and therefore could be potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities. As a result, a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for the proposed project. This HRA considers the health impact to off-site sensitive receptors (children at the nearby residences) from construction emissions at the project site, including diesel equipment exhaust (diesel particulate matter or DPM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). It should be noted that these health impacts are based on conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2005) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2015) note that conservative assumptions used in a risk assessment are intended to ensure that the estimated risks do not underestimate the actual risks. Therefore, the estimated risks may not necessarily represent actual risks experienced by populations at or near a site. The use of conservative assumptions tends to produce upper-bound estimates of exposure and thus risk. For residential-based receptors, the following conservative assumptions were used:  It was assumed that maximum-exposed off-site residential receptors (both children and adults) stood outdoors and are subject to DPM at their residence for 8 hours per day, and approximately 260 construction days per year. In reality, California residents typically will spend on average 2 hours per day outdoors at their residences (USEPA, 2011). This would result in lower exposures to construction related DPM emissions and lower estimated risk values. Page 2 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data  The calculated risk for infants from third trimester to age 2 is multiplied by a factor of 10 to account for early life exposure and uncertainty in child versus adult exposure impacts (OEHHA, 2015). 1.2 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS For this HRA, the BAAQMD significance thresholds were deemed to be appropriate and the thresholds that were used for this project are shown below:  Excess cancer risk of more than 10 in a million  Non-cancer hazard index (chronic or acute) greater than 1.0  Incremental increase in average annual PM2.5 concentration of greater than 0.3 μg/m3 The methodology used in this HRA is consistent with the following BAAQMD and the OEHHA guidance documents:  BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.  BAAQMD, 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. May 2010.  BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. May 2012.  OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February, 2015. Potential exposures to DPM and PM2.5 from proposed project construction were evaluated for off-site sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. Pollutant concentrations were estimated using an air dispersion model, and excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazard indexes were calculated. These risks were then compared to the significance thresholds adopted for this HRA. 1.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction emissions were calculated as average daily emissions in pounds per day, using the proposed construction schedule and the latest version of California Emissions Estimation Model, known as CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CAPCOA, 2016). DPM emissions were based on the CalEEMod construction runs, using annual exhaust PM10 construction emissions presented in pounds (lbs) per day. The PM2.5 emissions were taken from the CalEEMod output for exhaust PM2.5 also presented in lbs per day. The project was assumed to take place over 24 months (522 work days) from beginning of August 2019 to July 2021. The average daily emission rates from construction equipment used during the proposed project were determined by dividing the annual average emissions for each construction year by the number of construction days per year for each calendar year of construction (i.e., 2019 through 2021). The off-site hauling emission rates were adjusted to evaluate localized emissions from the 0.23-mile haul route within 1,000 feet of the project site. The CalEEMod construction emissions output and emission rate calculations are provided in Appendix A of the HRA. Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 3 1.4 DISPERSION MODELING To assess the impact of emitted compounds on sensitive receptors near the project, air quality modeling using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model was performed. The model is a steady state Gaussian plume model and is an approved model by BAAQMD for estimating ground level impacts from point and fugitive sources in simple and complex terrain. The on-site construction emissions for the project were modeled as poly-area sources. The off-site mobile sources were modeled as adjacent line volume sources. The model requires additional input parameters, including chemical emission data and local meteorology. Inputs for the construction emission rates are those described in Section 1.3. Meteorological data obtained from the BAAQMD for the nearest representative meteorological station (N.Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport) with the five latest available years (2009 to 2013) of record were used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds. The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution and elevation of each emitting source in relation to the sensitive receptors. To accommodate the model’s Cartesian grid format, direction-dependent calculations were obtained by identifying the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for each source location. In addition, digital elevation model (DEM) data for the area were obtained and included in the model runs to account for complex terrain. An emission release height of 4.15 meters was used as representative of the stack exhaust height for off-road construction equipment and diesel truck traffic, and an initial vertical dispersion parameter of 1.93 m was used, per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance (2000). To determine contaminant impacts during construction hours, the model’s Season-Hour-Day (HRDOW) scalar option was invoked to predict flagpole-level concentrations (1.5 m for ground-floor receptors and 6.1 m for second-floor receptors) for construction emissions generated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM with a 1-hour lunch break. In addition, a scalar factor was applied to the risk calculations to account for the number of days residents are exposed to construction emissions per year. For all modeling runs, a unit emission rate of 1 gram per second was used. The unit emission rates were proportioned over the poly-area sources for on-site construction emissions, and divided between the volume sources for off-site hauling emissions. The maximum modeled concentrations from the output files were then multiplied by the emission rates calculated in Appendix A to obtain the maximum flagpole-level concentrations at the off-site maximum exposed receptors (MER). The off-site MER are the Hampton Apartments approximately 200 feet to the southeast along North Wolfe Road. The MER location is the receptor location associated with the maximum predicted AERMOD concentrations from the on-site emission source. The calculated on-site emission rates are approximately 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than the calculated off-site emission rates (see Appendix A). Therefore, the maximum concentrations associated with the on-site emission sources produce the highest overall ground-level MER concentrations and, consequently, higher calculated health risks. The air dispersion model output for the emission sources is presented in Appendix B. The model output DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from the construction emission sources are provided in Appendix C. Page 4 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data 1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 1.5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk A threshold of ten in a million (10x10-6) has been established as a level posing no significant risk for exposures to carcinogens. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. The cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical’s annual concentration by its cancer potency factor (CPF), a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It is an upper-limit estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) over a lifetime of 70 years. Recent guidance from OEHHA recommends a refinement to the standard point estimate approach with the use of age-specific breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (ASFs) to assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to accommodate the unique exposures associated with the residential receptors, the following dose algorithm was used. DoseAIR,per age group = (Cair × EF × [BRBW] × A × CF) Where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (µg/m3) EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg-day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1) CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, µg to mg, L to m3) The inhalation absorption factor (A) is a unitless factor that is only used if the cancer potency factor included a correction for absorption across the lung. For this assessment, the default value of 1 was used. For residential receptors, the exposure frequency (EF) of 0.96 is used to represent 350 days per year to allow for a two week period away from home each year (OEHHA, 2015). The 95th percentile daily breathing rates (BR/BW), exposure duration (ED), age sensitivity factors (ASFs), and fraction of time at home (FAH) for the various age groups are provided herein: Age Groups BR/BW (L/kg-day) ED ASF FAH Third trimester 361 0.25 10 0.85 0-2 age group 1,090 2 10 0.85 2-9 age group 861 7 3 0.72 2-16 age group 745 14 3 0.72 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 5 16-30 age group 335 14 1 0.73 16-70 age group 290 54 1 0.73 For construction analysis, the exposure duration spans the length of construction (e.g. 522 work days). As the length of construction is equal to 2 years, only the third trimester and 0-2 age bins apply to the construction analysis for the off-site residential receptors. To calculate the overall cancer risk, the risk for each appropriate age group is calculated per the following equation: Cancer RiskAIR = DoseAIR × CPF × ASF × FAH × ED𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (70 years) The CPFs used in the assessment were obtained from OEHHA guidance. The excess lifetime cancer risks during the construction period to the maximally exposed resident were calculated based on the factors provided above. The cancer risks for each age group are summed to estimate the total cancer risk for each toxic chemical species. For purposes of this assessment and as stated, the calculated residential cancer risks associated with construction activities are based on the 3rd trimester and 0-2 year old age groups. The final step converts the cancer risk in scientific notation to a whole number that expresses the cancer risk in “chances per million” by multiplying the cancer risk by a factor of 1x106 (i.e. 1 million). The calculated results are provided in Appendix C. 1.5.2 Non-Carcinogenic Hazards An evaluation of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted. Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor level (flagpole) concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment. To quantify non-carcinogenic impacts, the hazard index approach was used. The hazard index assumes that chronic sub-threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint). For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the hazard index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds one, a health hazard is presumed to exist. Page 6 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data The chronic hazard analysis for DPM is provided in Appendix C. The calculations contain the relevant exposure concentrations and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of non-carcinogenic exposures. 1.5.3 Criteria Pollutants The BAAQMD has recently incorporated PM2.5 into the District’s CEQA significance thresholds due to recent studies that show adverse health impacts from exposure to this pollutant. An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 for the annual average PM2.5 concentration is considered to be a significant impact. 1.6 CONSTRUCTION HRA RESULTS The calculated results are provided in Appendix C and the results are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY - UNMITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3) Maximum Exposed Receptor – Offsite Residences 24.5 0.06 0.12 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30 Exceeds Threshold? No No No Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017). Cancer risk for the maximum exposed receptor (MER) from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 24.5 in a million, which would not exceed the 10 in a million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 24-month construction period; therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260 construction days per year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions. For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits. The highest PM2.5 annual concentration of 0.12 is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Because cancer risk and PM2.5 annual concentrations for the MER would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds due to construction activities associated with the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is proposed: Mitigation Measure AIR-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall use construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 7 number of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The construction contractor shall ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level 3 DPF emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in the following table. The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risk and PM2.5 impacts would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for residential-based receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED Receptor Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazards PM2.5 (µg/m3)a Maximum Exposed Receptor – Offsite Residences 1.5 0.004 0.01 BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3 Exceeds Threshold? No No No Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AIR-2, which includes using construction equipment with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters and Tier\ 3 engines. Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017). Page 8 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data 2. References Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. ———. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. Dated May 2012. ———. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. Version 1.0. Dated May 2010. ———. 2009-2013. Meteorological Data Set for N.Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. ———. 2015. Meteorological Files. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/metfiles2.htm Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Dated February, 2015. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011. ______. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R. Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Appendix A. Emission Rate Calculations Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data This page intentionally left blank. Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Appendix B. Air Dispersion Model Output Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data This page intentionally left blank. Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Appendix C. Construction Risk Calculations Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data This page intentionally left blank. Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5 Input to Risk Tables 1 of 2 DPM 1 PM2.5 2 2019 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.62 0.58 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)7.74E-02 7.21E-02 Emission Rate (g/s)9.75E-03 9.09E-03 2020 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.49 0.45 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)6.12E-02 5.63E-02 Emission Rate (g/s)7.71E-03 7.09E-03 2021 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.46 0.42 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)5.74E-02 5.29E-02 Emission Rate (g/s)7.24E-03 6.66E-03Note: Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over entire construction phase area. DPM 1 PM2.5 2 2019 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.022 0.021 Emissions Hauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 2.65E-04 2.52E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)3.32E-05 3.15E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)4.18E-06 3.97E-06 2020 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.021 0.019EmissionsHauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 2.44E-04 2.31E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)3.05E-05 2.88E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)3.85E-06 3.63E-06 2021 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.013 0.012EmissionsHauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 1.49E-04 1.38E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)1.86E-05 1.73E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)2.35E-06 2.18E-06 Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 16 modeled volume sources. 8 hours Year Workdays Risk Scalar 5 2019 109 0.4220202621.0020211510.58 Demolition Site Prep Grading Number of Haul Trips 187 37 129 Hauling Length (miles) 10 30 30 Average Hauling Length (miles) 19.4 Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.23 1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 5 Residential risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations). On-site Construction Emissions Off-site Construction Emissions 4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output Files). Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-hour of breaks) 4 Total construction days per year 3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances proportioned to evaluate emissions from the 0.23-mile route within 1,000 of the project site. Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5 Input to Risk Tables 2 of 2 DPM 1 PM2.5 2 2019 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.07 0.06 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)8.62E-03 8.00E-03 Emission Rate (g/s)1.09E-03 1.01E-03 2020 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.04 0.04 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)5.01E-03 4.61E-03 Emission Rate (g/s)6.31E-04 5.81E-04 2021 On-site Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.42 0.39 Emissions Average Daily Emissions (lbs/hr)5.31E-02 4.88E-02 Emission Rate (g/s)6.69E-03 6.15E-03Note: Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over entire construction phase area. DPM 1 PM2.5 2 2019 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.020 0.019 Emissions Hauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 2.37E-04 2.22E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)2.96E-05 2.77E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)3.73E-06 3.49E-06 2020 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.011 0.011EmissionsHauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 1.34E-04 1.27E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)1.67E-05 1.58E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)2.11E-06 2.00E-06 2021 Off-site Haul Length Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.012 0.012EmissionsHauling Emissions w/in 1,000 ft (lbs/day) 3 1.48E-04 1.38E-04 Emission Rate (lbs/hr)1.84E-05 1.73E-05 Emission Rate (g/s)2.32E-06 2.18E-06 Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 16 modeled volume sources. 8 hours Year Workdays Risk Scalar 5 2019 109 0.4220202621.0020211510.58 Demolition Site Prep Grading Number of Haul Trips 187 37 129 Hauling Length (miles) 10 30 30 Average Hauling Length (miles) 19.4 Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.23 1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions. 5 Residential risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations). Mitigated On-site Construction Emissions Mitigated Off-site Construction Emissions Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-hour of breaks) 4 Total construction days per year 3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances proportioned to evaluate emissions from the 0.23-mile route within 1,000 of the project site. 4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output Files). Table C1 Off-site Residential MER Concentrations for Risk Calculations 1 of 2 Contaminant Model Emission Rates 2 MER Total MER Conc. Output 1 Conc.Annual Average (µg/m3)(g/s)(µg/m3)(µg/m3) ( a )( c )( d )( e )( f )Residential Receptors - UnmitigatedDPM2019On-Site Emissions 12.82 9.75E-03 1.25E-01 1.25E-01Truck Route 16.39 4.18E-06 6.85E-05 2020 On-Site Emissions 12.82 7.71E-03 9.88E-02 9.88E-02Truck Route 16.39 3.85E-06 6.31E-052021On-Site Emissions 12.82 7.24E-03 9.27E-02 9.28E-02 Truck Route 16.39 2.35E-06 3.85E-05 Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculationsPM2.5 2029 On-Site Emissions 12.82 9.09E-03 1.16E-01 1.17E-01 Truck Route 16.39 3.97E-06 6.51E-05 2020 On-Site Emissions 12.82 7.09E-03 9.09E-02 9.10E-02Truck Route 16.39 3.63E-06 5.96E-052021On-Site Emissions 12.82 6.66E-03 8.54E-02 8.54E-02Truck Route 16.39 2.18E-06 3.57E-05 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.12 BAAQMD Threshold 0.30 Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Level 3 DPFs for eq. > 50 HP DPM 2019 On-Site Emissions 12.82 1.09E-03 1.39E-02 1.40E-02Truck Route 16.39 3.73E-06 6.12E-05 2020 On-Site Emissions 12.82 6.31E-04 8.09E-03 8.12E-03Truck Route 16.39 2.11E-06 3.46E-05 2021 On-Site Emissions 12.82 6.69E-03 8.58E-02 8.58E-02Truck Route 16.39 2.32E-06 3.81E-05 Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations2019On-Site Emissions 12.82 1.01E-03 1.29E-02 1.30E-02 Truck Route 16.39 3.49E-06 5.73E-05 2020 On-Site Emissions 12.82 5.81E-04 7.44E-03 7.47E-03Truck Route 16.39 2.00E-06 3.27E-05 2021 On-Site Emissions 12.82 6.15E-03 7.88E-02 7.88E-02Truck Route 16.39 2.18E-06 3.57E-05Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.01 Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 587206.00 E, 4132493.80 N 1 Model Output at the MER based on unit emission rates for sources (1 g/s). 2 Emission Rates from Emission Rate Calculations (Appendix A - Construction Emissions). PM2.5 Source ( b ) Table C2 Quantification of Health Risks for Off-site Residents 2 of 2 MER Weight Contaminant Conc.Fraction URF CPF 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years Chronic REL RESP (µg/m3)(µg/m3)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day)per million per million (µg/m3) ( b )( c )( d )( e )( f )( g )( i )( k )( l )( m )Residential Receptors - Unmitigated 2019 On & Off-Site 1.25E-01 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 4.33E-05 1.31E-04 1.38E+00 2.79E+00 4.2 5.0E+00 2.50E-022020On & Off-Site 9.88E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 1.03E-04 1.32E+01 13.2 5.0E+00 1.98E-022021On & Off-Site 9.28E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 9.70E-05 7.15E+00 7.2 5.0E+00 1.86E-02 Total 24.5 0.063BAAQMD Threshold 10.0 1.0Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Level 3 DPFs for eq. > 50 HP 2019 On & Off-Site 1.40E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 4.84E-06 1.46E-05 1.54E-01 3.12E-01 0.47 5.0E+00 2.80E-032020On & Off-Site 8.12E-03 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 8.49E-06 1.08E+00 1.08 5.0E+00 1.62E-032021On & Off-Site 8.58E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 8.97E-05 6.62E+00 6.62 5.0E+00 1.72E-02 Total 1.5 0.004 Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 587206.00 E, 4132493.80 N OEHHA age bin 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 yearsexposure year(s)2019 2019-2021 Dose Exposure Factors:exposure frequency (days/year)350 350 inhalation rate (L/kg-day) 1 361 1090 inhalation absorption factor 1 1 conversion factor (mg/µg; m3/L)1.0E-06 1.0E-06 Risk Calculation Factors:age sensitivity factor 10 10averaging time (years)70 70 per million 1.0E+06 1.0E+06fraction of time at home 0.85 0.85exposure durations per age bin Construction Year Risk Scalar 2 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years 2019 0.42 0.25 0.17 2020 1.00 1.0020210.58 0.58Total2.00 0.25 1.75 1 Inhalation rate taken as the 95th percentile breathing rates (OEHHA, 2015). 2 Risk scalar determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App A - Construction Emissions). 3 Chronic Hazards for DPM using the chronic reference exposure level (REL) for the Respiratory Toxicological Endpoint. ( a ) Source Dose (by age bin) exposure durations (year) Chronic Hazards 3Total Cancer Risk Carcinogenic Risks (by age bin) Results Summary Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment Concentration - Source Group: OFFSITE Averaging Period Rank Peak X (m) Y (m) ZELEV (m) ZHILL (m) Peak Date, Start HourZFLAG (m)Units PERIOD 16.38829 587348.45 4132332.80 52.00 1.50 52.00ug/m^3 Concentration - Source Group: ONSITE Averaging Period Rank Peak X (m) Y (m) ZELEV (m) ZHILL (m) Peak Date, Start HourZFLAG (m)Units PERIOD 12.81539 587358.45 4132382.80 52.00 1.50 52.00ug/m^3 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 5/24/2018 Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Village_Hotel\Village_Hotel.isc RS - 1 of 1 ** **************************************** ** ** AERMOD Input Produced by: ** AERMOD View Ver. 9.5.0 ** Lakes Environmental Software Inc. ** Date: 5/24/2018 ** File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Village_Hotel\Village_Hotel.ADI ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Control Pathway **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING TITLEONE Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment MODELOPT DFAULT CONC AVERTIME PERIOD URBANOPT 60643 POLLUTID OTHER FLAGPOLE 1.50 RUNORNOT RUN ERRORFIL Village_Hotel.err CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Source Pathway **************************************** ** ** SO STARTING ** Source Location ** ** Source ID - Type - X Coord. - Y Coord. ** LOCATION PAREA1 AREAPOLY 587239.219 4132417.134 53.000 ** DESCRSRC Onsite ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Line Source Represented by Adjacent Volume Sources ** LINE VOLUME Source ID = SLINE1 ** DESCRSRC ** PREFIX ** Length of Side = 24.38 ** Configuration = Adjacent ** Emission Rate = 1.0 ** Vertical Dimension = 4.15 ** SZINIT = 1.93 ** Nodes = 3 ** 587239.883, 4132407.067, 53.00, 4.15, 11.34 ** 587319.572, 4132406.201, 52.00, 4.15, 11.34 ** 587313.509, 4132107.364, 53.00, 4.15, 11.34 ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION L0000001 VOLUME 587252.074 4132406.935 52.90 LOCATION L0000002 VOLUME 587276.457 4132406.670 52.59 LOCATION L0000003 VOLUME 587300.839 4132406.405 52.05 LOCATION L0000004 VOLUME 587319.458 4132400.553 52.00 LOCATION L0000005 VOLUME 587318.963 4132376.174 52.00 LOCATION L0000006 VOLUME 587318.469 4132351.795 52.00 LOCATION L0000007 VOLUME 587317.974 4132327.416 52.15 LOCATION L0000008 VOLUME 587317.479 4132303.037 52.52 LOCATION L0000009 VOLUME 587316.985 4132278.658 52.54 LOCATION L0000010 VOLUME 587316.490 4132254.279 52.89 LOCATION L0000011 VOLUME 587315.995 4132229.900 53.00 LOCATION L0000012 VOLUME 587315.501 4132205.521 53.00 LOCATION L0000013 VOLUME 587315.006 4132181.142 53.00 LOCATION L0000014 VOLUME 587314.511 4132156.763 53.00 LOCATION L0000015 VOLUME 587314.017 4132132.384 53.00 LOCATION L0000016 VOLUME 587313.522 4132108.005 53.00 ** End of LINE VOLUME Source ID = SLINE1 ** Source Parameters ** SRCPARAM PAREA1 0.0001947135 4.150 4 1.930 AREAVERT PAREA1 587239.219 4132417.134 587298.801 4132416.813 AREAVERT PAREA1 587301.043 4132500.420 587237.297 4132500.100 ** LINE VOLUME Source ID = SLINE1 SRCPARAM L0000001 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000002 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000003 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000004 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000005 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000006 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000007 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000008 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000009 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000010 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000011 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000012 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000013 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000014 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000015 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 SRCPARAM L0000016 0.0625 4.15 11.34 1.93 ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- **************************************** ** AERMOD Receptor Pathway **************************************** *** AERMOD - VERSION 16216r *** *** Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment *** 05/24/18 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** *** 14:18:06 PAGE 2 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN *** VOLUME SOURCE DATA *** NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L0000001 0 0.62500E-01 587252.1 4132406.9 52.9 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000002 0 0.62500E-01 587276.5 4132406.7 52.6 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000003 0 0.62500E-01 587300.8 4132406.4 52.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000004 0 0.62500E-01 587319.5 4132400.6 52.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000005 0 0.62500E-01 587319.0 4132376.2 52.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000006 0 0.62500E-01 587318.5 4132351.8 52.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000007 0 0.62500E-01 587318.0 4132327.4 52.1 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000008 0 0.62500E-01 587317.5 4132303.0 52.5 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000009 0 0.62500E-01 587317.0 4132278.7 52.5 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000010 0 0.62500E-01 587316.5 4132254.3 52.9 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000011 0 0.62500E-01 587316.0 4132229.9 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000012 0 0.62500E-01 587315.5 4132205.5 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000013 0 0.62500E-01 587315.0 4132181.1 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000014 0 0.62500E-01 587314.5 4132156.8 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000015 0 0.62500E-01 587314.0 4132132.4 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW L0000016 0 0.62500E-01 587313.5 4132108.0 53.0 4.15 11.34 1.93 YES HRDOW *** AERMOD - VERSION 16216r *** *** Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment *** 05/24/18 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** *** 14:18:06 PAGE 100 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN *** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: OFFSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** ** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 587408.45 4132302.80 5.93038 587418.45 4132302.80 5.24775 587428.45 4132302.80 4.66319 587438.45 4132302.80 4.15754 587448.45 4132302.80 3.71696 587458.45 4132302.80 3.34413 587468.45 4132302.80 3.02595 587478.45 4132302.80 2.74611 587488.45 4132302.80 2.49939 587498.45 4132302.80 2.28086 587508.45 4132302.80 2.08610 587518.45 4132302.80 1.91206 587528.45 4132302.80 1.75615 587538.45 4132302.80 1.61616 587348.45 4132312.80 15.91901 587358.45 4132312.80 12.96313 587368.45 4132312.80 10.76877 587378.45 4132312.80 9.10717 587388.45 4132312.80 7.81385 587398.45 4132312.80 6.78052 587408.45 4132312.80 5.93619 587418.45 4132312.80 5.23366 587428.45 4132312.80 4.63292 587438.45 4132312.80 4.11446 587448.45 4132312.80 3.66084 587458.45 4132312.80 3.28269 587468.45 4132312.80 2.96189 587478.45 4132312.80 2.68029 587488.45 4132312.80 2.43213 587498.45 4132312.80 2.21270 587508.45 4132312.80 2.01808 587518.45 4132312.80 1.84498 587528.45 4132312.80 1.69063 587348.45 4132322.80 16.14662 587358.45 4132322.80 13.12660 587368.45 4132322.80 10.88566 587378.45 4132322.80 9.18405 587388.45 4132322.80 7.85485 587398.45 4132322.80 6.78974 587408.45 4132322.80 5.91820 587418.45 4132322.80 5.19329 587428.45 4132322.80 4.57657 587438.45 4132322.80 4.04857 587448.45 4132322.80 3.58910 587458.45 4132322.80 3.20489 587468.45 4132322.80 2.88020 587478.45 4132322.80 2.59684 587488.45 4132322.80 2.34857 587498.45 4132322.80 2.13028 587508.45 4132322.80 1.93771 587518.45 4132322.80 1.76732 587348.45 4132332.80 16.38829 587358.45 4132332.80 13.29360 587368.45 4132332.80 10.99622 587378.45 4132332.80 9.24398 587388.45 4132332.80 7.86952 587398.45 4132332.80 6.76598 587408.45 4132332.80 5.86355 587418.45 4132332.80 5.11519 587428.45 4132332.80 4.48363 587438.45 4132332.80 3.94850 587448.45 4132332.80 3.48726 587458.45 4132332.80 3.10083 587468.45 4132332.80 2.77545 587478.45 4132332.80 2.49342 587488.45 4132332.80 2.24793 587498.45 4132332.80 2.03340 587508.45 4132332.80 1.84521 587358.45 4132342.80 13.46798 587368.45 4132342.80 11.09292 587378.45 4132342.80 9.27037 587388.45 4132342.80 7.83804 587398.45 4132342.80 6.68748 587408.45 4132342.80 5.75101 587418.45 4132342.80 4.98174 587428.45 4132342.80 4.34131 587438.45 4132342.80 3.80445 587448.45 4132342.80 3.34908 587458.45 4132342.80 2.96767 587468.45 4132342.80 2.64618 *** AERMOD - VERSION 16216r *** *** Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment *** 05/24/18 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** *** 14:18:06 PAGE 101 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN *** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: OFFSITE *** INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , *** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS *** ** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 587478.45 4132342.80 2.36960 587488.45 4132342.80 2.13048 587498.45 4132342.80 1.92277 587358.45 4132352.80 13.64185 587368.45 4132352.80 11.14370 587378.45 4132352.80 9.22754 587388.45 4132352.80 7.72719 587398.45 4132352.80 6.52964 587408.45 4132352.80 5.56618 587418.45 4132352.80 4.78630 587428.45 4132352.80 4.14589 587438.45 4132352.80 3.61621 587448.45 4132352.80 3.17378 587458.45 4132352.80 2.80454 587468.45 4132352.80 2.49277 587478.45 4132352.80 2.22651 587358.45 4132362.80 13.72454 587368.45 4132362.80 11.07539 587378.45 4132362.80 9.05401 587388.45 4132362.80 7.49069 587398.45 4132362.80 6.26395 587408.45 4132362.80 5.29569 587418.45 4132362.80 4.52017 587428.45 4132362.80 3.89430 587438.45 4132362.80 3.38499 587448.45 4132362.80 2.96431 587458.45 4132362.80 2.61336 587468.45 4132362.80 2.31785 587358.45 4132372.80 13.60200 587368.45 4132372.80 10.77702 587378.45 4132372.80 8.67032 587388.45 4132372.80 7.07888 587398.45 4132372.80 5.86398 587408.45 4132372.80 4.92779 587418.45 4132372.80 4.18834 587428.45 4132372.80 3.59608 587438.45 4132372.80 3.11778 587448.45 4132372.80 2.72508 587458.45 4132372.80 2.39932 587358.45 4132382.80 13.01959 587368.45 4132382.80 10.10417 587378.45 4132382.80 8.00185 587388.45 4132382.80 6.46012 587398.45 4132382.80 5.31967 587408.45 4132382.80 4.46107 587418.45 4132382.80 3.79100 587428.45 4132382.80 3.25359 587454.03 4132086.22 2.74296 587464.03 4132086.22 2.56145 587474.03 4132086.22 2.39868 587484.03 4132086.22 2.25298 587494.03 4132086.22 2.12585 587454.03 4132096.22 2.85674 587464.03 4132096.22 2.66612 587474.03 4132096.22 2.49511 587484.03 4132096.22 2.34186 587494.03 4132096.22 2.20313 587428.45 4132102.80 3.61840 587438.45 4132102.80 3.34077 587448.45 4132102.80 3.09603 587458.45 4132102.80 2.87734 587468.45 4132102.80 2.68170 587478.45 4132102.80 2.50672 587488.45 4132102.80 2.34924 587498.45 4132102.80 2.20669 587508.45 4132102.80 2.07701 587518.45 4132102.80 1.95850 587428.45 4132112.80 3.74760 587438.45 4132112.80 3.44969 587448.45 4132112.80 3.18848 587458.45 4132112.80 2.95699 587468.45 4132112.80 2.75090 587478.45 4132112.80 2.56699 587488.45 4132112.80 2.40183 587498.45 4132112.80 2.25264 587508.45 4132112.80 2.11717 587518.45 4132112.80 1.99360 587528.45 4132112.80 1.88042 587418.45 4132122.80 4.21168 587428.45 4132122.80 3.85250 *** AERMOD - VERSION 16216r *** *** Village Hotel Health Risk Assessment *** 05/24/18 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** *** 14:18:06 PAGE 109 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) RESULTS *** ** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ONSITE 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 12.81539 AT ( 587358.45, 4132382.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 12.68656 AT ( 587358.45, 4132382.80, 52.00, 52.00, 6.10) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.95395 AT ( 587206.00, 4132493.80, 53.00, 53.00, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.82097 AT ( 587206.00, 4132483.80, 53.00, 53.00, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.67372 AT ( 587368.45, 4132382.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.59335 AT ( 587368.45, 4132382.80, 52.00, 52.00, 6.10) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.21305 AT ( 587206.00, 4132473.80, 53.00, 53.00, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.87978 AT ( 587358.45, 4132372.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.86429 AT ( 587358.45, 4132372.80, 52.00, 52.00, 6.10) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.58982 AT ( 587378.45, 4132382.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC OFFSITE 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 16.38829 AT ( 587348.45, 4132332.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 16.14662 AT ( 587348.45, 4132322.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.91901 AT ( 587348.45, 4132312.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.71947 AT ( 587348.45, 4132302.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.49790 AT ( 587348.45, 4132292.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.36931 AT ( 587348.45, 4132282.80, 52.00, 52.00, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.23188 AT ( 587348.45, 4132272.80, 52.06, 52.06, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.10298 AT ( 587348.45, 4132262.80, 52.22, 52.22, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 14.96357 AT ( 587348.45, 4132252.80, 52.39, 52.39, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 14.78057 AT ( 587348.45, 4132242.80, 52.49, 52.49, 1.50) DC *** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: Wind Rose for San Jose Mineta Airport COMMENTS:COMPANY NAME: MODELER: DATE: 5/22/2018 PROJECT NO.: NORTH SOUTH WEST EAST 2.04% 4.08% 6.12% 8.16% 10.2% WIND SPEED (Knots) >= 21.58 17.11 - 21.58 11.08 - 17.11 7.00 - 11.08 4.08 - 7.00 0.97 - 4.08 Calms: 26.47% TOTAL COUNT: 42621 hrs. CALM WINDS: 26.47% DATA PERIOD: Start Date: 1/1/2009 - 00:00 End Date: 1/2/2014 - 23:59 AVG. WIND SPEED: 5.71 Knots DISPLAY: Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) ........................................................................................................................ APPENDIX C: NOISE DATA ........................................................................................................................ Fundamentals of Noise NOISE Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound; whether it is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:  Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference sound pressure. The standard reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa).  Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro- inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.  Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.  Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE Page 2 PlaceWorks exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”  Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NOTE: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive – that is, higher than the Ldn value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.  Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Loudness or amplitude is measured in dB, frequency or pitch is measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second, and duration or time variations is measured in seconds or minutes. Amplitude Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. Table 1 Noise Perceptibility Change in dB Noise Level NOISE BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA November 2016 Page 3 ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2009. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. New York: Spon Press. Frequency The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically used to approximate the response of the human ear. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise. Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:  Ambient (background) sound level  General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban)  Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition  Duration of the sound event  Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness  Time of day that the event occurs Duration Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively. These “n” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE Page 4 PlaceWorks except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related noise sources. Sound Propagation Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be 79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”) surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level absorptive vegetation decreases by an additional 1.5 dB for each doubling of distance. Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, through generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less- developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 2 shows typical noise levels from familiar sources. NOISE BACKGROUND AND MODELING DATA November 2016 Page 5 Table 2 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities Onset of physical discomfort 120+ 110 Rock Band (near amplification system) Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009, November. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). Prepared by ICF International. Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position; velocity is the instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves; and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is the FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE Page 6 PlaceWorks square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 3 displays the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV). Table 3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e. not structural) damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4–0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004, June. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International. CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING OUTPUT Bldg Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Crane No 16 80.6 125.0 0.0 Man Lift No 20 74.7 125.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 125.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Crane 72.6 64.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Man Lift 66.7 59.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 76.0 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 76.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 Demo Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: Demo **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 125.0 0.0 Excavator No 40 80.7 125.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 125.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw 81.6 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 72.8 68.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 76.0 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 81.6 77.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 Grading Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: Grading **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 125.0 0.0 Excavator No 40 80.7 125.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 125.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw 81.6 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 72.8 68.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 76.0 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 81.6 77.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 Paving Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: Paving **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Paver No 50 77.2 125.0 0.0 Roller No 20 80.0 125.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 125.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Paver 69.3 66.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 72.0 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 76.0 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 76.0 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 Ref Levels_25 feet Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ref 25 feet Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 25.0 0.0 Excavator No 40 80.7 25.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 25.0 0.0 Grader No 40 85.0 25.0 0.0 Scraper No 40 83.6 25.0 0.0 Crane No 16 80.6 25.0 0.0 Man Lift No 20 74.7 25.0 0.0 Paver No 50 77.2 25.0 0.0 Roller No 20 80.0 25.0 0.0 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 25.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw 95.6 88.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 86.7 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 Ref Levels_25 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 90.0 86.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 91.0 87.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 89.6 85.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Crane 86.6 78.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Man Lift 80.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 83.2 80.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 86.0 79.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Compressor (air) 83.7 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 95.6 94.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 2 Site Prep Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/11/2018 Case Description: Site Prep **** Receptor #1 **** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1 Residential 50.0 50.0 50.0 Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Grader No 40 85.0 125.0 0.0 Scraper No 40 83.6 125.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84.0 125.0 0.0 Results ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Grader 77.0 73.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 75.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 76.0 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.0 77.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASE CALCULATIONS Roadway SegmentAM Peak HourPM Peak HourADTNoise IncreaseWolfe Road - North of Homestead Road Existing Conditions 2,306 2,90126,000 Background Conditions 2,809 3,20230,000 Existing + Project Conditions 2,652 3,06228,500 0.4 Background + Project Conditions 2,833 3,22430,500 Future Growth No Project Conditions 2,904 3,31231,000 Future Growth Conditions 2,928 3,33431,500 0.8Cumulative + Project (*Vallco TIA) 2,926 3,12430,500 0.7Wolfe Road - Between Homestead Road & I-280 Existing Conditions 3,324 4,72840,500 Background Conditions 3,649 5,85447,500 Existing + Project Conditions 3,360 4,76840,500 0.0 Background + Project Conditions 3,685 5,89448,000 Future Growth No Project Conditions 3,770 6,02649,000 Future Growth Conditions 3,806 6,06649,500 0.9Cumulative + Project (*Vallco TIA) 4,369 4,81446,000 0.6Wolfe Road - South of I-280 Existing Conditions 3,034 2,92230,000 Background Conditions 3,414 3,32233,500 Existing + Project Conditions 3,052 2,93830,000 0.0 Background + Project Conditions 3,432 3,33834,000 Future Growth No Project Conditions 3,526 3,42835,000 Future Growth Conditions 3,544 3,44435,000 0.7Cumulative + Project (*Vallco TIA) 5,624 5,97758,000 2.9Homestead Road - West of Wolfe Road Existing Conditions 1,719 2,81922,500 Background Conditions 1,866 2,94024,000 Existing + Project Conditions 1,724 2,82422,500 0.0 Background + Project Conditions 1,871 2,94524,000 Future Growth No Project Conditions 1,929 3,04325,000 Future Growth Conditions 1,934 3,04825,000 0.5Cumulative + Project (*Vallco TIA) 2,568 2,86827,000 0.8Homestead Road - East of Wolfe Road Existing Conditions 2,607 2,37025,000 Background Conditions 2,804 2,57427,000 Existing + Project Conditions 2,618 2,38125,000 0.0 Background + Project Conditions 2,815 2,58527,000 Future Growth No Project Conditions 2,899 2,66028,000 Future Growth Conditions 2,910 2,67128,000 0.5Cumulative + Project (*Vallco TIA) 2,913 3,36431,500 0.2 ........................................................................................................................ APPENDIX D: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of Cupertino August 30, 2018 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 18BJ04 Phone: 408.971.6100 Client Name: City of Cupertino Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 10 3. Background Conditions .................................................................................................................. 20 4. Project Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 23 5. TDM Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 33 6. Future Growth Conditions .............................................................................................................. 38 7. Other Transportation Issues ........................................................................................................... 41 Appendices Appendix A New Traffic Counts Appendix B Lists of Approved Projects Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations Appendix D Cupertino Village Shopping Center Shared Parking Analysis List of Tables Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ......................................................................... iv Table ES-2 Freeway Level of Service Summary ............................................................................... v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ........................ 6 Table 2 Freeway Level of Service Based on Density ......................................................................... 7 Table 3 Existing Transit Service Near the Project Site ..................................................................... 14 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................ 17 Table 5 Existing Freeway Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 19 Table 6 Background Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................... 22 Table 7 Project Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................... 25 Table 8 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................ 29 Table 9 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... 31 Table 10 Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis .................................................................................. 32 Table 11 Future Growth Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 40 Table 12 Queuing Analysis Summary ................................................................................................. 49 Table 13 Transit Delay Analysis Summary ......................................................................................... 51 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections .................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 21 Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 28 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 30 Figure 12 Future Growth Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 39 Figure 13 Parking Garage Below-Grade Level 1 Layout ..................................................................... 42 Figure 14 Parking Garage Below-Grade Level 2 Layout ..................................................................... 43 Figure 15 Vehicular and Pedestrian On-site Circulation ...................................................................... 46 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | iii Executive Summary This study was conducted for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed boutique hotel project at 10765 N. Wolfe Road in the City of Cupertino, California. Located across from the Apple Campus 2, the project would demolish the existing 3,385 square-foot (s.f.) Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant and Pub and 10,044 s.f. of vacant commercial space and construct a 185-room boutique hotel, which would include a 2,502 s.f. restaurant and 5,568 s.f. of meeting space. The project would also remove the existing 66 surface parking stalls on the site and construct a subterranean parking garage comprised of 248 parking stalls. Access to the project site would be provided via Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for 13 signalized intersections and 4 freeway segments in the vicinity of the project site. The study also includes an analysis of site access, on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. Based on trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 1,636 net new daily vehicle trips, with 96 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour Project Level of Service Analyses The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under background plus project conditions (see Table ES-1). The CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under background plus project conditions. However, the project would not cause the intersection’s critical-movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds and the V/C to increase by 0.01 or more compared to background conditions. Therefore, the intersection impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. The results of the freeway segment analysis show that the project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volume (one percent or more of freeway capacity) on any of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS F, and none of the freeway segments currently operating at LOS E or better would worsen to LOS F as a result of the project (see Table ES-2). Thus, based on CMP freeway impact criteria, none of the freeway segments would be significantly impacted by the project. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | iv Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary # Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS LOSAM 3/28/18 53.6 D- 53.7 D- 0.0 0.001 55.3 E+ 55.4 E+ 0.0 0.001 57.3 E+PM 11/10/16 43.0 D 43.1 D 0.2 0.003 44.1 D 44.2 D 0.2 0.003 45.9 DAM 3/28/18 51.9 D- 52.1 D- 0.3 0.007 53.2 D- 53.3 D- 0.4 0.007 - -PM 3/28/18 45.6 D 45.7 D 0.4 0.006 47.5 D 47.6 D 0.4 0.006 - -AM 3/28/18 10.6 B+ 10.6 B+ 0.0 0.003 10.5 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.0 0.003 - -PM 3/28/18 15.9 B 15.9 B 0.0 0.004 15.9 B 15.9 B 0.0 0.004 - -AM 3/28/18 12.5 B 12.5 B 0.0 0.003 12.5 B 12.5 B 0.0 0.003 - -PM 3/28/18 15.2 B 15.2 B 0.0 0.003 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.003 - -AM 3/28/18 35.7 D+ 35.7 D+ 0.0 0.001 36.2 D+ 36.3 D+ 0.0 0.001 39.7 DPM 10/12/16 36.4 D+ 36.5 D+ 0.1 0.001 37.3 D+ 37.3 D+ 0.1 0.001 44.9 DAM 3/28/18 38.5 D+ 38.6 D+ 0.0 0.003 40.7 D 40.8 D 0.3 0.007 - -PM 3/28/18 43.2 D 43.3 D 0.3 0.005 46.2 D 46.4 D 0.4 0.005 - -AM 3/28/18 69.7 E 69.7 E 0.2 0.002 72.3 E 72.4 E 0.2 0.00281.3 FPM 10/6/16 74.8 E 74.9 E 0.1 0.00182.1 F 82.3 F 0.5 0.002 100.3 FAM 3/28/18 14.1 B 14.0 B 0.0 0.003 19.4 B- 19.4 B- 0.0 0.000 - -PM 3/28/18 21.3 C+ 21.3 C+ 0.0 0.003 27.8 C 27.8 C 0.0 0.003 - -AM 3/28/18 21.2 C+ 22.8 C+ 1.4 0.014 26.6 C 27.9 C 1.2 0.014 - -PM 3/28/18 18.3 B- 20.6 C+ 2.7 0.026 22.4 C+ 24.5 C 2.7 0.026 - -AM 3/28/18 8.3 A 8.3 A 0.1 0.009 9.9 A 10.1 B+ 0.3 0.009 12.0 B+PM 10/12/16 7.0 A 6.9 A -0.1 0.007 6.9 A 6.9 A 0.0 0.007 7.8 AAM 3/28/18 13.9 B 14.0 B 0.1 0.006 18.4 B- 18.8 B- 0.5 0.006 26.7 CPM 10/12/16 7.5 A 7.5 A 0.0 0.002 8.3 A 8.3 A 0.0 0.002 8.6 AAM 3/28/18 22.1 C+ 22.0 C+ 0.0 0.002 24.4 C 24.4 C 0.0 0.002 - -PM 3/28/18 20.1 C+ 20.1 C+ 0.0 0.002 21.7 C+ 21.7 C+ 0.0 0.002 - -AM 3/28/18 39.9 D 40.0 D 0.2 0.005 40.8 D 40.9 D 0.2 0.005 42.6 DPM 10/12/16 39.9 D 40.0 D 0.1 0.002 40.7 D 40.7 D 0.1 0.002 43.4 DNote:*Denotes the CMP designated IntersectionBold indicates a substandard level of service.Avg. Delay (sec)Future Growth ConditionsExisting BackgroundNo ProjectNo Projectwith ProjectWolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard *Wolfe Road and Homestead RoadLawrence Expressway and Homestead Road *Wolfe Road and Apple Park WayCount DateWolfe Road and El Camino Real *Wolfe Road and Fremont AvenuePeak HourIncr. in Critical V/CAvg. Delay (sec)with ProjectWolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps *Wolfe Road and Vallco ParkwayAvg. Delay (sec)Incr. in Critical Delay (sec)Incr. in Critical V/CWolfe Road and Pruneridge AvenueWolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps *Avg. Delay (sec)Incr. in Critical Delay (sec)Avg. Delay (sec)Wolfe Road and Marion WayWolfe Road and Inverness WayDe Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road *12131234567891011 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | v Table ES-2 Freeway Level of Service Summary Peak Capacity Capacity Total % %Freeway Direction Hour (vph) LOS (vph) LOS Volume Volume Capacity Volume Capacity Impact?AM 6900 C 1800 B 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F 1800 F5 4 0.1% 1 0.1% NOAM 6900 C 1800 C 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F1800 D 5 4 0.1% 1 0.1% NOAM 6900 C 1800 B 10 8 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F1800 E 13 10 0.2% 3 0.2% NOAM 6900 D 1800 B 10 8 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 13 10 0.2% 3 0.2% NOAM6900 F 1800 F14 11 0.2% 3 0.2% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 9 7 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F 1800 F14 11 0.2% 3 0.2% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 9 7 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F1800 E 6 5 0.1% 1 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 A 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F1800 E 6 5 0.1% 1 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 A 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NONotes:1Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 2016.Bold indicates a substandard level of service.I-280 Saratoga Ave to Lawrence ExpwyI-280 Lawrence Expwy to Wolfe RdI-280 Wolfe Rd to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to SR 85I-280 SR 85 to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to Wolfe RdI-280 Wolfe Rd to Lawrence ExpwyI-280 Lawrence Expwy to Saratoga AveSegmentWBWBEBEBEBEBWBWBExisting Plus Project TripsMixed-Flow HOV LaneProject TripsMixed-Flow Lanes HOV Lane Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | vi Other Transportation Issues No significant traffic operational issues are expected to occur as a result of the project. The project would include a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that would promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the project. The project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit services, pedestrian facilities or bicycle facilities in the study area, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Hexagon has the following recommendations related to site access, on-site circulation and parking:  Provide a parking garage ramp with a larger radius to adequately serve inbound and outbound vehicles.  Update the site plan to show the on-site trash area.  Update the site plan to show at least 10 Class II bicycle parking spaces prior to the final design, to ensure the project conforms to the City’s bicycle parking requirements. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 1 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for a proposed boutique hotel project at the Cupertino Village at 10765 N. Wolfe Road in the City of Cupertino, California (see Figure 1). Located across from the Apple Campus 2, the project would demolish the existing 3,385 square-foot (s.f.) Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant and Pub and 10,044 s.f. of vacant commercial space and construct a 185-room boutique hotel, which would include a 2,502 s.f. restaurant and 5,568 s.f. of meeting space (see Figure 2). The project would also remove the existing 66 surface parking stalls on the site and construct a subterranean parking garage comprised of 248 parking stalls. Access to the project site would be provided via Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and identifying the potential transportation related impacts as a result of the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). For projects that would generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips, a CMP analysis is not required. Although the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 net peak hour trips, a CMP analysis including a freeway analysis and future growth analysis was prepared because the calculated number of net new peak hour trips nearly meets the 100-trip threshold. The traffic study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for 13 signalized intersections and 4 freeway segments near the project site. The study also includes an analysis of site access, on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. Study Intersections 1. Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (CMP) (Sunnyvale) 2. Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue (Sunnyvale) 3. Wolfe Road and Marion Way (Sunnyvale) 4. Wolfe Road and Inverness Avenue (Sunnyvale) 5. De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (CMP) (Cupertino) 6. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (Cupertino) 7. Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road (CMP) (Santa Clara) 8. Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way (Cupertino) 9. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue (Cupertino) 10. Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps (CMP) (Cupertino) 11. Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps (CMP) (Cupertino) 12. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Cupertino) 13. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP) (Cupertino) CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections 1 2 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 3 A p p l e P a r k A p p l e P ar kWayWa y Marion WayMarion Way A p p l e P a r kWay Marion Way SunnyvaleSunnyvale CupertinoCupertino San Jose San JoseLawrence ExpyEl C a m i n o R e a l E Homestead Rd Inverness Way Pruneridge AveS Wolfe RdN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdN Blaney AvePoplar AveStevens Creek Blvd Miller AveQuail AveN Portal AveTorre AveFinch AvePhil LnSunnyvale Saratoga RdW Fremont Ave Mitty Way Vallco P k w y El Camino Real 280 X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND Santa Clara Santa Clara CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 2 Project Site PlanPruneridge AvenueN. Wolfe Road Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 4 Study Freeway Segments 1. I-280, between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard 2. I-280, between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road 3. I-280, between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway 4. I-280, between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which most traffic congestion occurs on the roadways in the study area. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at study intersections were based on traffic counts conducted in October and November of 2016, as well as March of 2018. The study intersections were evaluated with a level of service analysis using TRAFFIX software in accordance with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Study freeway segments were analyzed in accordance with CMP methods. The new intersection count data are included in Appendix A. Scenario 2: Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. Scenario 3: Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed and/or occupied developments in the project area. The approved project trips and/or approved project information was obtained from the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. The approved projects information are included in Appendix B. Scenario 4: Background plus Project Conditions. Background traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 5: Future Growth Conditions. The six CMP study intersections were evaluated for future growth conditions, as stipulated by the CMP guidelines. Future Growth traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year 2021 (three-year horizon). Future Growth traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent to the existing volumes, then adding trips from approved developments, as well as project-generated traffic. 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. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 5 Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Cupertino, the City of Sunnyvale, the City of Santa Clara, the CMP Annual Monitoring Report, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:  existing traffic volumes  lane configurations  intersection signal timing and phasing  approved project information Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies 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 various analysis methods are described below. Signalized Study Intersections The Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara evaluate level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service at signalized intersections is shown in Table 1. The Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better, except on roadways considered “regionally significant” within Sunnyvale and on CMP facilities within Santa Clara, which have a standard of LOS E. Of the four study intersections located in the City of Sunnyvale, one is designated a CMP intersection. The Santa Clara study intersection is also a CMP intersection. CMP Intersections The designated level of service methodology for the CMP also is the 2000 HCM operations method for signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections within Sunnyvale and Santa Clara is LOS E or better. Within the City of Cupertino, the level of service standard for all signalized intersections, including CMP intersections, is LOS D or better. The following six study intersections have been designated by VTA as CMP intersections: 1. Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (Sunnyvale) 5. De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (Cupertino) 7. Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road (Santa Clara) 10. Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino) 11. Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps (Cupertino) 13. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino) Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 6 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Freeway Segments Analysis As prescribed in the CMP technical guidelines, the level of service for freeway segments is estimated based on vehicle density. Density is calculated by the following formula: D = V / (N*S) where: D= density, in vehicles per mile per lane (vpmpl) V= peak hour volume, in vehicles per hour (vph) N= number of travel lanes S= average travel speed, in miles per hour (mph) B+10.1 to 12.0 B 12.1 to 18.0 B-18.1 to 20.0 C+20.1 to 23.0 C 23.1 to 32.0 C-32.1 to 35.0 D+35.1 to 39.0 D 39.1 to 51.0 D-51.1 to 55.0 E+55.1 to 60.0 E 60.1 to 75.0 E-75.1 to 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), Table 2. Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or less F This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0 The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 7 The CMP specifies that a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) be used for mixed-flow lane segments that are three lanes or wider in one direction, and a capacity of 2,200 vphpl for mixed- flow lane segments that are two lanes wide in one direction. A capacity of 1,800 vphpl was used for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. The correlation between vehicle density and level of service on freeway segments is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Freeway Level of Service Based on Density Intersection Operations The analysis of intersection level of service was supplemented with an analysis of traffic operations for intersections where the project would add a significant number of left turns. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high demand left-turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: P (x=n) = n e – ( n! Where: P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane average # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr) Level of Service Description Density (vehicles/mile/lane) A Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream.11.0 or less B Speeds at the free-flow speed are generally maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. 11.1 to 18.0 C Speeds at or near the free-flow speed of the freeway prevail. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. 18.1 to 26.0 D Speeds begin to decline slightly with increased flows at this level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. 26.1 to 46.0 E At this level, the freeway operates at or near capacity. Operations in this level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. 46.1 to 58.0 F Vehicular flow breakdowns occur. Large queues form behind breakdown points. greater than 58.0 Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Updated March 2009 (Based on the Highway Capacity Manual (2000), Washington, D.C.). Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 8 The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length longer than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length.” Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For the purposes of this study, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on the level of service standards from the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Project impacts also were analyzed according to the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology for the CMP study intersections and freeway segments. Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in Cupertino, Sunnyvale or Santa Clara if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection under background conditions drops below its respective level of service standard when project traffic is added, or 2. An intersection that operates below its respective level of service standard under background conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) increases by one percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added. An exception to this threshold applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by 0.01 or more. CMP Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as described above, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service is LOS E or better. Thus, a CMP intersection that operates at LOS F would fail to meet the CMP level of service standard. A significant impact by the City of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to its level of service standard or to an average delay that eliminates the project impact. Freeway Segment Impact Criteria The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. A project is said to create a significant impact on traffic conditions on a freeway segment if for either peak hour: Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 9 1. The level of service on the freeway segment degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under existing conditions to an unacceptable LOS F with the addition of project trips, or 2. The level of service on the freeway segment is already operating at an unacceptable LOS F and the number of project trips added to the segment constitutes at least one percent of capacity of the segment. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore freeway conditions to existing conditions or better. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions and describes the approved projects in the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara that would likely add traffic to the study area. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate project-generated traffic and its impact on the transportation system. Chapter 5 describes the proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Chapter 6 describes the intersection operations under future growth conditions. Chapter 7 presents the analysis of other transportation related issues including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 10 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the existing levels of service for the key intersections in the study area. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 280 (I-280) and El Camino Real (SR 82). Local access to the site is provided by Wolfe Road and Homestead Road. These roadways are described below. I-280 is a north/south, eight-lane freeway that extends from US 101 in San Jose to I-80 in San Francisco. It is generally an east-west oriented eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the project site. I-280 is eight lanes wide with three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. I-280 provides site access via a full interchange at Wolfe Road. El Camino Real (SR 82) is a four-lane roadway west of the project site that serves as a north-south route of travel along the Peninsula in the vicinity of the site. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco, and southward to San Jose. Access to the project site from El Camino Real is provided via Wolfe Road. Wolfe Road is a north/south, four- to six-lane arterial that extends from Fair Oaks Avenue in Santa Clara south to Stevens Creek Boulevard, where it transitions into Miller Avenue (major collector street). In the vicinity of the project site, Wolfe Road is four lanes wide. According to the City of Cupertino’s General Plan: Community Vision 2015 – 2040, an arterial distributes trips to commercial and residential areas and provides a balanced level of service between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Wolfe Road provides direct access to the project site, as well as to the I-280 interchange. Homestead Road is an east/west arterial that extends from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara west through Cupertino to Los Altos, where it merges with Foothill Expressway. In the vicinity of the project site, Homestead Road is four- to five-lanes wide. As an arterial, Homestead Road distributes trips to commercial and residential areas and provides a balanced level of service between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Access from Homestead Road to the project site is provided via Wolfe Road. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 11 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along both sides of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site; however, sidewalks are missing on Pruneridge Avenue along the project frontage. Marked crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided on most approaches of the signalized study intersections except the intersections along Wolfe Road at Apple Park Way, Pruneridge Avenue, and the I-280 northbound and southbound ramps. Marked crosswalks are provided along the following approaches of these study intersections:  North, east, and west legs of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection  North, east, and west legs of the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection  West leg of the Wolfe Road/I-280 northbound ramps  East leg of the Wolfe Road/I-280 southbound ramps Although some sidewalk and crosswalk connections are missing, the overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are some bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The existing bicycle facilities within the study area are described below and are shown on Figure 3. North-south bicycle connections in the study area include Class II bike lanes along Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Fremont Avenue in Sunnyvale, where it transitions into a Class III bike route. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are existing streets that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Bike routes are typically designated only with signage or with painted shared lane markings (Sharrows) on a road that indicate to motorists that bicyclists may use the full travel lane. East-west bicycle connections in the study area consist of Class II bike lanes along Homestead Road between Lafayette Street and Foothill Expressway, Stevens Creek Boulevard between Lawrence Expressway and California Oak Way, and along Vallco Parkway between Tantau Avenue and Wolfe Road. Bike routes are also present in the vicinity of the project site, along Marion Way between Oriole Avenue and Wolfe Road. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service near the project site (see Figure 4) is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The transit service routes that run through the study area are listed in Table 3, including their route description and commute hour headways. Access to the existing bus service (Local Bus Routes 26 and 81) is provided via bus stops located near the northwestern and northeastern corners of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection, approximately a two-minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site. Additional bus service (Local Bus Routes 23, 101 and 182) is provided at the Vallco Shopping Center Park & Ride Lot, located less than a mile south of the project site. Local Bus Route 26 provides service to Vallco Shopping Center, allowing riders to connect to Routes 23, 101 and 182. CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities A p p l e P a r k A p p l e P ar kWayWa y Marion WayMarion Way A p p l e P a r kWay Marion Way SunnyvaleSunnyvale CupertinoCupertino San Jose San Jose 280 Lawrence ExpyEl C a m i n o R e a l E Homestead Rd Inverness Way Pruneridge AveS Wolfe RdN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdN Blaney AvePoplar AveStevens Creek Blvd Miller AveQuail AveN Portal AveTorre AveFinch AvePhil LnSunnyvale Saratoga RdW Fremont Ave Mitty Way Vallco P k w y El Camino Real = Bike Boulevard = Class II Bike Lanes = Class III Bike Routes = Site Location LEGEND Santa Clara Santa Clara CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 4 Existing Transit Service A p p l e P a r k A p p l e P ar kWa yWa y Marion WayMarion Way A p p l e P a r kWa y Marion Way SunnyvaleSunnyvale CupertinoCupertino San Jose San JoseLawrence ExpyEl C a m i n o R e a l E Homestead Rd Inverness Way Pruneridge AveS Wolfe RdN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdN Blaney AvePoplar AveStevens Creek Blvd Miller AveQuail AveN Portal AveTorre AveFinch AvePhil LnSunnyvale Saratoga RdW Fremont Ave Mitty Way Vallco P k w y El Camino Real = Local Bus Route = Express Bus Route = Bus Stop Near Site = Site Location LEGEND XX XXX 101 101 182 182 182 182 101 81 81 81 2323 26 26 26 26 23 81 81 280 26 26,81 26,81 26,81 Santa Clara Santa Clara Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 14 Table 3 Existing Transit Service Near the Project Site Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 5. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from peak hour counts collected on October 6th, October 12th, and November 10th of 2016, and March 28th of 2018. The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 6. New intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all but one of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic (see Table 4). The CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road currently operates at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, which is considered acceptable when measured against the CMP standard (LOS E). Therefore, all the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Transit Route Route Description Hours of Operation Headway 1 Local Route 26 Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 5:20 am - 11:20 pm 30 mins Local Route 81 Moffett Field/Ames Center to San Jose State University 6:15 am - 9:05 pm 25 - 35 mins Vallco Shopping Center Park & Ride Lot Local Route 23 De Anza College to Alum Rock Transit Center 5:20 am - 1:05 am (next day)15 - 20 mins Local Route 101 Page Mill Road/Hansen Way Intersection to Highway 85 Park & Ride Lot 6:20 am - 8:20 am 4:10 pm - 6:45 pm N/A 2 Local Route 182 Page Mill Road/El Camino Real Park & Ride Lot to IBM/Bailey Avenue 7:30 am - 8:30 am 5:05 pm - 6:10 pm N/A 3 Notes: 1 Approximate headways during peak commute periods. 2 3 Route 101 provides only northbound service (two trips) during the AM and only southbound service (two trips) during the PM. Route 182 provides only southbound service (one trip) during the AM and only northbound service (one trip) during the PM. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 17 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service StudyNumber Intersection AM 03/28/18 53.6 D- PM 11/10/16 43.0 D AM 03/28/18 51.9 D- PM 03/28/18 45.6 D AM 03/28/18 10.6 B+ PM 03/28/18 15.9 B AM 03/28/18 12.5 B PM 03/28/18 15.2 B AM 03/28/18 35.7 D+ PM 10/12/16 36.4 D+ AM 03/28/18 38.5 D+ PM 03/28/18 43.2 D AM 03/28/18 69.7 E PM 10/06/16 74.8 E AM 03/28/18 14.1 B PM 03/28/18 21.3 C+ AM 03/28/18 21.2 C+ PM 03/28/18 18.3 B- AM 03/28/18 8.3 A PM 10/12/16 7.0 A AM 03/28/18 13.9 B PM 10/12/16 7.5 A AM 03/28/18 22.1 C+ PM 03/28/18 20.1 C+ AM 03/28/18 39.9 D PM 10/12/16 39.9 D Note: *Denotes the CMP designated Intersection 1 2 3 4 12 13 7 8 5 6 Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps * Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps * Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard * 9 10 11 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real * Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Wolfe Road and Marion Way Wolfe Road and Inverness Way De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road * Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road * Existing Conditions Avg. Delay (sec) Peak Hour Count Date LOS Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 18 Observed Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions were observed in the field in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Overall, most study intersections operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed that some operational problems currently occur during the AM and PM peak commute hours. These issues are described below. During the AM peak hour, congestion exists along Wolfe Road in the southbound direction that is not obvious from the intersection level of service calculations. However, vehicles are able to clear the study intersections within one signal cycle length. Conversely, during the PM peak hour congestion in the northbound direction exists along Wolfe Road between El Camino Real and the I-280 freeway ramps that also is not evident from the level of service calculations. Vehicle queues, however, are able to clear the study intersections along Wolfe Road within one signal cycle during the PM as well. During the AM peak hour at the Wolfe Road/Fremont Avenue intersection, the eastbound left-turn vehicle queues were observed to spill out of the dual left-turn pocket and block the inside through lane. During the AM and PM peak hours at the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange, the ramp meters create some minor queuing issues on Wolfe Road. The study intersections along El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway carry relatively heavy traffic volumes throughout the region. During the AM and PM peak hours, the congestion along these roadways results in long vehicular queues, considerable delays for the minor streets (i.e. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road), and some turning movements not clearing within one signal cycle. Existing Freeway Levels of Service Traffic volumes for the study freeway segments were obtained from the 2016 CMP Annual Monitoring Report, which contains the most recent data collected for freeway segments located in Santa Clara County. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5. The results show that the following directional freeway segments currently operate at an unacceptable LOS F:  I-280, eastbound between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard – AM Peak Hour  I-280, eastbound between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road – AM Peak Hour  I-280, eastbound between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway – PM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway – AM Peak Hour  I-280, westbound between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue – AM peak hour Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 19 Table 5 Existing Freeway Levels of Service Peak Avg. # of Avg. # of Freeway Direction HourSpeed 1LanesVolume 1Density LOSSpeed 1LanesVolume 1Density LOSEB AM 66 3 4,360 22.0 C 67 1 810 12.1 BPM12 3 3,820 106.0 F 20 1 1,660 83.0 FEB AM 66 3 4,360 22.0 C 66 1 1,460 22.1 CPM32 3 5,860 61.0 F60 1 2,520 42.0 DEB AM 66 3 4,160 21.0 C 67 1 810 12.1 BPM23 3 5,320 77.0 F40 1 2,080 52.0 EEB AM 59 3 6,550 37.0 D 67 1 940 14.0 BPM 66 3 5,310 26.0 C 70 1 1,050 15.0 BWB AM22 3 5,150 78.0 F 26 1 1,820 70.0 FPM 66 3 4,950 25.0 C 70 1 840 12.0 BWB AM25 3 5,400 72.0 F 26 1 1,820 70.0 FPM 66 3 5,310 26.0 C 70 1 980 14.0 BWB AM24 3 5,400 75.0 F45 1 2,160 48.0 EPM 66 3 5,310 26.0 C 70 1 700 10.0 AWB AM23 3 5,250 76.1 F47 1 2,170 46.2 EPM 66 3 5,310 26.0 C 70 1 700 10.0 ANotes:1Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 2016.Bold indicates a substandard level of service.Mixed-Flow Lanes HOV LaneSegmentLawrence Expwy to Wolfe RdI-280 Wolfe Rd to Lawrence ExpwyI-280 Lawrence Expwy to Saratoga AveI-280 Saratoga Ave to Lawrence ExpwyI-280I-280 SR 85 to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to Wolfe RdI-280 Wolfe Rd to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to SR 85 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 20 3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the planned roadway network, the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes, and the resulting traffic conditions. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes Under Background Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections. Background peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet completed or occupied projects (see Figure 7). Approved project information was obtained from the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara’s lists of approved projects (see Appendix B). Trip generation estimates for the approved projects were based on their respective traffic studies, if available. For relatively small projects that did not require a traffic study, trips were estimated based on ITE trip rates. The estimated trips from the approved projects were distributed and assigned throughout the study area based on the trip distribution assumptions present in the traffic studies or based on knowledge of travel patterns in the study area. Background Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis show that most of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under background conditions (see Table 6). The CMP intersections of Wolfe Road/El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road both would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour of traffic, which is considered acceptable when measured against the CMP standard. However, the Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour due to additional traffic from approved developments in the study area. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 22 Table 6 Background Intersection Levels of Service Study Number Intersection LOS LOS AM 53.6 D- 55.3 E+ PM 43.0 D 44.1 D AM 51.9 D- 53.2 D- PM 45.6 D 47.5 D AM 10.6 B+ 10.5 B+ PM 15.9 B 15.9 B AM 12.5 B 12.5 B PM 15.2 B 15.3 B AM 35.7 D+ 36.2 D+ PM 36.4 D+ 37.3 D+ AM 38.5 D+ 40.7 D PM 43.2 D 46.2 D AM 69.7 E 72.3 E PM 74.8 E 82.1 F AM 14.1 B 19.4 B- PM 21.3 C+ 27.8 C AM 21.2 C+ 26.6 C PM 18.3 B- 22.4 C+ AM 8.3 A 9.9 A PM 7.0 A 6.9 A AM 13.9 B 18.4 B- PM 7.5 A 8.3 A AM 22.1 C+ 24.4 C PM 20.1 C+ 21.7 C+ AM 39.9 D 40.8 D PM 39.9 D 40.7 D Note: *Denotes the CMP designated Intersection Bold indicates a substandard level of service. Background Conditions Avg. Delay (sec) 1 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real * Peak Hour Existing Conditions Avg. Delay (sec) 2 Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue 3 Wolfe Road and Marion Way 4 Wolfe Road and Inverness Way 5 De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road * 6 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road 7 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road * 13 Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard * 11 Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps * 12 Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway 10 Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps * 8 Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way 9 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 23 4. Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project and includes: (1) the method by which project traffic is estimated and (2) a level of service summary. Existing plus project conditions are represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. Background plus project conditions are represented by background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Transportation Network The project description includes modifying the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection to allow inbound right turns only. It is assumed in this analysis that the remaining transportation network under project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed hotel was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic expected to be produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and use of the proposed development the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The average trip generation rates for Hotel (Land Use Category 310) were applied to the project. The ITE rates for this Hotel land use category include trips generated by ancillary uses/supporting facilities such as restaurants, fitness facilities, meeting rooms (for conferences, banquets, etc.), and cocktail lounges. Based on the ITE rates for Hotel, the proposed development would generate a total of 2,263 gross daily vehicle trips, with 115 gross trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour and 135 gross trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (see Table 7). Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 24 Trip Reductions In accordance with VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (October 2014, Section 8.2.1, “Standard Trip Reductions”), the project is eligible for some reductions from the baseline trip generation described above. The applicable trip reductions are described below. Internal Mixed-Use Trip Reduction Given that the project would provide convenient access to the adjacent Cupertino Village Shopping Center, the abundance of supporting retail uses are expected to reduce hotel-generated trips. Thus, in accordance with the 2014 VTA guidelines for projects with a mix of hotel and retail uses, a ten (10) percent trip reduction was applied to the baseline project trip estimates to account for the internalization of trips (i.e., walking trips) between the hotel and the adjacent shopping center uses. TDM Plan Projects that develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan are eligible for a trip reduction of up to five (5) percent. The project has proposed a robust TDM Plan comprised of design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the project. The TDM Plan will include pre-loaded transit passes and free bicycles for guests, as well as subsidized transit passes and a cash-out program for employees. Chapter 5 contains a detailed description of the proposed TDM Plan. Shuttle Service The project would offer a dedicated shuttle program for hotel employees and guests, which grants the project eligibility of a three (3) percent trip reduction per the VTA guidelines. The shuttle destinations would be determined based on hotel employee and guest preferences. It is initially thought that shuttles would serve the Mineta International Airport, downtown San Jose, Caltrain, and other major employment centers and destinations in the area. In addition, subject to availability, the proposed shuttle services would be available for local residents (see Chapter 5 for details). Trip Reductions Not Applied Although the Apple Campus 2 is located directly across the street from the project site, vehicle trip reductions related to the future usage of the hotel by Apple employees and business partners were not applied. Since future hotel usage by Apple and its associates would likely be substantial, the project trip generation estimates present a conservative (i.e., worst-case) estimate of new vehicular trips. Existing Use Credit The trips generated by the existing occupied restaurant and pub (Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant) on the site can be subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the hotel. The existing restaurant’s trip generation was obtained from driveway counts conducted on March 27th, 2018. Based on the driveway counts, the existing restaurant is generating 22 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. The restaurant is not open in the morning on weekdays, so it is not generating any AM peak hour trips. The daily trips generated by the existing restaurant were estimated by multiplying the weekday PM peak hour trips by a factor of 10. Trip credits attributable to the existing vacant retail space on the site were not applied because the retail space has been vacant for too long and those past trips are not included in the existing traffic counts. Net Project Trips After applying the ITE trip rates, appropriate trip reductions, and existing site trip credits, the proposed hotel project would generate 1,636 net new daily vehicle trips, with 96 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Using the inbound/outbound splits contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the project would produce 56 new inbound and 40 new Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 25 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 36 new inbound and 53 new outbound trips during the PM peak hour (See Table 7). Table 7 Project Trip Generation Estimates Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses including airports. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern, with an emphasis on freeway access and project driveway location. Figure 8 shows the trip distribution pattern for the proposed hotel. Figure 9 shows the net project trip assignment at the study intersections. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as presented in Figure 9, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10. Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the level of service analysis show that all the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better for City-controlled intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic if the proposed project were completed and operating today (see Table 8). This analysis is presented for informational purposes only, as the criteria that define a significant project impact at a signalized intersection in the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are based on comparing background plus project conditions to background (baseline) conditions. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. At four of the study intersections, the average vehicle delay under existing plus project conditions is shown to decrease slightly compared to existing conditions. This occurs because the average vehicle delay that is calculated is a weighted average of all movements at the intersection. Thus, when project trips are added to individual intersection movements with low vehicle delays, the average delay for the entire intersection as a whole can decrease. Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses Boutique Hotel 1 185 rooms 12.23 2,263 0.62 67 48 115 0.73 66 69 135 Hotel and Retail Internal Mixed-Use Reduction (10%) 2 10%(226) (6) (5) (11) (7) (7) (14) TDM Reduction for Financial Incentives (5%) 2 5%(113) (3) (2) (5) (3) (3) (6) TDM Reduction for Dedicated Shuttle Program (3%) 2 3%(68) (2) (1) (3) (2) (2) (4) 1,856 56 40 96 54 57 111 Existing Uses Duke of Edinburgh Restaurant 3 3.39 ksf (220) - - - (18) (4) (22) Net Project Trips 1,636 5640 96 3653 89 Notes: KSF = 1,000 square feet 1 Trip generation based on average trip rates for Hotel (Land Use 310, Occ. Rooms) published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 Trip reduction based on Standard Auto Trip Reduction Rates published in VTA's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2014. 3 Trip credits based on PM peak hour count conducted on March 27, 2018. Daily trip credit calculated by multiplying PM peak hour trips by a factor of 10. Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Subtotal CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution 1 2 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 3 A p p l e P a r k A p ple P arkWayWa y Marion WayMarion Way A p p l e P a r kWay Marion Way SunnyvaleSunnyvale CupertinoCupertino San Jose San JoseLawrence ExpyEl C a m i n o R e a l E Homestead Rd Inverness Way Pruneridge AveS Wolfe RdN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdN Blaney AvePoplar AveStevens Creek Blvd Miller AveQuail AveN Portal AveTorre AveFinch AvePhil LnSunnyvale Saratoga RdW Fremont Ave Mitty Way Vallco P k w y El Camino Real 280 X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = Trip DistributionXX% 25%25%10%10%10% 5 %5%5%5% 5%5%5% 15% 5%10%15% 5%5%10%10% 5% 5% Santa Clara Santa Clara Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 29 Table 8 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as shown in Figure 9, were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. The background plus project traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figure 11. Background Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better for City-controlled intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under background plus project conditions (see Table 9). The CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under background plus project conditions. However, the project would not cause the intersection’s critical-movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds and the V/C to increase by 0.01 or more compared to background conditions. Therefore, the intersection impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. AM 53.6 D- 53.7 D- 0.0PM 43.0 D 43.1 D 0.2 AM 51.9 D- 52.1 D- 0.3PM 45.6 D 45.7 D 0.4AM 10.6 B+ 10.6 B+ 0.0 PM 15.9 B 15.9 B 0.0AM 12.5 B 12.5 B 0.0 PM 15.2 B 15.2 B 0.0AM 35.7 D+ 35.7 D+ 0.0PM 36.4 D+ 36.5 D+ 0.1 AM 38.5 D+ 38.6 D+ 0.0PM 43.2 D 43.3 D 0.3AM 69.7 E 69.7 E 0.2 PM 74.8 E 74.9 E 0.1AM 14.1 B 14.0 B 0.0 PM 21.3 C+ 21.3 C+ 0.0AM 21.2 C+ 22.8 C+ 1.4PM 18.3 B- 20.6 C+ 2.7 AM 8.3 A 8.3 A 0.1PM 7.0 A 6.9 A -0.1AM 13.9 B 14.0 B 0.1 PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 0.0AM 22.1 C+ 22.0 C+ 0.0 PM 20.1 C+ 20.1 C+ 0.0AM 39.9 D 40.0 D 0.2PM 39.9 D 40.0 D 0.1 Note: *Denotes the CMP designated Intersection Existing Conditions Incr. in Critical Delay Avg. Delay (sec) Avg. Delay (sec) No Project With Project LOS LOS 8 Intersection Wolfe Road and Marion Way 1 Peak Hour 5 De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road * Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue 3 Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps * 12 Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way 9 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue 10 2 4 Wolfe Road and Inverness Way 13 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real * Study Number Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard * Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps * 6 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road 7 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road * 11 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 31 Table 9 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Traffic volumes on the study freeway segments with the project were estimated by adding project trips to the existing volumes obtained from the 2016 CMP Annual Monitoring Report. The results of the freeway segment analysis show that the project would not cause significant increases in traffic volumes (one percent or more of freeway capacity) on any of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS F, and none of the study freeway segments currently operating at LOS E or better would worsen to LOS F as a result of the project (see Table 10). Therefore, based on CMP freeway impact criteria, none of the study freeway segments would be significantly impacted by the project. Peak Incr. InIntersection Hour Crit. V/C AM 55.3 E+ 55.4 E+ 0.0 0.001 PM 44.1 D 44.2 D 0.2 0.003 AM 53.2 D- 53.3 D- 0.4 0.007 PM 47.5 D 47.6 D 0.4 0.006AM 10.5 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.0 0.003PM 15.9 B 15.9 B 0.0 0.004AM 12.5 B 12.5 B 0.0 0.003PM 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.003AM 36.2 D+ 36.3 D+ 0.0 0.001PM 37.3 D+ 37.3 D+ 0.1 0.001AM 40.7 D 40.8 D 0.3 0.007PM 46.2 D 46.4 D 0.4 0.005 AM 72.3 E 72.4 E 0.2 0.002PM82.1 F 82.3 F 0.5 0.002 AM 19.4 B- 19.4 B- 0.0 0.000PM 27.8 C 27.8 C 0.0 0.003 AM 26.6 C 27.9 C 1.2 0.014PM 22.4 C+ 24.5 C 2.7 0.026 AM 9.9 A 10.1 B+ 0.3 0.009 PM 6.9 A 6.9 A 0.0 0.007 AM 18.4 B- 18.8 B- 0.5 0.006 PM 8.3 A 8.3 A 0.0 0.002AM 24.4 C 24.4 C 0.0 0.002PM 21.7 C+ 21.7 C+ 0.0 0.002AM 40.8 D 40.9 D 0.2 0.005PM 40.7 D 40.7 D 0.1 0.002 Note: *Denotes the CMP designated Intersection Bold indicates a substandard level of service. 1 With Project Background Conditions No Project Wolfe Road and El Camino Real * LOS LOS Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue Avg. Delay (sec) Critical Delay (sec) 7 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road * Avg. Delay (sec) 5 6 2 Study Number 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wolfe Road and Marion Way Wolfe Road and Inverness Way De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road * Wolfe Road and Apple Park Way Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard * Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps * Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps * Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 32 Table 10 Freeway Segment Capacity Analysis Peak Capacity Capacity Total % %Freeway Direction Hour (vph) LOS (vph) LOS Volume Volume Capacity Volume Capacity Impact?AM 6900 C 1800 B 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F 1800 F5 4 0.1% 1 0.1% NOAM 6900 C 1800 C 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F1800 D 5 4 0.1% 1 0.1% NOAM 6900 C 1800 B 10 8 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM6900 F1800 E 13 10 0.2% 3 0.2% NOAM 6900 D 1800 B 10 8 0.1% 2 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 13 10 0.2% 3 0.2% NOAM6900 F 1800 F14 11 0.2% 3 0.2% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 9 7 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F 1800 F14 11 0.2% 3 0.2% NOPM 6900 C 1800 B 9 7 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F1800 E 6 5 0.1% 1 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 A 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NOAM6900 F1800 E 6 5 0.1% 1 0.1% NOPM 6900 C 1800 A 8 6 0.1% 2 0.1% NONotes:1Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 2016.Bold indicates a substandard level of service.Existing Plus Project TripsMixed-Flow HOV LaneProject TripsMixed-Flow Lanes HOV LaneSegmentWBWBEBEBEBEBWBWBI-280 Wolfe Rd to Lawrence ExpwyI-280 Lawrence Expwy to Saratoga AveI-280 SR 85 to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to Wolfe RdI-280 Wolfe Rd to De Anza BlvdI-280 De Anza Blvd to SR 85I-280 Saratoga Ave to Lawrence ExpwyI-280 Lawrence Expwy to Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 33 5. TDM Plan Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single–occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution problems. The purpose of TDM is to (1) reduce the amount of trips generated by new developments; (2) promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed to maximize the potential for sustainable transportation usage; (3) reduce the parking demand generated by new developments and allow for a reduction in parking supply; and (4) establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to guarantee the desired trip and parking reductions are achieved. Project TDM Measures The project is proposing to include a comprehensive transportation demand management program. The TDM measures to be implemented by the project include design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the vehicular trips and parking demand generated by the project. Such measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit and shuttles. Implementation of the proposed TDM measures are also designed to reduce project trips and parking demand by employees of the hotel. While the specific measures to be included in the proposed hotel’s TDM Plan will be refined during the formal application review process, the preliminary measures are described below. On-Site TDM Coordinator and Services The proposed project will provide an on-site TDM coordinator, who will be responsible for implementing and managing the TDM plan. The TDM coordinator will be a point of contact for employees and guests should TDM-related questions arise. Hotel staff will also be trained to provide transit information to guests, as well as information regarding the other TDM measures. Hotel staff will be responsible for ensuring that guests are aware of all transportation options and how to fully utilize the TDM plan. The TDM coordinator and hotel staff will provide the following services and functions to ensure the TDM plan runs smoothly:  Provide guests information at the time of check-in. The process will include information about public transit services, ridesharing services (e.g., Uber, Lyft, and Wingz), bicycle maps, the on-site bicycle-share program, the on-site car-sharing program, and the shuttle service.  A summary of the TDM measures offered to all guests and employees.  Manage the on-site bicycle-share program to ensure the bicycles remain in good condition.  Manage the on-site car-share program to ensure the vehicles are used in the manner intended by the car-sharing service. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 34  Provide information to employees about subsidized transit passes and the financial incentive programs for employees who bike or walk to work.  Conduct parking surveys annually to track actual parking demand and determine whether additional TDM measures, or another parking solution, is needed. Information Board/Online Kiosk The transportation coordinator will set up and maintain an on-site bulletin board and/or online kiosk with information regarding non-auto transportation alternatives. The transportation board/kiosk will display key transportation information included in the welcome packets. Additionally, transportation news and commuter alerts will be posted on the board/kiosk. The transportation coordinator will be responsible for adding new information to the board/kiosk to ensure the information remains current and informative. In addition to the guest information provided at the hotel, the initial hotel reservation confirmation email will include information on how to get to the hotel without a vehicle. Information Packet for Guests and Employees The hotel staff will provide hard copy information packets (“getting around the area” brochures) to all hotel guests when they first arrive at the building. Similarly, the transportation coordinator will provide “hard copy” information packets to all employees when they are first hired. Because all information will be available online, these packets need not be a comprehensive stack of papers about all services available, which guests tend to disregard anyway. Instead, the Hotel Guest Packet and New Employee Packet will provide a quick easy-to-read announcement of the most important features of the TDM program for guests/employees to know about immediately. The information packets will include a message to guests that their hotel values alternative modes of transportation and takes their commitment to supporting alternative transportation options seriously. For example, it may include a flyer announcing the “online kiosk”, information about the transit subsidies, subsidies related to other TDM programs, and a ride-matching application. Shuttle Service The proposed project will offer free shuttles to employees and guests. The shuttle destinations will be determined/finalized based on employee and guest preferences. It is initially thought that shuttles will serve the Mineta International Airport, downtown San Jose, Caltrain, and other major employment centers and destinations in the area. Since the proposed project is a hotel, a portion of the guests will likely be traveling through the San Jose airport. Mineta International Airport is approximately 9.5 miles driving distance from the proposed project. With the option of using the free shuttle, the need for a car and a parking space will be reduced. In addition, subject to availability, the proposed shuttle services will be available for nearby residents and the general public. On-Site Design Features As part of the project’s TDM Plan, the proposed hotel will include design measures related to the physical attributes of the site and the proposed building. Such design measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. For the proposed project, these include:  Site Design. To create a direct link to the adjacent pedestrian facilities and transit services along Wolfe Road, a building entrance will be located along the eastern frontage of the site. The project also proposes adding community amenities such as a high visibility crosswalk that connects to the Cupertino Village Shopping Center, and construction of a new sidewalk along the project frontage on Pruneridge Avenue. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 35  Clean Air Vehicle Parking/Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. The project will include two preferential parking spaces for low emitting/fuel efficient vehicles (see Chapter 6 for details). Designation of premium parking spaces for clean air/electric vehicles is an inexpensive way to encourage fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles.  Bicycle Parking. Providing secure bicycle parking encourages bicycle commuting and increases the parking supply available to guests. The set of plans indicate that the proposed project will include bike racks at street level adjacent to the eastern frontage (Wolfe Road) of the site, accessible to guests and employees (see Chapter 6 for details). The proposed bike racks and designated bike area should include at least 10 bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle Resources As part of the information available in the “online kiosk”, resources useful to cyclists will be included. For example, the local bikeways map will be posted for easy reference. The following resources are available to bicycle commuters through 511.org. These resources will be noted on the project’s online information center, in order to make guests and employees aware of them.  Free Bike Buddy-matching  Bicycle maps  Bicycle safety tips  Information about taking bikes on public transit  Location and use of bike parking at transit stations  Information on Bike to Work Day  Tips on selecting a bike, commute gear, and clothing  Links to bicycle organizations Bicycle Share Program The proposed project will provide on-site bicycles for guests to share. The bicycles will be stored in a secured common space that can be checked out by guests. Local destinations such as the Main Street Shopping Center and the Apple Park Visitor Center are a short bicycle ride away from the proposed project. Inclusion of a bike share program will likely reduce the need for guests to use a vehicle. Car Share Program The proposed project will provide on-site access to a car-sharing service such as Zipcar for hotel employees and guests. Vehicles will be located on-site allowing hotel employees and guests to reserve a car and come and go at their convenience. Vehicles can be reserved prior to visiting the hotel. Transit Passes for Guests Pre-loaded transit passes are an extremely effective means of encouraging hotel guests to use public transit rather than drive to their destinations. Transit passes allow guests to save money, as well as help them to avoid the stress of driving, particularly in unfamiliar areas. The hotel will provide guests with pre-loaded Clipper Cards1 for easy transit access. The pre-loaded amount has not yet been determined. 1 For additional info visit www.clippercard.com Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 36 Transit Passes for Employees The hotel will provide employees with subsidized transit passes. Subsidized transit passes are effective at encouraging employees to use transit rather than drive to work. Transit passes allow employees to save money, as well as help them to avoid the stress of driving during commute periods. The project will provide their employees with financial incentives to utilize public transit (such as the Caltrain Go Pass2 or Clipper Card3) when commuting to and from the project site. The transit subsidies are often set to the monthly maximum transit subsidy allowable under current federal legislation ($125 per employee per month). There are several ways that the hotel can provide this subsidy. One option is for the hotel to fund a pre-tax salary payroll deduction for transit passes through a voucher program (Commuter Check or similar program). The hotel would receive a payroll tax savings as a benefit of this program. Another option is that the hotel could purchase transit passes and provide them to employees free of cost or discounted up to the monthly maximum transit subsidy allowable. Both of these program options would help make transit more financially attractive to employees than driving alone. The preferred subsidy option has not yet been determined Financial Incentives for Carpooling, Biking and Walking to Work (Employees) In order to encourage employees of the proposed project to carpool or use alternative modes of transportation to get to work, a parking cash-out program for employees will be established. Employees who carpool or walk/bike to work at least 4 days per week will be eligible to receive a financial incentive for doing so. Employees who request a parking cash-out for carpooling or bicycling/walking to work will not be eligible to receive subsidized annual transit passes. Participating employees will not be allowed to park in the project’s parking garage on a daily basis. However, since there may be times when employees who primarily commute using alternative modes of transportation need to drive to work, employees who receive a financial incentive for carpooling or biking/walking to work (or who receive subsidized transit passes) should be allowed to park in the garage on such occasions. The maximum number of times those individuals may park in the garage could be set at twice a month, or some similar limit based on employee feedback from annual Employee Surveys. On-Site Ride Matching Assistance (Employees) The transportation coordinator will distribute a carpool/vanpool matching application to all hotel employees as part of the New Employee Information packets. The application will match employees who may be able to carpool or vanpool together. Some employees who may be reluctant to reach out to find carpool partners via the 511 RideMatch service (described in more detail below) may be more willing to fill out a form that will be administered by their transportation coordinator. The 511 RideMatch service provides an interactive, on-demand system that helps commuters find carpools, vanpools or bicycle partners. This program should be promoted through the online kiosk. This free car and vanpool ride-matching service helps commuters find others with similar routes and travel patterns with whom they may share a ride. Registered users are provided with a list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, email, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Participants are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to commute. The service also provides a list of existing car and 2 For additional info visit www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes 3 For additional info visit www.clippercard.com Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 37 vanpools in their residential area that may have vacancies. Ride-matching assistance is also available through a number of peer-to-peer matching programs, such as Zimride and TwoGo, which utilize social networks to match commuters. Emergency Ride Home Program (Employees) The purpose of an Emergency Ride Home program is to “guarantee” that employees need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of illness, family emergency, or unexpected overtime if they carpool, vanpool, take transit, or bike or walk to work and require a ride home. By reassuring commuters who do not drive alone that they can have timely and paid transportation in the event of an emergency, this program removes one of the largest concerns expressed by most employees about using alternative modes of transportation. Hotel employees will be reimbursed for rides home via taxicab, Uber, Lyft, or other similar service in the event of an emergency. Transportation Management Authority Membership The purpose of a Transportation Management Authority (TMA) is to (1) oversee TDM program implementation within a specific area subject to the City’s General Plan, (2) arrange for shared parking, (3) market TDM services and programs, (4) coordinate TDM measures with other agencies, (5) coordinate with the City on annual trip generation monitoring, (6) submit an annual report to the City, and (7) consult on trip reduction options with its members. The hotel is willing to participate and pay its fair-share fees should a local TMA be established. TDM Plan Monitoring and Reporting The Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel will be responsible for ensuring that the TDM trip reduction measures are implemented. The designated on-site TDM coordinator will be responsible for implementing the ongoing TDM measures. Driveway counts will be used to determine the actual AM and PM peak hour trip generation of the development. This information could be compared with the number of trips estimated for the project via the standard ITE trip generation rates contained in this Transportation Impact Analysis report. The on-site TDM coordinator will conduct an annual survey of all hotel employees and guests to determine the TDM trip reduction measures being utilized, whether the TDM measures provided are effective, and whether employees and/or guests might prefer other TDM measures not being provided. The survey should be constructed as a general survey with questions such as work environment satisfaction to promote survey responses. TDM Monitoring The results of the driveway counts should be reported to the City of Cupertino annually, along with an assessment of whether the TDM measures implemented during the preceding year led to a reduction in trips and/or parking, compared to standard ITE trip generation rates, for the project as a whole. The annual report to the City should also include a brief summary of the TDM measures that were in place during the preceding year, with an explanation of any changes or new programs. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 38 6. Future Growth Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under future growth conditions with the proposed project. Future growth conditions represent future traffic conditions with expected growth in the area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying an annual growth factor to the existing counts over 3 years. Thus, future growth conditions reflect a horizon year of 2021. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes There is a planned improvement to the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange that is currently in the environmental review phase with the preferred alternative yet to be decided. For the purpose of the future growth analysis, it was assumed that the transportation network under future growth conditions would be the same as described under project conditions. The traffic volumes under future growth conditions for the study intersections were estimated by applying a 1.2 percent annual growth rate to the existing traffic counts, adding traffic from approved developments, and adding the project trips. The growth rate was applied to the study intersections through the year 2021 (three-year horizon). The future growth traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12. Intersection Level of Service Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that the CMP intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under future growth conditions (see Table 11). All other CMP study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 40 Table 11 Future Growth Intersection Levels of Service PeakIntersection Hour AM 57.3 E+ PM 45.9 DAM 39.7 D PM 44.9 DAM81.3 FPM100.3 F AM 12.0 B+ PM 7.8 AAM 26.7 C PM 8.6 AAM 42.6 D PM 43.4 D Note: * Denotes the CMP designated Intersection Bold indicates a substandard level of service. 5 De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road * Future Growth Conditions Study Number Avg. Delay (sec) LOS 1 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real * 10 Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps * 7 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road * Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard * 11 13 Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps * Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 41 7. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of:  Site access and circulation  Truck access and circulation  Parking  Intersection queuing  Potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, most of the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgement in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the December 15, 2017 site plan prepared by Anderson Architects, Inc (see Figure 2). Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s driveways with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and sight distance. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the two below-grade parking garage levels. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. Project Driveway Design Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a full-access driveway that connects to an existing parking aisle at the rear (west side) of the site. The parking aisle connects to Pruneridge Avenue and also to a partial-access (entry-only) driveway at the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection. The driveway would provide access to a surface drop-off/pick-up area adjacent to the building entrance, as well as to the underground parking garage. CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 13 Parking Garage Below-Grade Level 1 Layout Cupertino Village Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Planning Submittal - 12.08.17 10 Floor Plan: Level P1 scale: 1" = 10' 0' 5' 10' 20' N 1. Parking Access Ramp 2. Service Elevator Core 3. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 4. Head-In Parking Stalls 8.5’X18’ 5. Passenger Elevator Core 1 222222235555 4 CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 14 Parking Garage Below-Grade Level 2 Layout Cupertino Village Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Planning Submittal - 12.08.17 9 Floor Plan: Level P2 scale: 1" = 10' 0' 5' 10' 20' N 1. Parking Access Ramp 2. Service Elevator Core 3. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 4. Head-In Parking Stalls 8.5’X18’ 5. Passenger Elevator Core 1 222222355 4 Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 44 Sight Distance There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage to obscure sight distance at the project driveways. The project access points should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Wolfe Road. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the Prunridge Avenue entrance and the inbound only north entrance in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at an intersection and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. Given that Wolfe Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 300 feet (based on a design speed of 40 mph) for both entrances. Thus, a driver must be able to see 300 feet in both directions along Wolfe Road in order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the Prunridge entrance and north project entrance would meet the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Project Access Points Given that the two project site access points are located at study intersections, these entrances were evaluated based on the intersection level of service analysis. Under background plus project conditions, the intersections providing access to the site would operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours (see Chapter 5). Therefore, both entrances are expected to operate without excessive delays or queuing. Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue Intersection This intersection would provide full-access to the site, allowing right and left inbound and outbound turns to and from Wolfe Road. The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at this south entrance point are 34 inbound trips and 40 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 32 inbound trips and 57 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the traffic volumes near the project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Wolfe Road, vehicle queues are not expected to exceed a few (2-3) vehicles in length during the peak hours. Given that this entrance is positioned as the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection, inbound and outbound left-turning project trips are made under a protected left-turn signal. Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way Intersection Currently, the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection allows only inbound and outbound right turns. However, the project is proposing to modify the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection to allow only inbound right turns from Wolfe Road. The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection are 22 inbound trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the traffic volumes near the project site and turn- restrictions at this entrance, vehicle queuing issues are not expected to occur. Secondary Access Option Operations of a secondary site access option was evaluated at the request of City staff. The secondary site access option would consist of removing the right-turn only west leg at the Wolfe Road/Apple Park Way intersection entirely. City staff have indicated that this change might be desirable because the Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 45 current access at this entrance/exit is already restricted to right turns only, and illegal left turns have been observed. The incorporation of this modification would shift existing shopping center traffic currently utilizing this right-turn only driveway (2 inbound and 2 outbound trips during the AM, and 15 inbound and 20 outbound trips during the PM) to the other existing right-turn only shopping center driveway located just under 300 feet to the north. Since these volumes are so small, the shift would not have a noticeable effect on the driveway operations to the north. Project-generated traffic entering the project site from the north (22 AM and PM inbound trips) would be shifted south to the west leg of the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With implementation of this site access option, the level of service at the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection would remain unchanged at LOS C or better during both peak hours under all traffic scenarios. Thus, with the secondary site access option, project site access would remain adequate. On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of Cupertino Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed site plan would provide vehicles with adequate connectivity through the parking areas. The project site plan shows a pick-up/drop-off area at the hotel entrance and also a connection to the garage ramp (see Figure 15). The City’s standard minimum width for two-way drive aisles is 22 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. According to the site plan, the project would provide 90-degree parking stalls as well as perpendicular stalls for valet services throughout both below-grade levels of the parking garage. The drive aisles throughout the parking garage measure 22 feet wide. Thus, adequate access to all parking stalls would be provided throughout the site. Parking Stall Dimensions According to the site plan, the project proposes standard-size (8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long) parking stalls, which would meet the City’s off-street parking design standard. Van accessibility is provided at 6 of the 7 ADA parking stall locations. Parking Garage Vehicular Access and Circulation The project site plan shows adequate vehicular circulation within the parking garage on both parking levels, with no dead-end drive aisles (see Figures 13 and 14). Vehicular access to the parking garage entrance/exit, as well as the second below-grade level, would be provided via a curved access ramp located at the northwestern corner of the project site. Based on the garage plans, the width of the ramp would be adequate to serve two-way traffic. The slope of the ramp is not indicated on the site plan but it appears the ramp slope would also be adequate (less than a 15% grade). An analysis of vehicle access using the passenger vehicle turning-movement template shows the radius of the ramp is too tight and would not provide adequate vehicular access to the parking levels. Large passenger vehicles would require most of the ramp width to access the parking garage levels. Even small vehicles would have difficulty negotiating the sharp right turns and would encroach upon the opposing lane on the ramp, resulting in conflicts between inbound and outbound vehicles. Thus, a parking garage ramp with a larger radius is recommended to adequately serve inbound and outbound project vehicles. CuperƟno Village Hotel - TransportaƟon Impact Analysis Figure 15 Vehicular and Pedestrian On-Site Circulation Cupertino Village Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Planning Submittal - 12.08.17 25 PEDESTRIANS VEHICLES Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 47 Bike and Pedestrian On-site Circulation The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The project would construct a continuous sidewalk around the perimeter of the hotel site. Along the northern and southern edges of the hotel building, the site plan shows pedestrian connections between the hotel and the outdoor dining and plaza areas, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalk on Wolfe Road (see Figure 15). Near the northeast corner of the project site the site plan shows a pedestrian connection to the adjacent Cupertino Village Shopping Center. Pedestrian access between the parking structure and the on-site uses would be provided via elevators and a stairway on each parking level. The elevators would be located toward the center of the garage, while the stairways would be located in the northeast and southeast corners of the garage and would provide direct access to either the building’s main lobby or to an exit corridor. Based on the proposed site plan, the project would provide adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, on all levels of the parking structure, and to the surrounding pedestrian facilities and Cupertino Village Shopping Center. Truck Access and Circulation The project plans show a designated loading area for delivery trucks located on the northern edge of the project site, adjacent to the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. A truck loading dock would be accessed through the loading area. The site plan was reviewed for truck access using truck turning-movement templates for a SU-30 truck type, which represents small emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and small to medium delivery and moving trucks. Based on the current site plan configuration, the off-street loading space would measure 18 feet wide by 38 feet long by 14 feet high and would provide adequate access for SU-30 truck types. The trash area is not shown on the site plan; however, it is assumed that garbage collection activities would occur at or near the off-street loading space. The site plan should be updated to show the trash area. Parking Supply The City of Cupertino Zoning Code (Section 19.124.040) states that hotel uses are required to provide one parking stall per room plus one parking stall per employee. The project as proposed would construct a 185-room hotel with up to 62 staff members, which would equate to a total parking requirement of 247 spaces (185 + 62 = 247). According to the project site plan, the project would provide a total of 248 parking spaces: 11 spaces at-grade west of the building entrance, 121 spaces on the first below-grade level of the garage, and 116 spaces on the second below-grade level of the garage. Of the 248 parking spaces provided, 16 spaces would be designated for valet services. Valet parking is typically restricted from general guest parking due to either nonstandard parking stall dimensions and/or access limitations. However, it is common for hotels to provide special parking arrangements such as valet parking to meet the required parking demand. Parking exceptions, including valet parking, are allowed with City approval per Section 19.124.060C of the Zoning Code. Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-6, seven (7) ADA accessible spaces are required for projects with 201 to 300 parking spaces. Of the required accessible parking spaces, one van accessible space is required. The plans show a total of seven (7) accessible spaces, with three spaces located on each level of the parking garage and one space in the parking area west of the building area. Of the provided ADA accessible spaces, six (6) are shown to be designated van accessible. Therefore, the project would adhere to the CBC accessible parking provisions. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 48 Shared Parking The project’s proximity to the Cupertino Village Shopping Center provides an opportunity for shared parking between the complementary land uses. A detailed shared parking analysis was prepared for the hotel project and adjacent Cupertino Village Shopping Center and is provided in Appendix D. Bicycle Parking According to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards (Chapter 19.124, Table 19.124.040(A)), the project is required to provide bicycle parking for the new building at a rate of one bicycle parking space per 20,000 square feet. This equates to a total requirement of 10 bicycle parking spaces, based on 207,605 square feet (per project site plan). The provided bicycle parking is also required to be a Class II facility, which the City defines as:  A facility intended for short-term parking.  A stationary object of which users can lock the frame and both wheels with a user-provided lock.  A facility designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault.  A facility that must accept U-shaped locks and padlocks.  A facility within constant visual range of persons within the adjacent building or located at street floor level. The project site plan shows bicycle parking located along the eastern edge of the project site. However, the project plans do not specify the number of bicycle spaces that would be available for the project. Therefore, the project site plan should be updated to show at least 10 Class II bicycle parking spaces prior to the final design, to ensure the project conforms to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards. Intersection Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand turn movements at the study intersections (see Table 12). The following nine (9) left-turn movements were examined as part of the queuing analysis for this project:  Northbound and westbound left-turn at the Wolfe Road/El Camino Real intersection  Northbound and westbound left-turn at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection  Eastbound left-turn at the Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road intersection  Northbound and eastbound left-turn at the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection  Southbound and eastbound left-turn at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection The estimated left-turn vehicle queue lengths were compared to the storage lengths of the existing left- turn pockets. The results of the queuing analysis show that all the left-turn movements that were analyzed would provide adequate storage for the estimated left-turn vehicle queues under all traffic scenarios. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 49 Table 12 Queuing Analysis Summary Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Analysis All new development projects in Cupertino should encourage multi-modal travel, consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan. It is the goal of the General Plan that all development projects accommodate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation modes to achieve Cupertino’s mobility goals and reduce travel demand and vehicle miles traveled. The newly adopted Pedestrian Transportation Plan establishes initiatives to foster a safe walking environment that promotes active living and connects to the other modes of transportation within the network. The adopted City Bicycle Transportation Plan establishes goals, policies and actions to make bicycling a daily part of life in Cupertino. The transportation plans include walk audits, traffic calming practices, a separated bikeways network, designated bike boulevards along neighborhood streets, and a Cupertino Loop Trail providing access around Cupertino separated from vehicular traffic. In order to further the goals of the City, pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be encouraged with new development projects. Measurement AMPM AMPM AMPM AMPM AM PM AMPM AMPM AMPM AMPM Existing Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)205 150 205 150 125 135 125 135 170 190 125 125 125 125 120 124 120 124Volume (vphpl ) 148 116 174 145 132 138 238 210 113 196 45 78 44 35 173 293 207 255 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 13 9 15 10 8 9 13 13 9 16 4 6 4 3 10 16 11 14 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 325 225 375 250 200 225 325 325 225 400 100 150 100 75 250 400 275 350Storage (ft./ ln.) 425 425 450 450 325 325 400 400 525 525 250 250 200 200 550 550 435 435 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Existing Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)205 150 205 150 125 135 125 135 170 190 125 125 125 125 120 124 120 124 Volume (vphpl ) 149 117 178 147 133 140 241 212 114 197 62 89 61 58 177 299 209 25695th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 14 9 16 10 8 9 13 13 9 16 5 6 5 5 10 16 12 14 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 350 225 400 250 200 225 325 325 225 400 125 150 125 125 250 400 300 350 Storage (ft./ ln.) 425 425 450 450 325 325 400 400 525 525 250 250 200 200 550 550 435 435Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)205 150 205 150 125 135 125 135 170 190 125 125 125 125 120 124 120 124Volume (vphpl ) 162 123 192 163 148 178 282 240 127 232 45 78 44 35 193 331 227 279 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 14 9 17 11 9 11 15 14 10 18 4 6 4 3 11 17 12 15 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 350 225 425 275 225 275 375 350 250 450 100 150 100 75 275 425 300 375 Storage (ft./ ln.) 425 425 450 450 325 325 400 400 525 525 250 250 200 200 550 550 435 435 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)205 150 205 150 125 135 125 135 170 190 125 125 125 125 120 124 120 124 Volume (vphpl ) 163 124 196 166 149 180 285 242 128 233 62 89 61 58 197 337 228 280 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 15 9 17 11 9 11 15 14 10 18 5 6 5 5 11 17 12 15 95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 375 225 425 275 225 275 375 350 250 450 125 150 125 125 275 425 300 375 Storage (ft./ ln.) 425 425 450 450 325 325 400 400 525 525 250 250 200 200 550 550 435 435 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections.2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued. EBL Wolfe Road & Pruneridge Avenue Wolfe Road & Stevens Creek Boulevard NBL = northbound left movement; SBL = southbound left movement; EBL = eastbound left movement;WBL = westbound left movement NBL SBL Wolfe Road & El Camino Real WBL WBL Wolfe Road & Homestead Road EBL Lawrence Expressway & Homestead Road EBLNBLNBL Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 50 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections (see Chapter 2 for details). The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks in the area. Project plans show existing sidewalks of approximately 8 feet in width backed by landscaping along its Wolfe Road frontage. The project would also construct a new 5-foot wide sidewalk along the southern frontage of the site. Although some sidewalk and crosswalk connections are missing along Pruneridge Avenue, the overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest. Note that the project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Facilities There are some existing bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site (see Chapter 2 for details). There are also many planned additional bicycle facilities in the study area, including buffered bike lanes along Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, and De Anza Boulevard, as well as developing a Class I bikeway along Blaney Avenue and the Cupertino Loop Trail south of I-280. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. It should be noted that the VTA, in cooperation with the City of Cupertino and Caltrans, has plans to modify the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange to improve traffic operations. The improvement project would include upgrading the existing pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities at the interchange intersections, as well as modifying the existing on/off-ramps and widening the overcrossing. Transit Services The project site is well-served by VTA bus routes. The closest bus stops are located a two-minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site, providing access to local bus routes 26 and 81. Additional bus routes are available at the Vallco Shopping Center Park & Ride Lot, located about a mile south of the project site (see Chapter 2 for details), and Bus Route 26 provides direct access to Vallco Shopping Center The new transit trips generated by the project are not expected to create demand in excess of the transit service that is currently provided. An evaluation of the effects of project traffic on transit vehicle delay also was completed. The analysis was completed for all transit routes that travel through the study intersections, utilizing information produced by the intersection level of service analysis. The analysis shows that the project would increase delay to some transit vehicles and result in a decrease in delay to other transit vehicles (see Table 13). The small increases in transit delay experienced by the bus routes that operate within the study area would be imperceptible. The small decreases in delay are attributed to the fact that the addition of project traffic sometimes causes a reallocation of green time, which causes a “reallocation” of delays. The VTA has not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. Therefore, this data is presented for informational purposes. Cupertino Village Hotel – Transportation Impact Analysis August 30, 2018 Page | 51 Table 13 Transit Delay Analysis Summary Background min / sec Route 22 Eastbound AM 116 / 6,960 88.5 88.9 0.4 0.01% Eastbound PM 156 / 9,360 41.6 41.8 0.2 0.00% Westbound AM 138 / 8,280 68.2 68.2 0.0 0.00% Westbound PM 127 / 7,620 34.9 34.9 0.0 0.00% Route 23 Northbound AM 62 / 3,720 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.00% Northbound PM 61 / 3,660 32.4 32.3 -0.1 0.00% Southbound AM 85 / 5,100 42.2 42.3 0.1 0.00% Southbound PM 88 / 5,280 46.3 46.3 0.0 0.00% Route 26 Northbound AM 107 / 6,420 278.1 281.1 3.0 0.04% Northbound PM 122 / 7,320 312.7 313.7 1.0 0.01% Southbound AM 119 / 7,140 239.2 240.3 1.1 0.01% Southbound PM 119 / 7,140 229.8 232.4 2.6 0.04% Route 55Northbound AM 61 / 3,660 21.1 21.2 0.1 0.00%Northbound PM 67 / 4,020 14.1 14.1 0.0 0.00%Southbound AM 60 / 3,600 29.3 29.3 0.0 0.00%Southbound PM 63 / 3,780 24.1 24.1 0.0 0.00% Route 81Eastbound AM 117 / 7,020 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.00%Eastbound PM 121 / 7,260 32.4 32.3 -0.1 0.00%Westbound AM 110 / 6,600 42.2 42.3 0.1 0.00%Westbound PM 121 / 7,260 46.3 46.3 0.0 0.00% Route 101Northbound AM 75 / 4,500 54.2 54.4 0.2 0.00%Southbound PM 97 / 5,820 33.0 33.1 0.1 0.00% Route 182Northbound PM 65 / 3,900 56.0 56.2 0.2 0.01%Southbound AM 62 / 3,720 51.2 51.8 0.6 0.02% Route 522Eastbound AM 96 / 5,760 88.5 88.9 0.4 0.01% Eastbound PM 128 / 7,680 41.6 41.8 0.2 0.00% Westbound AM 119 / 7,140 68.2 68.2 0.0 0.00% Westbound PM 103 / 6,180 34.9 34.9 0.0 0.00% Notes: 1 Travel time based on the route's first and last stop. Scheduled times were drawn from VTA's Bus Schedule. 2 Represents the total movement delay for all relevant study intersections added together. % ChangeBus Route Approx. Travel Time1 Background Plus Project Delay in Study Area (sec) 2 Delay in Study Area (sec) 2 Change in Delay (sec) Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel TIA Technical Appendices August 30, 2018 Appendix A New Traffic Counts DE ANZA BLVD DE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 DE ANZA BLVD & HOMESTEAD RD AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 1,285 2,358 1,326 637 2,2411,853 911 915 0.98 N S EW 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.91 (5,797)(3,376) (3,507) (1,693) (2,506) (2,422) (5,684)(4,993)6520142318 573 435 304 336 271 0 0 1,0582771,74915956HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD DE ANZA BLVD DE ANZA BLVD 10 7127N S EW 1675 2 8 25Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 5 60 178 3 13 1300132803655 622 0 0 3 03,92927392411 7:15 AM 16 95 200 3 23 1540223927793 881 1 1 0 24,7326559249 7:30 AM 22 80 334 4 34 22704239178116 1,146 3 0 5 05,25372443122 7:45 AM 19 58 353 9 26 185089790104153 1,280 5 3 1 15,58092752414 8:00 AM 13 71 448 4 31 283067810111115 1,425 0 1 3 25,76376575414 8:15 AM 12 67 455 8 30 28305478097127 1,402 0 3 1 35,73965763416 8:30 AM 19 73 388 5 36 2400761040127180 1,473 5 0 3 25,75586854014 8:45 AM 12 66 458 3 45 252074730100151 1,463 2 3 4 35,563771003121 9:00 AM 15 76 349 6 43 251256911102155 1,401 4 8 7 55,297771213125 9:15 AM 21 78 382 4 36 237155951117122 1,418 4 0 2 2102925421 9:30 AM 15 52 373 7 27 24724985110795 1,281 5 0 4 288644326 9:45 AM 16 61 302 8 28 24024581012389 1,197 4 3 4 373595218 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 1 0 0 0 5 0001310 110000 Lights 274 1,727 157 141 1,041 65271328299422561316 5,677005520 Mediums 2 22 2 1 12 008410112 750010 Total 271 336 304 435 573 318 277 1,749 159 142 1,058 65 5,763005620 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDEL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 WOLFE RD & EL CAMINO REAL AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:30 AM - 09:30 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:45 AM - 09:00 AM 659 1,587 1,477 413 1,6141,111 588 1,227 0.97 N S EW 0.94 0.86 0.96 0.86 (3,742)(1,848) (4,229) (1,116) (3,361) (1,571) (3,788)(3,217)66065252 852 348 234 290 50 25 14 5282951,285331EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 18 191622N S EW 91097 10 8 1012Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 33 92 0 13 921450276135 564 2 0 0 23,203292719 7:15 AM 0 47 126 0 17 12011032280167 688 2 2 1 43,623334535 7:30 AM 0 70 170 0 30 11315553120233 913 14 8 10 33,9404550612 7:45 AM 0 84 222 0 24 12418424121273 1,038 2 8 1 64,1364769514 8:00 AM 0 66 258 0 8 1064578393218 984 4 10 3 54,217528256 8:15 AM 0 67 275 0 24 1391561294186 1,005 3 3 1 54,2607064512 8:30 AM 0 80 339 0 16 15071275694207 1,109 7 1 4 24,3386048312 8:45 AM 0 60 351 0 18 15024753100215 1,119 6 3 2 34,2275371611 9:00 AM 1 71 277 0 9 11442482689180 1,027 3 9 8 54,01665711321 9:15 AM 0 84 318 0 22 114110581065250 1,083 5 6 0 656621122 9:30 AM 0 59 277 0 11 12401678392177 998 6 2 0 763631421 9:45 AM 0 54 223 0 13 13532194370157 908 7 2 2 368381217 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1020030 60000 Lights 292 1,269 33 65 517 6244286228339834249 4,258142510 Mediums 3 16 0 0 11 36269153 740000 Total 50 290 234 348 852 252 295 1,285 33 65 528 66 4,338142510 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDFREMONT AVEFREMONT AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:3 WOLFE RD & FREMONT AVE AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 1,177 1,610 198 262 1,216909 731 541 0.95 N S EW 0.96 0.81 0.93 0.94 (3,777)(3,219) (386) (687) (1,527) (1,892) (2,978)(2,484)409031139 48 11 161 206 364 0 0 737841,107250FREMONT AVE FREMONT AVE WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 4 1109N S EW 9200 3 1 54Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 24 82 0 4 10212821006 387 3 0 0 12,285174791 7:15 AM 0 28 117 0 7 132344330413 523 1 0 0 02,6143210397 7:30 AM 0 41 200 0 16 17717051016 709 0 5 0 02,8844213883 7:45 AM 0 24 172 0 25 14307436029 666 0 2 0 13,04738153125 8:00 AM 0 29 226 0 4 14208045026 716 2 2 0 33,23640248110 8:15 AM 0 15 248 0 11 182081500110 793 1 4 0 23,32252219113 8:30 AM 0 25 291 0 11 189093580013 872 2 1 0 03,23046383105 8:45 AM 0 22 268 0 5 183098540417 855 3 2 0 03,10341447112 9:00 AM 0 22 300 0 4 18309244068 802 3 3 0 12,9542236679 9:15 AM 0 23 224 0 0 16908051016 701 1 2 0 24137366 9:30 AM 0 24 225 0 5 207210841003 745 2 2 0 24513666 9:45 AM 0 34 238 0 4 20407231002 706 4 0 0 134111363 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 1 1010000 50000 Lights 84 1,089 24 30 718 3973622011551147138 3,2560000 Mediums 0 16 1 1 18 11246011 610000 Total 364 206 161 11 48 139 84 1,107 25 31 737 409 3,3220000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDMARION WAY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:4 WOLFE RD & MARION WAY AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 975 1,397 187 143 1,352974 0.93 N S EW 0.89 0.87 0.94 (3,288)(2,656) (498) (358) (3,128)(2,636)0071117 0 70 0904 01,280720 MARION WAY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 2 52 N S EW 5002 1 1 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 122 0 11 130040 278 1 0 01,614920 7:15 AM 0 0 134 0 12 148070 338 0 1 11,86719180 7:30 AM 0 0 200 0 40 1890190 512 1 0 02,13240240 7:45 AM 0 0 224 0 14 1970120 486 0 0 02,29528110 8:00 AM 0 0 238 0 10 2160170 531 0 0 02,4474460 8:15 AM 0 0 310 0 14 2200170 603 2 2 02,5143570 8:30 AM 0 0 337 0 18 2570160 675 1 0 12,47032150 8:45 AM 0 0 328 0 25 2140180 638 0 0 02,32922310 9:00 AM 0 0 305 0 14 2130190 598 0 0 12,22128190 9:15 AM 0 0 249 0 10 2330230 559 0 0 231130 9:30 AM 0 0 261 0 16 2170190 534 1 0 11920 9:45 AM 0 0 257 0 11 227040 530 0 0 016150 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 3 0 0 1 0000 4000 Lights 0 1,250 72 71 877 0700117 2,457000 Mediums 0 27 0 0 26 0000 53000 Total 70 0 117 0 1,280 72 71 904 0 2,514000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDINVERNESS WAYINVERNESS WAY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:5 WOLFE RD & INVERNESS WAY AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 991 1,352 196 128 1,239985 195 156 0.95 N S EW 0.93 0.82 0.88 0.92 (3,111)(2,698) (602) (292) (388) (445) (2,813)(2,767)5903384 70 42 44 63 88 0 0 899271,180320INVERNESS WAY INVERNESS WAY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 1 444N S EW 4031 0 1 40Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 98 0 2 1400540121 283 0 0 0 01,7015763 7:15 AM 0 1 138 0 1 16004201715 374 1 0 0 02,00662064 7:30 AM 0 2 204 0 8 2010181103017 558 1 1 0 02,27011321212 7:45 AM 0 3 169 0 7 200015701913 486 1 0 0 02,3991126115 8:00 AM 0 5 218 0 10 2260171201625 588 2 2 1 22,585928616 8:15 AM 0 4 286 0 9 2200261201219 638 0 2 1 02,6211121414 8:30 AM 0 10 333 0 12 2090192001218 687 1 0 1 02,528112599 8:45 AM 0 4 284 0 7 236021180815 672 0 2 2 02,39614281126 9:00 AM 0 9 277 0 5 2340221301018 624 1 0 0 12,272810810 9:15 AM 0 4 217 0 3 217021801318 545 0 0 1 2820214 9:30 AM 0 10 211 0 5 227023701214 555 1 0 0 01213417 9:45 AM 0 6 232 0 11 2060111001115 548 1 0 1 01312912 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 2 0000000 40000 Lights 27 1,151 31 31 870 59886342427084 2,5580000 Mediums 0 27 1 2 27 0002000 590000 Total 88 63 44 42 70 84 27 1,180 32 33 899 59 2,6210000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:6 WOLFE RD & HOMESTEAD RD AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 962 1,215 1,296 1,021 1,6541,472 822 1,026 0.93 N S EW 0.93 0.90 0.88 0.90 (2,795)(2,743) (3,327) (2,645) (2,502) (2,120) (3,927)(4,175)72013994 727 475 210 448 164 0 0 75122795743436HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 10 92814N S EW 27208 7 3 104Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 8 20 87 0 18 125075007782 562 0 0 6 13,2692484412 7:15 AM 9 32 121 0 18 15901650095138 774 1 0 2 23,82040176910 7:30 AM 6 37 161 0 24 175024900121173 951 1 1 0 14,14048156512 7:45 AM 5 41 161 0 23 199014960105154 982 2 1 1 14,460451011019 8:00 AM 7 39 216 0 31 2191231120119139 1,113 2 1 1 24,733641211219 8:15 AM 7 57 213 0 37 166042980122155 1,094 1 0 5 14,734491611517 8:30 AM 13 61 285 0 33 1990431160131168 1,271 5 3 5 64,715642911415 8:45 AM 4 64 232 0 37 2080421130126211 1,255 4 0 10 24,402522311726 9:00 AM 12 45 227 0 32 178037121096193 1,114 2 5 4 14,11545268814 9:15 AM 7 29 172 0 28 2030261410101163 1,075 1 1 8 175238819 9:30 AM 10 41 177 0 27 19203399088113 958 4 7 11 140259716 9:45 AM 7 28 174 0 32 1840311070104122 968 3 0 8 042279317 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 2 2 0 2 0001100 80000 Lights 224 938 391 135 732 7016344320046971491 4,60600360 Mediums 3 17 41 4 17 21595133 1200000 Total 164 448 210 475 727 94 227 957 434 139 751 72 4,73400360 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDAPPLE CAMPUS DWYDWY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:7 WOLFE RD & APPLE CAMPUS DWY AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:45 AM - 09:00 AM 1,431 1,685 19 958 2,3641,171 3 3 0.94 N S EW 0.96 0.77 0.93 0.50 (3,922)(4,016) (71) (2,054) (9) (13) (5,377)(3,492)232715 0 14 2 0 0 0 1 1,15501,6776870DWY APPLE CAMPUS DWY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 6 1300N S EW 8500 3 3 00Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 171 0 11 203000020 437 0 2 0 02,40604460 7:15 AM 0 0 204 3 17 234000040 517 0 2 0 22,81200541 7:30 AM 0 0 287 0 17 327000030 717 0 6 0 13,19320810 7:45 AM 0 0 285 0 40 319000020 735 0 3 0 13,48500890 8:00 AM 0 0 352 1 35 331000010 843 0 4 0 13,770121191 8:15 AM 0 0 416 0 58 297000030 898 0 7 0 23,817101230 8:30 AM 0 0 438 1 84 300000020 1,009 0 0 0 13,760011812 8:45 AM 0 0 423 2 83 292000040 1,020 0 3 0 23,541132120 9:00 AM 0 0 400 0 46 266100050 890 0 3 0 13,301011710 9:15 AM 0 0 287 5 82 308000170 841 0 6 0 0011491 9:30 AM 0 0 308 2 48 2710000110 790 0 3 0 4321441 9:45 AM 0 0 319 2 45 2780000100 780 0 0 0 1421182 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 4 0 0 4 0000000 80000 Lights 0 1,607 687 271 1,120 20021404 3,7111003 Mediums 0 66 0 0 31 0000001 980000 Total 0 0 2 14 0 5 0 1,677 687 271 1,155 2 3,8171003 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDPRUNERIDGE AVEPRUNERIDGE AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:8 WOLFE RD & PRUNERIDGE AVE AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 1,196 2,302 135 61 2,3251,361 183 115 0.95 N S EW 0.96 0.74 0.93 0.76 (5,238)(3,483) (329) (140) (264) (371) (5,274)(3,815)3032453 4 78 136 3 44 0 0 1,139812,202348PRUNERIDGE AVE PRUNERIDGE AVE WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 9 3019N S EW 2100 0 9 613Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 1 9 201 0 1 188021021 425 0 0 0 22,4106643 7:15 AM 0 11 252 1 3 224040071 528 3 0 0 12,78415523 7:30 AM 1 10 322 2 6 3210600121 711 2 2 0 33,15917724 7:45 AM 2 9 351 0 2 3110500190 746 0 2 0 33,4541617410 8:00 AM 1 10 410 0 8 297060070 799 0 0 0 23,690252465 8:15 AM 3 16 481 1 10 29201300102 903 2 0 0 33,839471576 8:30 AM 2 19 585 0 5 29601120181 1,006 9 2 0 13,7433391114 8:45 AM 2 32 579 1 5 2620900320 982 4 0 0 33,515291597 9:00 AM 1 14 557 1 4 28901110181 948 4 1 0 13,357271473 9:15 AM 1 17 424 0 7 2860500210 807 2 2 0 3209116 9:30 AM 2 20 397 1 4 28201210190 778 1 4 0 1181192 9:45 AM 1 22 433 2 4 3020900103 824 0 3 0 5201242 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 5 0 0 3 0000000 80000 Lights 80 2,139 34 24 1,109 3044313478453 3,7430083 Mediums 1 58 0 0 27 0002000 880000 Total 44 3 136 78 4 53 81 2,202 34 24 1,139 30 3,8390083 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDI280 RAMPS (N)I280 RAMPS (N) (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:9 WOLFE RD & I280 RAMPS (N) AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 1,356 2,437 1,191 412 2,1421,350 0 490 0.96 N S EW 0.98 0.84 0.92 0.00 (5,503)(3,804) (3,117) (1,141) (1,435) () (4,807)(3,649)49000707 0 484 0 0 0 0 0 86601,7304120I280 RAMPS (N) I280 RAMPS (N) WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 0 908N S EW 2700 0 0 80Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 115 0 0 1110000630 551 0 1 0 02,97001205785 7:15 AM 0 0 183 0 0 1590000570 626 1 1 0 03,3840726887 7:30 AM 0 0 245 0 0 1850000500 866 1 1 0 03,8660103118165 7:45 AM 0 0 266 0 0 2230000680 927 0 2 0 04,2200130115125 8:00 AM 0 0 314 0 0 2160000720 965 0 1 0 04,5100136114113 8:15 AM 0 0 414 0 0 2560000970 1,108 1 1 0 04,689014310593 8:30 AM 0 0 462 0 0 20400001160 1,220 0 3 0 04,5940179115144 8:45 AM 0 0 491 0 0 20700001250 1,217 0 2 0 04,375018789118 9:00 AM 0 0 363 0 0 19900001460 1,144 2 3 0 04,2480198103135 9:15 AM 0 0 299 0 0 21500001450 1,013 1 3 0 0016972113 9:30 AM 0 0 253 0 0 18300001410 1,001 0 1 0 00186102136 9:45 AM 0 0 261 0 0 21100002000 1,090 1 1 0 0021483121 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 4 1 0 0 3000101 100000 Lights 0 1,673 375 0 842 4790004760691 4,5360000 Mediums 0 53 36 0 24 80007015 1430000 Total 0 0 0 484 0 707 0 1,730 412 0 866 490 4,6890000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDI280 RAMPS (S)I280 RAMPS (S) (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:10 WOLFE RD & I280 RAMPS (S) AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:45 AM - 09:00 AM 1,351 2,141 0 432 1,6851,389 1,317 391 0.96 N S EW 0.88 0.00 0.90 0.93 (4,801)(3,653) () (1,198) (1,264) (2,947) (4,079)(3,416)391000 0 0 429 0 888 0 0 96001,2534320I280 RAMPS (S) I280 RAMPS (S) WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 0 903N S EW 2700 0 0 21Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 109 0 0 950630000 469 0 0 0 02,7093308980 7:15 AM 0 0 163 0 0 1100880000 604 1 3 0 03,12749088106 7:30 AM 0 0 240 0 0 11701230000 781 1 2 0 03,605630120118 7:45 AM 0 0 241 0 0 16201400000 855 0 3 0 03,951610122129 8:00 AM 0 0 256 0 0 18601720000 887 0 1 0 04,229690102102 8:15 AM 0 0 296 0 0 24702230000 1,082 0 1 0 04,3531030106107 8:30 AM 0 0 342 0 0 22402340000 1,127 3 1 0 04,198104012796 8:45 AM 0 0 349 0 0 23802310000 1,133 0 2 0 03,93312309894 9:00 AM 0 0 266 0 0 25102000000 1,011 0 5 0 03,74199010194 9:15 AM 0 0 210 0 0 22901600000 927 3 3 0 0119077132 9:30 AM 0 0 213 0 0 22801400000 862 0 1 0 010008497 9:45 AM 0 0 196 0 0 30201460000 941 3 1 0 0104084109 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 3 4 0 1 0200000 100000 Lights 0 1,210 383 0 938 3808380413000 4,1620000 Mediums 0 40 45 0 21 1148016000 1810000 Total 888 0 429 0 0 0 0 1,253 432 0 960 391 4,3530000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDVALLCO PKWYVALLCO PKWY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:11 WOLFE RD & VALLCO PKWY AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 1,236 1,662 244 398 1,582994 19 27 0.94 N S EW 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.71 (3,976)(3,071) (565) (1,019) (50) (47) (3,798)(2,436)1718307159 5 80 1 2 15 0 1 89441,4708919VALLCO PKWY VALLCO PKWY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 3 352N S EW 3023 2 1 11Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 2 0 131 4 28 84000060 273 0 0 1 01,78901530 7:15 AM 0 0 181 1 17 1140320110 372 1 0 2 02,134030112 7:30 AM 2 1 322 1 45 1270210110 568 1 5 1 22,531019361 7:45 AM 4 0 308 1 33 182021070 576 1 1 1 02,782026120 8:00 AM 2 0 299 3 48 1940500141 618 0 0 0 03,009036151 8:15 AM 4 0 355 3 57 2630400252 769 1 0 1 03,081029189 8:30 AM 5 1 453 4 71 2060300142 819 0 1 2 32,965034206 8:45 AM 6 2 377 4 93 2131210271 803 1 2 1 02,793145282 9:00 AM 4 1 285 7 86 2120610140 690 0 0 0 02,683051230 9:15 AM 1 0 279 1 86 2130200110 653 2 2 0 1031254 9:30 AM 6 0 283 1 80 1860410130 647 2 1 1 1142273 9:45 AM 3 0 240 7 125 2360220123 693 6 1 5 0033237 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 5 0 0 1 0000001 80010 Lights 4 1,438 81 294 867 171521775131 2,967101717 Mediums 0 27 8 13 26 00003027 1060011 Total 15 2 1 80 5 159 4 1,470 89 307 894 17 3,081101918 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:12 WOLFE RD & STEVENS CREEK BLVD AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:15 AM - 09:15 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:45 AM - 09:00 AM 896 1,541 907 784 1,207391 1,050 1,344 0.95 N S EW 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.92 (3,764)(2,309) (2,617) (2,058) (3,592) (2,639) (2,955)(1,106)47266107168 677 51 88 548 409 11 5 2511908981181STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 13 71413N S EW 52113 8 5 49Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 20 70 7 21 24133461473 379 3 1 2 02,856922840 7:15 AM 0 23 99 11 24 35133156025122 677 0 2 13 33,31733521350 7:30 AM 0 55 242 11 13 64251101234176 917 4 4 5 63,63517523265 7:45 AM 0 49 215 10 27 6335683113212 883 5 1 5 33,76915382276 8:00 AM 0 59 199 17 22 6517289118143 840 2 0 3 03,9572135890 8:15 AM 0 37 218 18 22 96072130115193 995 3 0 1 04,06027412699 8:30 AM 0 38 281 11 30 530123154212137 1,051 3 1 1 73,957154735113 8:45 AM 0 59 234 20 31 551105133518206 1,071 1 3 3 13,910293930106 9:00 AM 1 56 165 17 24 47410913136141 943 6 3 8 53,707174127154 9:15 AM 0 35 145 15 36 54287152214151 892 5 1 5 9165420109 9:30 AM 0 42 178 10 29 55197168018181 1,004 4 9 10 6274425129 9:45 AM 0 37 127 11 25 62079122014157 868 3 1 4 10155125143 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 2330131 140000 Lights 186 889 117 103 243 4553955298847653155 3,943511166 Mediums 4 9 0 4 8 151116032112 1030000 Total 409 548 88 51 677 168 190 898 118 107 251 472 4,060511166 LAWRENCE EXPY LAWRENCE EXPYHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:13 LAWRENCE EXPY & HOMESTEAD RD AM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 2,123 2,786 1,375 619 2,7381,887 628 1,572 0.97 N S EW 0.94 0.96 0.85 0.88 (8,027)(5,588) (3,696) (1,592) (4,026) (1,774) (7,721)(5,134)5490132267 790 318 113 290 225 0 0 1,4422332,29419714HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD LAWRENCE EXPY LAWRENCE EXPY 14 51810N S EW 23711 10 4 55Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 24 410 0 17 21603625071113 1,046 4 1 0 15,50114412653 7:15 AM 3 57 410 1 17 24303236083185 1,260 1 1 1 06,15425672279 7:30 AM 1 60 547 0 18 38006545079166 1,604 0 5 4 06,672257741100 7:45 AM 2 46 557 0 25 32204963090180 1,591 0 0 2 16,803336939116 8:00 AM 6 65 650 0 49 29506868092171 1,699 0 1 2 36,864236837107 8:15 AM 3 44 584 0 54 37806378082206 1,778 3 0 3 26,855317150134 8:30 AM 2 54 586 0 18 38604473078190 1,735 4 1 6 86,651337148152 8:45 AM 3 70 474 0 11 38305071066223 1,652 3 3 7 16,522265762156 9:00 AM 0 63 719 1 20 26304572052196 1,690 3 0 3 16,414295646128 9:15 AM 1 49 528 1 23 31807886079159 1,574 2 1 4 2355134132 9:30 AM 1 27 558 0 26 36416890071143 1,606 3 0 5 1235647131 9:45 AM 4 34 568 0 29 3291626705098 1,544 0 1 3 0418959113 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 1 1 0 6 0210002 130000 Lights 231 2,286 193 127 1,418 529223285111317782260 6,77600140 Mediums 2 7 3 5 18 20042185 750000 Total 225 290 113 318 790 267 233 2,294 197 132 1,442 549 6,86400140 DE ANZA BLVD DE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 DE ANZA BLVD & HOMESTEAD RD PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:45 PM - 06:45 PM Peak 15-Minutes:06:15 PM - 06:30 PM 2,058 1,635 998 1,627 2,2772,262 1,301 1,110 0.95 N S EW 0.96 0.91 0.89 0.94 (4,261)(5,864) (2,790) (4,492) (3,065) (3,613) (6,118)(6,567)18013335186 494 307 356 732 190 11 23 1,5304131,24654969HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD DE ANZA BLVD DE ANZA BLVD 8 02432N S EW 001410 4 4 1517Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 20 76 237 8 58 37253014007361 1,346 5 0 2 05,661754412621 4:15 PM 20 75 188 3 47 402755149171109 1,385 1 0 2 15,806733211142 4:30 PM 22 93 228 2 61 39324216947297 1,448 8 0 12 06,015824110832 4:45 PM 20 108 225 7 56 406646178462114 1,482 3 0 3 56,126664911322 5:00 PM 21 111 237 5 70 358131185553111 1,491 5 3 5 16,258923514531 5:15 PM 23 97 271 6 81 421552165165122 1,594 3 0 5 06,441634913340 5:30 PM 20 117 239 4 93 339544186175157 1,559 1 1 6 36,590615313530 5:45 PM 15 125 287 3 105 365540157175136 1,614 14 0 1 26,634793513650 6:00 PM 18 87 331 6 77 361849208573130 1,674 2 0 12 16,466825813645 6:15 PM 21 101 366 2 74 403943195176113 1,743 4 0 5 01024915731 6:30 PM 15 100 262 2 79 401158172483115 1,603 12 0 6 5934412054 6:45 PM 21 107 273 1 55 311444162266118 1,446 4 4 9 3874512129 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 413 1,236 539 334 1,518 180190730352302490186 6,58623116913 Mediums 0 10 10 1 12 0024540 480000 Total 190 732 356 307 494 186 413 1,246 549 335 1,530 180 6,63423116913 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDEL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 WOLFE RD & EL CAMINO REAL PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:15 PM - 06:15 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,563 757 1,054 1,590 1,1282,059 1,614 953 0.98 N S EW 0.92 0.93 0.86 0.94 (2,098)(3,861) (3,034) (4,391) (2,770) (4,645) (2,896)(5,177)830202105 548 358 423 1,125 57 43 9 1,2783135952200EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 30 341517N S EW 268105 16 14 134Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 66 107 0 35 133817253666129 995 1 1 0 04,289103242622 4:15 PM 0 48 110 0 47 218411263861132 1,076 1 5 3 54,55595311929 4:30 PM 0 70 104 0 42 220313269867110 1,080 3 5 1 44,757101232822 4:45 PM 0 69 106 0 55 237322234768158 1,138 0 4 0 35,04597233623 5:00 PM 0 59 132 0 40 237622291778175 1,261 5 11 6 95,268106256221 5:15 PM 0 63 138 0 43 3234172791286125 1,278 3 6 4 65,35999234719 5:30 PM 0 66 157 0 38 3261103161285145 1,368 6 6 7 145,311115245122 5:45 PM 0 90 171 0 47 2971172621083151 1,361 5 21 4 55,145108326923 6:00 PM 0 94 129 0 74 3323132689104127 1,352 2 0 0 34,879101265319 6:15 PM 0 73 138 0 47 2673222741275116 1,230 4 3 3 1095424224 6:30 PM 0 47 138 0 50 2145142571488154 1,202 8 2 5 5116354426 6:45 PM 0 73 132 0 53 2162152211274117 1,095 5 2 6 886353920 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0020010 30000 Lights 313 589 218 202 1,271 81561,109 420 357 540 104 5,31194200 Mediums 0 6 2 0 7 21143171 450100 Total 57 1,125 423 358 548 105 313 595 220 202 1,278 83 5,35994300 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDFREMONT AVEFREMONT AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:3 WOLFE RD & FREMONT AVE PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:15 PM - 06:15 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 2,061 1,121 69 492 9331,794 1,090 746 0.95 N S EW 0.96 0.83 0.91 0.98 (2,849)(5,173) (191) (1,330) (1,881) (2,735) (2,474)(4,513)55424931 28 9 329 405 351 1 5 1,456159737370FREMONT AVE FREMONT AVE WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 7 2104N S EW 15600 4 3 31Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 25 111 0 11 20216074036 661 2 4 0 33,0706061488 4:15 PM 0 28 123 0 12 29305468002 740 9 4 0 23,2925691580 4:30 PM 0 34 152 0 7 28306584009 835 2 2 0 03,5649051987 4:45 PM 0 28 143 1 17 27026085018 834 1 2 0 13,82290411114 5:00 PM 0 43 138 0 11 29117274026 883 3 4 0 43,996961516118 5:15 PM 0 37 170 0 9 368082110137 1,012 1 3 0 14,15373128132 5:30 PM 0 38 222 0 8 38118497018 1,093 3 1 0 44,04697812136 5:45 PM 0 41 189 1 13 319385103013 1,008 0 16 0 03,7758257156 6:00 PM 0 43 156 1 19 3881100950410 1,040 0 1 0 23,50777610130 6:15 PM 0 47 201 1 14 306071800013 905 0 3 0 1291120112 6:30 PM 0 25 168 0 6 306265920110 822 4 2 0 225314105 6:45 PM 0 30 124 0 10 26106572025 740 0 1 0 152112106 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 158 731 37 49 1,450 55434940432892831 4,1355101 Mediums 1 6 0 0 6 0211000 180001 Total 351 405 329 9 28 31 159 737 37 49 1,456 554 4,1535102 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDMARION WAY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:4 WOLFE RD & MARION WAY PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:15 PM - 06:15 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,680 1,106 233 378 1,0301,459 0.95 N S EW 0.94 0.75 0.94 (2,802)(4,470) (499) (777) (2,662)(4,052)00290164 0 69 01,3900942880 MARION WAY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 2 11 N S EW 1010 2 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 171 0 20 225080 445 0 0 02,2141560 4:15 PM 0 0 157 0 49 3100110 560 1 0 02,46719140 4:30 PM 0 0 200 0 43 2970170 608 1 0 02,61733180 4:45 PM 0 0 172 0 39 3290170 601 1 1 02,78623210 5:00 PM 0 0 195 0 53 382070 698 1 1 02,93138230 5:15 PM 0 0 223 0 56 3530220 710 0 0 02,94334220 5:30 PM 0 0 257 0 78 3820130 777 0 0 02,86331160 5:45 PM 0 0 244 0 100 3170160 746 1 0 12,69039300 6:00 PM 0 0 218 0 56 3380180 710 0 1 02,48660200 6:15 PM 0 0 216 0 23 3380130 630 1 0 225150 6:30 PM 0 0 221 0 22 327090 604 0 0 014110 6:45 PM 0 0 184 0 34 299040 542 0 1 11380 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0100 1000 Lights 0 934 88 290 1,380 0680164 2,924000 Mediums 0 8 0 0 10 0000 18000 Total 69 0 164 0 942 88 290 1,390 0 2,943000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDINVERNESS WAYINVERNESS WAY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:5 WOLFE RD & INVERNESS WAY PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:45 PM - 06:00 PM 1,466 1,025 188 380 9621,267 312 256 0.93 N S EW 0.96 0.98 0.90 0.85 (2,653)(4,066) (431) (851) (625) (688) (2,549)(3,605)146012874 85 29 46 179 87 0 0 1,19225864730INVERNESS WAY INVERNESS WAY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 7 055N S EW 0014 6 1 32Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 145 0 17 260089037 495 0 0 0 02,291612919 4:15 PM 0 3 168 0 18 2490316058 519 0 1 2 02,481971716 4:30 PM 0 3 166 0 23 3060152201218 616 0 0 1 02,7021291317 4:45 PM 0 4 203 0 21 30201335089 661 5 0 0 22,8067121730 5:00 PM 0 6 184 0 26 306023290520 685 0 0 0 12,92816182428 5:15 PM 0 12 217 0 32 318016390918 740 1 0 1 12,91710211533 5:30 PM 0 4 217 0 31 272028490923 720 1 0 0 42,87615161739 5:45 PM 0 3 246 0 39 296020620624 783 3 0 1 12,7395191746 6:00 PM 0 0 188 0 20 295013410931 674 4 1 0 02,5151281245 6:15 PM 0 2 226 0 24 283022370916 699 1 1 0 010111643 6:30 PM 0 3 180 0 23 268017220117 583 2 1 1 2971026 6:45 PM 0 6 182 0 14 25208210217 559 1 0 1 1951429 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 25 859 73 128 1,185 1468717946298573 2,9150000 Mediums 0 5 0 0 7 0000001 130000 Total 87 179 46 29 85 74 25 864 73 128 1,192 146 2,9280000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:6 WOLFE RD & HOMESTEAD RD PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,264 1,011 1,241 1,419 1,4841,730 1,214 1,043 0.94 N S EW 0.91 0.93 0.84 0.95 (2,568)(3,635) (3,316) (4,118) (2,733) (3,482) (3,764)(4,778)1040132117 705 419 241 853 120 0 0 1,02823477443442HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 15 52623N S EW 50818 10 5 716Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 13 38 100 0 43 194026225077108 981 2 1 5 04,30137208020 4:15 PM 11 35 125 0 25 240029171078143 1,013 0 0 3 34,55137306029 4:30 PM 11 35 145 0 35 264032218094132 1,136 1 5 6 04,85848307220 4:45 PM 12 52 149 0 53 2230262350111134 1,171 6 4 13 45,10851317420 5:00 PM 10 40 149 0 36 2430312340118169 1,231 5 1 7 35,20360279123 5:15 PM 8 61 205 0 37 2720262170101173 1,320 7 1 8 45,163562310734 5:30 PM 11 63 235 0 33 2620341960116188 1,386 1 2 0 05,115623113124 5:45 PM 13 70 185 0 26 251029206084175 1,266 2 1 2 84,856633610523 6:00 PM 9 46 126 0 29 2430302240107165 1,191 3 1 6 44,69359279432 6:15 PM 12 62 181 1 47 269023213083158 1,272 3 2 8 2373112035 6:30 PM 9 53 142 0 34 212020205093150 1,127 7 2 6 358359620 6:45 PM 7 46 153 0 31 229026203085134 1,103 1 4 3 4351911223 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0001000 10000 Lights 230 767 404 129 1,023 104120846237415702116 5,13500420 Mediums 4 7 30 3 5 0073431 670000 Total 120 853 241 419 705 117 234 774 434 132 1,028 104 5,20300420 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDAPPLE CAMPUS DWYDWY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:7 WOLFE RD & APPLE CAMPUS DWY PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,676 1,403 676 54 1,2272,127 20 15 0.95 N S EW 0.96 0.95 0.86 0.75 (3,603)(4,578) (1,624) (153) (34) (56) (3,193)(5,661)152016193 0 482 20 0 0 1 0 1,62501,190370DWY APPLE CAMPUS DWY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 4 700N S EW 5200 0 4 00Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 217 4 7 2900000540 608 0 1 0 12,71091764 4:15 PM 0 0 186 3 4 3370000600 626 0 0 0 12,976221112 4:30 PM 0 0 250 3 11 3780000800 756 0 0 0 03,24722462 4:45 PM 0 0 239 6 5 3460000850 720 0 1 0 13,43842771 5:00 PM 0 0 259 2 3 43000001150 874 0 1 0 13,599746102 5:15 PM 0 0 291 6 3 41000011230 897 0 4 0 23,52135442 5:30 PM 0 0 348 6 5 39900001180 947 0 0 0 03,437549107 5:45 PM 0 0 292 6 5 38600001260 881 0 1 0 03,305544134 6:00 PM 0 0 233 3 4 4030000960 796 0 2 0 13,14274163 6:15 PM 0 0 264 3 4 3840001990 813 0 1 0 034960 6:30 PM 0 0 262 4 3 36700001141 815 0 3 0 2643114 6:45 PM 0 0 259 9 3 30300011020 718 0 5 0 133332 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 1 0000000 10000 Lights 0 1,156 37 16 1,610 1500204820193 3,55001020 Mediums 0 34 0 0 14 0000000 480000 Total 0 0 20 482 0 193 0 1,190 37 16 1,625 15 3,59901020 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDPRUNERIDGE AVEPRUNERIDGE AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:8 WOLFE RD & PRUNERIDGE AVE PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:15 PM - 06:15 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:45 PM - 06:00 PM 2,113 1,241 54 77 1,3742,186 145 182 0.96 N S EW 0.96 0.88 0.96 0.89 (3,273)(5,627) (163) (215) (521) (411) (3,630)(5,822)3343326 2 26 108 2 35 0 0 2,0431471,176429PRUNERIDGE AVE PRUNERIDGE AVE WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 19 1306N S EW 9400 16 3 15Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 4 25 199 3 1 336061040 615 0 0 0 02,8461111104 4:15 PM 2 38 188 1 5 377072031 674 2 0 0 13,03630866 4:30 PM 3 24 224 0 4 4150112041 745 1 4 0 43,282318810 4:45 PM 2 29 253 2 4 466081060 812 2 1 0 23,444156128 5:00 PM 2 34 218 2 7 485070060 805 1 4 0 163,59324866 5:15 PM 2 35 275 0 4 5340110040 920 1 1 0 23,6862281213 5:30 PM 1 32 311 0 10 4730111080 907 2 5 0 33,6553071211 5:45 PM 4 44 312 1 10 524051072 961 1 2 0 123,59229688 6:00 PM 2 36 278 3 9 512080070 898 1 5 0 23,392275101 6:15 PM 2 40 300 0 10 460182071 889 2 3 0 4279166 6:30 PM 1 37 260 2 10 471090040 844 2 4 0 4231278 6:45 PM 3 50 243 0 14 3831140041 761 5 4 0 8255108 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 147 1,144 42 33 2,028 3335210826226 3,6390094 Mediums 0 32 0 0 15 0000000 470000 Total 35 2 108 26 2 26 147 1,176 42 33 2,043 33 3,6860094 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDI280 RAMPS (N)I280 RAMPS (N) (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:9 WOLFE RD & I280 RAMPS (N) PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:30 PM - 06:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 2,112 1,433 1,369 527 1,2802,198 0 603 0.97 N S EW 0.97 0.90 0.88 0.00 (3,704)(5,795) (3,445) (1,480) (1,737) () (3,462)(5,781)60300680 0 689 0 0 0 0 0 1,50907535270I280 RAMPS (N) I280 RAMPS (N) WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 0 904N S EW 7200 0 0 13Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 141 0 0 23000001230 849 1 1 0 03,6250106128121 4:15 PM 0 0 130 0 0 2950000950 817 0 1 0 03,830010082115 4:30 PM 0 0 133 0 0 31800001120 955 1 3 0 04,1970140120132 4:45 PM 0 0 143 0 0 34100001170 1,004 3 1 1 04,4690154103146 5:00 PM 0 0 165 0 0 36400001250 1,054 2 0 0 04,6820110139151 5:15 PM 0 0 170 0 0 38400001490 1,184 2 0 0 04,7530160145176 5:30 PM 0 0 224 0 0 38000001680 1,227 1 2 0 04,7610186138131 5:45 PM 0 0 173 0 0 37300001820 1,217 0 1 0 04,6060200101188 6:00 PM 0 0 154 0 0 39900001390 1,125 1 4 0 04,3950137149147 6:15 PM 0 0 202 0 0 35700002000 1,192 2 1 0 00157139137 6:30 PM 0 0 167 0 0 33300001650 1,072 0 2 0 00137105165 6:45 PM 0 0 180 0 0 28400001480 1,006 1 1 0 00135131128 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 1 0000000 10000 Lights 0 741 491 0 1,498 5960006810662 4,6690000 Mediums 0 12 36 0 10 70008018 910000 Total 0 0 0 689 0 680 0 753 527 0 1,509 603 4,7610000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDI280 RAMPS (S)I280 RAMPS (S) (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:10 WOLFE RD & I280 RAMPS (S) PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:30 PM - 06:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes:06:15 PM - 06:30 PM 2,198 1,328 0 620 1,7151,932 611 644 0.97 N S EW 0.99 0.00 0.97 0.84 (3,509)(5,784) () (1,656) (1,812) (1,580) (4,580)(4,967)644000 0 0 378 0 233 0 0 1,55401,0956200I280 RAMPS (S) I280 RAMPS (S) WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 0 904N S EW 7200 0 0 13Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 233 0 0 2640360000 812 1 3 0 03,39571011989 4:15 PM 0 0 170 0 0 2460420000 803 0 1 0 03,580730128144 4:30 PM 0 0 220 0 0 2750320000 873 0 2 0 03,853690121156 4:45 PM 0 0 209 0 0 3200370000 907 2 2 0 04,103800123138 5:00 PM 0 0 262 0 0 3070420000 997 1 3 0 14,312730130183 5:15 PM 0 0 266 0 0 3690490000 1,076 3 1 0 04,431880139165 5:30 PM 0 0 312 0 0 4000500000 1,123 1 0 0 04,524890124148 5:45 PM 0 0 257 0 0 3880650000 1,116 0 2 0 04,388880151167 6:00 PM 0 0 260 0 0 3700430000 1,116 2 4 0 04,237940181168 6:15 PM 0 0 266 0 0 3960750000 1,169 1 1 0 01070164161 6:30 PM 0 0 218 0 0 3390540000 987 0 2 0 0840133159 6:45 PM 0 0 251 0 0 2980600000 965 1 1 0 0790143134 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1000000 10000 Lights 0 1,048 615 0 1,543 6362280369000 4,4390000 Mediums 0 47 5 0 11 7509000 840000 Total 233 0 378 0 0 0 0 1,095 620 0 1,554 644 4,5240000 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDVALLCO PKWYVALLCO PKWY (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:11 WOLFE RD & VALLCO PKWY PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:30 PM - 06:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,916 1,506 610 392 1,0711,703 35 31 0.93 N S EW 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.73 (4,136)(4,709) (1,679) (1,017) (74) (90) (2,988)(4,239)2460290468 3 139 2 10 23 0 0 1,54249559220VALLCO PKWY VALLCO PKWY WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 4 9171N S EW 54125 1 3 01Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 4 0 201 7 39 23801010330 669 0 3 6 22,6241109242 4:15 PM 13 2 183 8 44 2060540192 577 0 0 2 02,707166222 4:30 PM 4 0 202 12 51 2400130260 655 0 3 2 12,967189233 4:45 PM 6 1 208 11 57 2980220250 723 2 2 0 13,289088187 5:00 PM 7 1 247 10 58 2620230370 752 3 5 4 03,4690109133 5:15 PM 7 0 227 8 53 3430220461 837 4 2 2 43,5652128153 5:30 PM 7 1 260 18 77 4190440410 977 1 1 1 23,6321114274 5:45 PM 6 1 245 14 86 3630920300 903 0 6 3 03,4791111269 6:00 PM 2 2 223 14 58 3710530280 848 0 1 3 03,3730112228 6:15 PM 5 0 227 14 69 3890510403 904 0 1 10 20131173 6:30 PM 3 1 203 12 82 3380530311 824 0 3 0 101112212 6:45 PM 4 0 241 6 70 3060410350 797 2 0 1 00113152 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 4 945 85 280 1,534 24231021353435 3,558002058 Mediums 0 10 7 10 8 00004033 740002 Total 23 10 2 139 3 468 4 955 92 290 1,542 24 3,632002060 WOLFE RD WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:12 WOLFE RD & STEVENS CREEK BLVD PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:05:30 PM - 06:30 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 1,698 977 1,109 1,615 5281,508 2,100 1,335 0.97 N S EW 0.91 0.94 0.86 0.91 (2,761)(4,350) (2,993) (4,417) (3,607) (5,652) (1,466)(3,676)46732257203 680 212 354 1,280 450 14 16 942172292640STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD WOLFE RD WOLFE RD 35 173212N S EW 981517 21 14 93Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 40 79 6 55 1321105216430121 1,021 5 0 8 14,167633720112 4:15 PM 1 37 48 7 55 1291106270730144 1,030 4 10 14 44,33343461987 4:30 PM 0 26 55 7 53 128390224435125 963 0 10 14 04,61953521494 4:45 PM 0 40 66 7 49 1743104270944169 1,153 2 4 7 15,05762412194 5:00 PM 0 33 78 10 46 167499317542131 1,187 3 11 11 95,30483552196 5:15 PM 1 42 52 5 62 1905121340564160 1,316 6 7 9 45,387905520104 5:30 PM 0 51 87 7 69 2655102301266173 1,401 5 2 5 85,435814619127 5:45 PM 0 47 74 8 57 2192120362150190 1,400 0 6 8 115,259994710114 6:00 PM 0 35 77 6 76 2405107286639136 1,270 3 6 7 144,99079572497 6:15 PM 0 39 54 11 55 2184121331557181 1,364 2 1 9 2955311129 6:30 PM 0 32 49 20 57 2397101269248136 1,225 5 1 10 11804622117 6:45 PM 0 39 70 13 54 1674106275436149 1,131 2 6 7 4374813116 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00000 Lights 172 289 64 255 938 4594411,269 354 211 670 200 5,3841614032 Mediums 0 3 0 2 4 891101103 510000 Total 450 1,280 354 212 680 203 172 292 64 257 942 467 5,4351614032 LAWRENCE EXPY LAWRENCE EXPYHOMESTEAD RDHOMESTEAD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.net Location:13 LAWRENCE EXPY & HOMESTEAD RD PM Wednesday, March 28, 2018Date and Start Time: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - All Vehicles Traffic Counts Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Peak Hour:04:45 PM - 05:45 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:15 PM - 05:30 PM 3,431 2,210 812 1,355 2,1353,532 1,585 866 0.97 N S EW 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.97 (6,319)(10,066) (2,462) (3,743) (2,607) (4,398) (5,976)(10,233)3462214149 402 261 388 793 394 0 10 2,8691081,66534814HOMESTEAD RD HOMESTEAD RD LAWRENCE EXPY LAWRENCE EXPY 13 3911N S EW 1245 2 11 29Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time RollingHour West East South North Pedestrain Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 4 29 349 0 49 661010216805970 1,742 3 1 2 37,60197445753 4:15 PM 4 33 376 0 50 7970101170057102 1,943 2 0 3 27,75290336268 4:30 PM 2 37 368 0 58 769211214805367 1,905 1 1 4 37,865108416377 4:45 PM 2 29 376 1 63 78408620406594 2,011 0 1 2 07,96396438385 5:00 PM 4 27 392 0 51 646210619207197 1,893 5 0 1 47,937109337687 5:15 PM 5 17 446 1 42 7353108201069115 2,056 3 0 5 77,90794459778 5:30 PM 3 35 451 0 58 70459419605696 2,003 3 2 1 27,71789289296 5:45 PM 1 38 426 0 60 675197202075118 1,985 5 3 5 67,58285459171 6:00 PM 1 34 346 1 61 663293165074129 1,863 1 0 4 27,36480478780 6:15 PM 2 49 365 1 53 6673104144060117 1,866 5 3 8 6804470107 6:30 PM 3 38 381 3 64 67629216405387 1,868 2 0 3 4695573108 6:45 PM 1 19 355 0 80 586393172085100 1,767 2 0 5 264357797 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 0 1 0000000 20000 Lights 107 1,652 345 213 2,861 344385786388261397146 7,911100142 Mediums 1 12 3 1 7 2970053 500000 Total 394 793 388 261 402 149 108 1,665 348 214 2,869 346 7,963100142 Appendix B Lists of Approved Projects Upcoming Projects in Cupertino, March 2018 AH = Admin. Hearing ASA = Arch. and Site Approval; CC = City Council; CUP = Conditional Use Permit; DA = Development Agreement; DIR = Director’s Minor Mod.; DP = Development Permit; DRC = Development Review Comm.; ERC = Environmental Review Comm.; EXC = Exception; EXT = Extension; GPA = General Plan Amendment; HC = Housing Comm.; HOC = Heart of the City; LAC = Legislative Action Comm.; M = Modification; MCA = Municipal Code Amendment; PC = Planning Comm; SS = Study Session; TI = Tenant Imp.; TM = Tentative Map; TR = Tree Removals. Project Name Location/Uses Additional Description Tentative Time Frame/Status Main Street (Sandhill Properties) NW of Tantau/SCB (Mixed Use) 180 room hotel, 260Ks.f.office, up to 130.5Ks.f.retail and 120 apt units. List of retailers: Lazy Dog, Philz Coffee, Eureka!, Alexander’s, Pieology, Rootstock, 85 Degrees, Capezio, Howard’s Shoes, Oren’s Hummus, Panino Giusto, Meet Fresh, Tea Chansii, AT&T, Chef Hung, Target, Meriwest, Pressed Juicery, Orange Theory Apartments estimated to be completed early 2018 Hotel, bar and banquet rooms open Orange Theory open TCO for “The Loft” apartments and the Marriott bar and conference facilities AT&T Wireless 21060 Homestead Rd (Office Bldg) DP, ASA & Height EXC for a 75 foot mono- eucalyptus Application filed 10/26/11. Application on hold at applicant request. Nineteen800 (Rosebowl) N. Wolfe/ Vallco Pkwy (Mixed use) Residential (204 units) and retail (45Ks.f.).Tenants: Vitality Bowls, Kula Sushi, Doppio Zero, The Kebab Shop,, Atlas Health, Nosh Café, Steins Stout Burgers building permits under review Boiling Point, Jin Tea Shop, and Koja Kitchen building permits issued Foothill Live/Work 10121 N Foothill Blvd DP, ASA, Z, TM, and TR to construct 6 townhomes (5 w/ detached work spaces) PC recommended approval on 4/22/14. CC approved on 05/20/14. Completed and finaled Hyatt House (Vallco –behind JC Penney) S-W of I-280 & Wolfe Rd (Hotel/Restaurant/Bar) 148-room hotel with restaurant and bar and conference room space Building permits for site work, podium and hotel issued. Construction started Verizon Wireless 10300 Torre Avenue (Wireless facility) DP, ASA & Height EXC for a new wireless facility Appeal of PC decision denied by CC on 10/06/15. Lease approved by CC on 01/19/16 Facility is active GPA Authorization City-wide Proposed procedures for process of GPA applications www.cupertino.org/gpaauthorization Project plans posted at: www.cupertino.org/gpaauthorization GPA Authorization for Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires Site) and Cupertino Village Boutique hotel The Oaks GPA Authorization resubmittal withdrawn Cupertino Upcoming Projects March 2018 Page 2 AH = Admin. Hearing ASA = Arch. and Site Approval; CC = City Council; CUP = Conditional Use Permit; DA = Development Agreement; DIR = Director’s Minor Mod.; DP = Development Permit; DRC = Development Review Comm.; ERC = Environmental Review Comm.; EXC = Exception; EXT = Extension; GPA = General Plan Amendment; HC = Housing Comm.; HOC = Heart of the City; LAC = Legislative Action Comm.; M = Modification; MCA = Municipal Code Amendment; PC = Planning Comm; SS = Study Session; TCO + Temp Certificate of Occupancy; TI = Tenant Imp.; TM = Tentative Map; TR = Tree Removals. Project Name Location/Uses Additional Description Tentative Time Frame/Status Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) City-wide Research and develop criteria for converting underutilized retail space to incubator or co-working uses Research the potential to establish a Makers Space/Innovation District Research and develop policies for regulating mobile services (goods and services sold from a truck) in Cupertino. Expected outreach meetings with stakeholders to continue in Spring. Apple NE of Pruneridge & Wolfe Rd (Office/R&D) Replace 2.6Ms.f. with 3.4M s.f.: 2.82M s.f. office, 1,000 seat auditorium, Fitness Center & Parking & 600Ks.f. R&D offices. Phase 1: TCO for A1 wedge levels B2, B1, L1, L2, L3 and L4 Phase 2 construction underway. TCO for Visitor Center, Theater, Tantau Reception, Tantau 9 & 10 Tantau bridge improvements completed, pending Public Works Review Rolling occupancy Winter through Spring 2018 Prelim review North Tantau Site B revision Foothill Apartments 10310 N. Foothill Blvd.Construct 15 apartment units at an existing vacant residentially zoned site. Building permits issued Construction started The Hamptons (HE site) 10900 & 10950 Pruneridge Ave Replace 342 apartment units with 942 apartment units CC approved on 07/05/16 Project on hold by Applicant Marina Plaza (HE site) 10118-10122 Bandley Street 188 apartment units, with approximately 22,600 s.f. of retail, and a 122 room hotel CC approved on 09/06/16 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan (HE site) 10123 N. Vallco Vallco Shopping District, Hyatt Hotel, parking lot Adopt a Specific Plan for the Vallco Special Area Visit www.cupertino.org/vallco and http://envisionvallco.org/for updates 02/05/18, project kickoff meeting 2/6/18 community interviews 02/22/18, EIR scoping meeting 3/13/18, existing conditions presentation Charrettes week of April 9th and May 21st Target Remodel 20745 Stevens Creek Blvd. ASA to allow exterior modification, site and landscape improvements PC approved on 09/27/16 New ASA under review The Forum 23500 Cristo Rey Drive DP and ASA to allow additions and renovations to the existing senior community care facility Draft EIR circulation began 12/13/17 ERC scheduled for 01/18/18 PC to be scheduled for March 2018 and CC April 2018 Project Type Planning Permit File No.Address Cross Street Description Proposed SF/UnitsProposed Use(s)Planning Permit Type Project Status/Planning Notes Commercial 2017-7633 1010 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. E. Remington Dr.Allow construction of a 18,600 sq. ft. commercial building for child care use (240 children)18,600 sq. ft. Child care with 240 children ER SDP Approved by PC on 11/27/17. Building permit active (Plan Check) Commercial 2015-7399 777 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Rd. S. Mathilda Ave.Allow an approximately 11,600 square foot new commercial building (grocery store) on existing commercial site. The project replaces a portion (approx. 7,600 s.f.) of the Orchard Supply Hardware building and storage area. 11,600 sq. ft.Retail SDP Project approved by Zoning Administrator. Project appealed to Planning Commission. Appeal Commercial 2015-7303 795 S. Fair Oaks Ave.E. El Camino Real 182 room, 5-story hotel 182 5-story Hotel rooms ER SDP VAR Under Construction Commercial 2016-7898 830 E. El Camino Real Maria Ln.Demolish an existing single story restaurant (Crazy Buffet) and construct a new 127-unit, four-story hotel with underground parking garage on a 2.56-acre parcel. 127 room Hotel SDP ER Approved by Planning Commission 4/24/17. Commercial 2014-7633 861 E. El Camino Real Wolfe Allow a 162-room hotel (Hampton Inn), including underground parking 162 Room Hotel SDP VAR Approved by City Council on 4/5/16. Mixed Use 2014-7373 (Previous 2013-7528 & 2014-7093) 871 and 895 E. Fremont Ave. E El Camino Real Redevelopment of a 5.49-acre site with 138 residential units (39 townhomes and 99 apartments) plus 6,934 square feet of retail/office use with surface and underground parking. Project involves Rezoning of 895 E. Fremont Ave. from C-1/ECR to R-3/ECR and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 39 99 6,934 sq. ft. Townhomes Apartments Retail/Office RZ ER SDP TM Approved by the City Council on 12/13/16. EIR certified by the City Council on 12/13/16.Residential 2016-7293 1008 E. El Camino Real Poplar Rezone the property at 1314-1320 Poplar Ave. from R-1/ECR (Low Density Residential/Precise Plan for El Camino Real) to C-2/ECR (Highway Business Commercial/Precise Plan for El Camino Real) and redevelop former mobile home park (Conversion Impact Report certified and closure approved in January 2016) and existing duplex property comprising a project site of 2.1 acres into a 108-unit, 5-story mixed income (20% of units will be affordable to very low income households) rental housing complex with associated site improvements. 108 Apartments ER RZ SDP PC recommeded approval on 6/26/17. CC approved on 7/25/17. In Building Plan Check review TIA Land Use Data 03/16/2018 TIA Information based on Major Development Update Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 5402 Great America Pkwy Approved 3 Com/Cognac Great America Existing office use redeveloped to 278,000 sf of office/research & development 0 - 278,000 - - 2350 Mission College Blvd Approved 2350 Mission College Boulevard Office Retail 300,000 sf of office in two buildings and a 6 story parking garage; 6,000 square feet of retail 0 - 300,000 - 6,000 4301, 4401, 4551 Great America Pkwy Approved Sobrato Office Development Rezone from PD & PD[ML] to construct (2) 12-story office buildings totaling 718,000 sq.ft. & (1) four-story parking garage on a developed property w/ (2) 300,000 sq.ft. existing office buildings that are to remain 0 - 1,318,000 - - 900 Kiely Blvd Completed/Occu pied Fairfield Development 781 housing units, 57 SFD, 68 row houses, 116 townhouses/ 552 apartments (Modification to current PD-MC approval allowing additional 21 apartment units 781 - - - - 2620-2727 Augustine Dr Approved Augustine Bowers Industrial Campus / Equity Office 1,969,600 sf of office and up to 35,000 sf of retail 0 - 1,969,600 - 35,000 2600 San Tomas Expy2800 San Tomas Expy 2400 Condensa St Approved NVIDIA 1,200,000 sf of office and high-tech lab buidlings replacing approx. 690,000 sf of office space. Revised DA 0 - 1,200,000 - - Mission College Blvd Completed/Occu pied Mission College Master Plan 427,000 sq. ft. 0 427,000 - - - 5010 Old Ironsides Dr Approved (formerly Yahoo! Campus) 2016 LeEcco owned property Phased development of a 3,060,000 sq.ft. office/R&D campus consisting of 13 six- story buildings, three commons buildings, surface parking & two levels of below grade parking 0 - 3,060,000 - - 2875 Lakeside Dr Completed/Occupied Marriot Townplace Suites Rezone from Commercial Park (CP) to Planned Development (PD) to facilitate the development of a 107 room extended stay hotel with at-grade podium parking 0 63,837 - - - 3333 Scott Blvd Completed/Occupied Menlo Equities Office Park Lot Line Adjustment and Architectural Review to facilitate the development of 735,000 square foot (5 buildings) office space 0 - 735,000 - - 5403 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Mellon Bank /Perry Airellaga General Plan Amendment from Low Intensity Office R&D to High Intensity Office R&D, Rezone from CT to PD & Architectural Review to construct (2) 6- story office buildings totalling 375,000 sq.ft. & (1) parking structure w/1281 spaces (2 below & 4 above) & 38 surface parking spaces in conjunction w/ demo of existing one-story commercial building (IHOP Restaurant) - 375,000 - - 3137 Forbes Ave Approved Calvary Southern Baptist Church Use Permit Amendment to U.417 to allow Sunday School classrooms and a weekday day care in the existing church facility in conjunction with construction of a new 2- story building, 14,000+ sq.ft. and parking, landscaping improvements 0 - - 14,000 - 1043 Alviso St Completed/Occupied Santa Clara University Rezone properties from CT & B to PD to construct a a 4-story parking garage and 3- story Art & Art History building in conjunction with removal/demo/relocation of (e) structures on the project site (CEQ2011-01129) including historically signficant structures. 1 44,111 - - - 1/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 3499 The Alameda Completed/Occu pied 6 Single family projecft (formerly 9 unit townhome condominium project) Rezoning to PD from ML to facilitate development of six single family homes 6 - - - - 4306 Fillmore St Completed/Occu pied James Redfield Rezoning single family property to PD to allow lot split and building of second new SFD on smaller lots. Tentative parcel map application 2 - - - - 1079 Alviso St Approved SCU Steve Brodie Rezoning of one parcel to allow Larrder House relocation 0 - 2,000 - - 2200 Lawson Ln Approved Sobrato Amend PD zoning (PLN2007-06379) and Development Agreement (PLN2008- 06880) for approved office R&D campus to increase building sq.ft. of allowable office space fropm 516,000 to 613,800 sq.ft. 0 - 613,800 - - 3000 Bowers Ave Approved Office Building New (2) 5-story 150,000 sq.ft.office buildings, (1) 2-story 17,400 sq.ft. amenity building, and 6 story parking structure with a total of 1,200 parking spaces in conjunction with demolition of an existing 100,042 sq.ft. 2-story office building 0 - 67,358 - - 2585 El Camino Real Completed/Occu pied Silicon Valley Builders GPA #76 from Community Mixed Use to High Density Residential 60 condo for sale units (CEQ2013-01157) 60 - - - - 555 Saratoga Ave Approved Silicon Valley Builders 3-story condominium project with 13 units 13 - - - - 4880 Great America Pkwy Approved Brad Krouskup New 171,000 sq. ft. office building and new site improvements and two level parking garage 0 - 171,000 - - 2611, 2621, 2635, 2645, 2655 El Camino Real Completed/Occu pied Elaine Breeze/Urban Planning Group Application to allow development of a multi- family residential project (183 units) on 5 parcels including former Russels Furniture property and El Real Nursery site 183 - - - - 3515-3585 Monroe St Completed/Occupied Irvine Co.New project submitted by Irvine Co. 825 housing units and 40,000 square feet of retail 825 - - - 40,000 2620 Augustine Dr Approved Irvine Co. General Plan Amendment #80 from High Intensity Office/R&D to Community Commercial [Retail Center] and Light Industrial to High Intensity Office/R&D [Office Phase II & III]; Rezone from Planned Development (PD) to Planned Development (PD) [Retail Center], and from Light Industrial (ML) to Commercial Park (CP) [Office Phase II & III] to allow the construction of up to 1,243,300 square feet of office space and up to 125,000 square feet of retail space for a total (inclusive of Office Phase I) of up to 2,000,100 square feet of development; Approval of Development Agreement Amendment No. 2 0 - 1,862,100 - 1,380,000 3303 Scott Blvd Completed/Occu pied Appllied Materials New three-story office building at approximately 78,000 square feet. Design review and initial study required. 0 - 78,000 - - 1460 Monroe St Approved Silicon Sage Builders Rezone from CT to PD to construct a 4- story mixed use development with 6726 sq.ft. of ground floor retail and 28 residential units above; 43 surface parking spaces 28 - 5,528 - 6,726 45 Buckingham Dr Completed/Occu pied Prometheus Four-story 222 unit multi-family residential development with wrap parking structure w/ 375 on-site parking spaces in conjunction w/ demo of (e) commercial building (CEQ2013-01157) 222 - - - - 2/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 3051 Homestead Rd Completed/Occu pied David Tymn for Mozart Dev. Application for Rezone from A to PD for the demolition of an existing s.f. residence, and replacement with 8 detached homes 8 - - - - 4301 Great America Pkwy Approved SOBRATO Rezone from PD & PD[ML] to PD to construct two high rise office buildings and one parking structure (CEQ2007- 01051)construct up to 718,000 square feet of new office space in up to 1,018,000 square feet of office development; up to two, five-level parking structures with up to 3,360 total parking spaces; 0 - 1,018,000 - - 865 Pomeroy Ave Approved Dennis Chargin Rezoning application to allow an additional 20-1 bedroom apartment units within an existing apartment complex with 51 current units 71 - - - - 3001 Coronado Dr Approved Tiemo Miehner/coresite Architectural Review to amend the previously approved CoreSite Campus master plan with two three story 92147 square foot buildings and other improvements such as bio-swales, parking, and landscaping. 0 - - 204,870 - 2620 Augustine Dr Approved Irvine Co. 125,000 square foot retail center (adjustment to PD with office campus)0 - 1,862,100 - 138,000 5450 Great America Pkwy Approved BNP Leasing Corp Architectural review for Phase 2 of approved 6-story office building on an existing office/R&D site with 3 office buildings subgrade and surface parking (certified EIR). 0 - 513,325 - - 166 Saratoga Ave Completed/Occu pied Charles McKeag Submittal for GPA, Rezone and AC to allow 33 unit residential project (phase I) on 1.74 acre site. Total building area 54K sq. ft. 33 - - - - 2520 Augustine Dr3333 Octavius Dr Approved Irvine Co. Carlene Matchniff Santa Clara Square Office Project (Phase II and III- see a. Two additional parcels are proposed to be added to the recently approved SCSQ Project. Addendum to the EIR and Amendment to Development Agreement is part of this proposal. The Office Sites proposed will not exceed the 2009 Project. Office Phase II and III are proposed to consist of 6-8 story office buildings with associated surface and structured parking at a ratio of 3.3/1000. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map proposal combines 6 parcels to create 3 parcels (See Drawings). Street bulb at Augustine Drive and Octavius Drive is proposed to be replaced with standard curb. 0 - 1,727,100 - 138,000 1313 Franklin St 1052 Monroe St1358 Benton St Approved Silicon Valley Builders Multifamily Residential project with 46 units and 16K or retail space and 4 stories 44 - - - 16,700 3001, 3032 Coronado Dr Approved Tiemo Mehner AC and DA for two new data centers along with vacation of a portion of Coronado Drive 0 - - 201,350 - 750 Walsh Ave Completed/Occu pied DH family Partnerhsip New 57K industrial warehouse bulding and surface parking and site improvements 0 - 17,596 57,000 - 2930 Corvin Dr Approved TI and ARC Architectural Review to convert an existing industrial building into a data center [2.5MW energy use]0 - - 20,000 - 4090 Network Cir Completed/Occupied Oracle Construction of one new 3-story building and one new single story building with associated site improvments to an existing office campus. 0 - - - - 3303 Scott Blvd Completed/Occu pied Applied Materials 78,000 square foot buildiing with underground parking/Repalced with proposal for service commercial use in existing building (10-1-13) 0 - 78,000 - - 3/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. A pproved Mehdi Shemirizi Rezone to PD to allow a mixed use project with 12 residential apartments and 1,000 sq ft of retail on a approx. 15,000 square foot lot 12 - - - 1,000 3333 Scott Blvd Completed/Occupied Jane Vaughn Expansion of previous approval from to allow 581,000 additional sq ft of office buildings for a total of 1.316m sq.ft 0 - 1,350,713 - - 1701 Lawrence Rd Approved JOMA Studio architects Rezone from PD (R3-18D) to PD to redevelopment of an existing developed parcel with 9 attached sfr (CEQA to be determined) 9 - - - - 990 Wren Ave Approved Eli Engleman Rezone from R1-6L to PD to construct 5 new detached 2-story single family residences w/attached garage in conjunction with demo of existing sfr (PLN2014-10385 Map & CEQ2014-01177) 5 - - - - 3700 El Camino Real Approved Essex Property Trust Gateway Santa Clara (formerly Kohls Site) Mixed use development- Redevelopment of entire site 87K retail/commercial and 476 housing units (apartments) 476 - - - 87,000 455 El Camino Real Completed/Occupied SCU Steve Brodie Re-use of existing office building for SCU for graduate studies off-campus instruction/occupation 0 - 75,000 - - 3345 Scott Blvd Approved Menlo Equities Amendment to approved project - Modification to site plan and building height of to be constructed 6-story Building D. 0 - 244,880 - - 2950 Lakeside Dr Approved Rashik Patel T2 New 7 story hotel with 188 rooms 0 94,200 - 55,500 - 2820 Northwestern Pkwy Completed/Occu pied Spencer Myers/Vantage Data Center Architectural Review to allow a two-story 42,900 square foot addition to an existing two-story industrial building, housing data modules, electrical rooms and office. Project includes maintenance and installation of landscaping and other on- site improvements 0 - - 42,900 - 2600 Augustine Approved Irvine Santa Clara Square Mixed Use Project - - phased project 100+ acres 2,000 rental housing units40,000 sf retail added 30 acres parks/open 1800 - - - - 3000 Bowers Ave Approved Sobrato (2) 5-story 150,000 sq.ft.office buildings, (1) 2-story 17,400 sq.ft. amenity building 6 story parking structure with a total of 1,200 parking spaces in conjunction with demolition of an existing 100,042 sq.ft. 2- story office building to allow construction of (2) 165,000 sq.ft. 5-story office buildings and (1) 5-story parking structure and surface parking totaling 991 parking spaces (amended project does not include an amenity building) 0 - 300,000 - - 100 N Winchester Blvd Approved Santana Atrium Professional Center 92 unit senior apartment home community with onsite clubhouse and recreational amenities. 92 - - - - 820 Civic Center Dr Approved Michael Fischer application for a 3 unit Townhome develolpment (retention of one historic home- total of four units)3 - - - - 2855 Stevens Creek Blvd Completed/Occupied Westfield Valley Fair 15K Chase bank bldg. near SCB and Winchester intersection 0 15,000 - - - 4/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 1055 Helen Ave Approved Mehdi Sadri Rezone from R1-6L to PD & Architectural Review to construct a 4 unit townhome project w/ private street (Tentative Parcel Map PLN2015-11358) 4 - - - - 3535 Garrett Dr Completed/Occu pied Menlo Equities Architectural Review for new eight story office and three level parking structure; Variance for increase in building height to 150' 0 - 150,000 115,400 - 3033 Scott Blvd Approved MCA Expansion of activities at Muslim Community Association to include new high school student base, administrative offices. Director of Planning and Inspection administrative approval an increase of 150 students. Use Permit for futher expansion on hold. Initial Study/MND/MMRP prepared. 0 - - - - 575 Benton St Approved Irvine Mission Towne Center Mission Town Center- 5-story mixed use project consisting ground floor 25,942 sf commercial space and 318 apartments on approximately 6.42 acres 417 25,942 - - - 3607 Kifer Rd Approved Lennar Commercial Use Permit to construct off-site 5-level parking structure at 3697 Tahoe Way and 5-story 199,460 sq.ft. office building at 3607 Kifer Rd as part of an existing off campus in conjunction with a Modification to increase maximum building height of the proposed office building to 87.5' and Architectural Review of the project 0 - 199,460 - - 1871 Bellomy St Approved Jason and Linda Chen Variance and AC approval for large duplex unit development 2 - - - - 2855 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Westfield Valley Fair New 10 screen Movie Theater complex and new retail tenant space 0 - - 25,000 1525 Alviso St Approved City Ventures (Pulte Homes purchased project) Application for 40 unit townhouse project- 3 stories (next to Mission Inn motel)- application following preapplication 40 - - - - 555 Reed St 2100-2160 De La Cruz Blvd 2000-2070 De La Cruz Blvd Completed/Occu pied Xeres Dupont Fabros New 110,175 square foot data center building connecting the existing 421,095 square foot data center building along with associated site improvements 0 - - - - 1627 Monroe St Approved Samir Sharma Architectural Review to construct 3 new two-story residences; Rezone from R1-6L to PD; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into 3 lots 3 - - - - 1777 Laurelwood Rd Approved Ray Hashimoto /HMH for River of Life Church New 35K sanctuary structure adjacent to existing building to allow full congregation to attend one service. 0 - - 35,000 - 3215 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Oscar Bakhtiari Use Permit Expansion of an existing car dealership with new replacement construction of a 2-story 45,778 sq.ft. showroom/service facility & integrated parking structure w/ Modification to increase maximum building height to 40'2". Oudoor display. Project involves demolition of 1-story showrrom/service facility and surface parking lot 0 - - - - 820 Civic Center Dr Approved Michael Fischer Amendment to approved 3 unit Townhome develolpment (retention of one historic home- total of four units) and amendment to approve a 5th single family unit 3 - - - - 5155 5120 Stars And Stripes Dr Approved Related City Place -Related Co project for redevelopment of five parcels that include Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club, BMX track, Fire Station #10, and former City landfill and two parcels on other side of Stars and Stripes (formerly for Montana Lowe project) directly across from Levi's Stadium. Master Development totals of 9.2M square feet and proposes 5.7M sq ft office; 1.1M sq ft retail; 1,360 mixed density residential units; 700 hotel rooms; 250K restaurant uses; 190K entertainment space 1360 990,000 5,700,000 - 1,100,000 5/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 1627 Monroe St Approved Samir Sharma 3 new two-story residences; Rezone from R1-6L to PD; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into 3 lots 3 - - - - 4935 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Bright Horizons/Camas J. Steinmetz Demolition of existing car wash and construct a new two-story child care center Approx 18K building. 0 - - - - 3155 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Oscar Bakhtiari Rezoning of one parcel from A to CT to allow for expansion of car dealership. Zoning must be approved to allow commercial use. 0 - - - - 3226 Scott Blvd Approved Courtney Bauer Architectural Review and ZA Modification to allow the demolition of the existing industrial building and development of a new 230,500 square foot office building with 93,640 parking structure and other onsite improvements. 0 - - - - 2880 Northwestern Pkwy Approved Vantage Data Centers 4 LLC Architectural review of proposed 108,858 square foot, 4-story Vantage V5 building. Proposal is for a new data center and involves parcel line changes. 0 - - 108,858 - 2041 Mission College Blvd Approved Washington Holdings/Kelly Snyder Build 5 new retail buildings totaling 24,000 sq. ft., a 5-story 175-room hotel, and various site improvements; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two parcels into three parcels 0 115,000 - - 25,000 3100-3200 Coronado Dr Approved Irvine Company Proposal for new office structures (2) totaling 245,000 and new parking garage 0 - 245,000 - - 1550 Space Park Dr Approved Bourns New 65,000 sq. ft. two story data center on an 89,000 sq. ft. lot. 0 - - 65,000 - 1479, 1485 Bellomy St Completed/Occu pied Julie Salinas Rezone from R1-6L to PD to allow a lot split for two existing homes on a 7K R1-6L lot 0 - - - - 4525 Stevens Creek Blvd Approved Enterprise/Paul Hernandez New outdoor auto sales - Enterprise Rent- a-Car New Construction of a 6,300 sq. ft. showroom building and site improvements 0 - - - 6,300 2895 Northwestern Pkwy Approved Scott Chappelle/Vantage Data Centers Vantage 6 (V6) 69,025 sq.ft. (total both floors) new two story data center building with rooftop mechanical equipment, with Initial Study and/or Negative Declaration. 0 - - 69,025 - 1890 El Camino Real Approved Pinn Bros 56 for sale units condo units (no commercial removed from project by CC and reduced project by 4 units) 56 - - - - 1990 El Camino Real Approved Leah Lombardi for Chick-fil-A Use Permit to demo the existing drive- through restaurant (McDonald) and construct a new drive-through restuarant (Chck-fil-A) with on- and off-site improvement. The new tenant (Chick-fil-A) also proposes an indoor play area and a total of 36 outdoor seats in an existing patio. 0 5,000 - - - 1 Great America Pkwy Approved Cedar Fair PD rezone to allow 140,000 new retail for open access to general public and year round operation of park 0 140,000 - - - 651, 725, and 825 Mathew St Approved Vantage New Data Center campus- Vantage 420,000 sq. ft. Total in up to 4 buildings with electrical substation 0 - - 420,000 - 3375 Scott Blvd Approved John Duquette New six story office buildin 237,104 sf, 4 story parking structure with 14,000 sq.ft. amenity building (2 story building attached to garage for employee cafe and/or fitness center, etc.) 0 212,400 - - 2250 El Camino Real Pending Sobrato Pre-application for 55 apartments- 3 floors over podium parking (Western Motel site) 55 10,595 - - - 1530, 1540 Pomeroy Ave Pending Omid Shakeri Rezoning of two different parcels (see also 1540 Pomeroy) from R1-6L for 1530 to PD and from A for 1540 to PD, one project, with Tentative Subdivison Map for 8 Townhome units and Lot A common lot. 8 - - - - 1205 Coleman Ave Pending Hunter Storm Properties New multi-family residential project on former BAE site, up to 1360 residential units, approximiately 15,000-25,000 square feet of community-serving retail and restaurant space, and amenities. 1360 - - - 25,000 917 Warburton Ave Approved Samir Sharma 6 unit single family homes - subdivision map to allow for sale housing 6 - - - - 6/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 967 Warburton Ave Approved Robert Botham Rezone from Light Industrial (ML) to Planned Development (PD) to construct (4) detached two-story single family residences on a lot with an existing single family residence to be retained (Subdivision Tentative Map to create 5 for- sale single family lots & 1 common lot PL.N2016-12065) 5 - - - - 3001 Tasman Dr Pending Mike Hodges/Bixby Land Co New 4-story core and shell building and two new parking structures and associated site improvements 0 - 558,753 - - 3305 Kifer Rd Approved Leah Draeger/True Life Co. Development of 45 attached townhomes and stacked flats with 109 parking spaces and open space as part of the Lawrence Station Area Plan . 7.5 acre site project. The environmental review for this project will be covered under the LSAP EIR 45 - - - - 3069 Lawrence Expy Pending Westlake Urban/Gaye Quinn Proposal for 333 unit multi-family development; Tentative Subdivision Map 3.82 acres 333 - - - - 3023 Homestead Rd Approved Kurt Keegan Application to subdivide one lot into four lots and construct three new 1,900 sq. ft. detached homes, and move the existing listed resource onto lot four 4 - - - - 3501 El Camino Real Pending Prometheus/ Nathan Tuttle Pre-application for the development of 100,000 square foot shopping center into a mixed use development including 80,000- 86,000 sqft retail and up to 700 apartments 700 - - - 86,000 3505 and 3485 Kifer Road; 2985, 2951, 2901, 2900 and 2960 Gordon Avenue; 3060, 2960, 3045 and 3049 Copper Road; and 3570 Ryder Street Approved Johnathon Fearn/Summerhill Homes Development of 996 residential units with 37,000 square foot retail and associated open space, landscaping, parking and other improvements as part of the Lawrence Station Area Plan. 996 - - 839,884 37,000 2891 Homestead Rd pending Anthony Ho Pre-zone a 0.39 acre site to PD pending annexation, for the construction of 8 townhouses on a podium over subterranean parking area 10 - - - - 2490, 2500 El Camino Real pending Lou Mariani; Miles Barber Proposal for 332 market rate residential units and 66 senior residential units totaling 398 dwelling units, a 306-room hotel with a 6,000 square foot restaurant comprising 205,197 square feet of commercial space on a 7.14 acre site 398 206,000 - - - 909 Kiely Blvd pending Swim Center at Central Park International Swim Center (ISC) proposal at Central Park CIP project #3172: project includes the following components: ISC, Community Recreation Center, Swimming Hall of Fame 0 - - - - 90 North Winchester Boulevard (1834 Worthington Circle) pending CORE Portion of former BAREC site (approx 6 acres). Amendment to Existing PD allowing 165 senior affordable units; 419 mixed income apts.' up to 584 housing units with 50% of units affordable, and up tp 25,000 site serving commercial. Up to 1.5 acre open space 359 - - - - 281 Serena Way pending Hanna Smolich / Bi Yun Liu Conversion of SFD to daycare operation/ GPA and rezone needed 0 - - - - 1500 Duane Approved Richard Pedley Arch review to allow the a 949 square foot addition and modificaiton of the existing 68,499 square foot warehouse building to convert a vacant warehouse to a new 69,448 square foot data center. 0 - - 70,437 - 2904 Corvin pending Concentric 121 residential units 5-story multi-family with 121 - - - - 7/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 3905 Freedom Circle Pending Greystar A new mixed-use development w/following uses: Office (606,968 square feet; Residential 1018 units; Commercial 18,653 square feet Publicly Accessible Open Space (2.5 acres). 16.58 acres of land bounded by Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard, Highway 101, and the San Thomas Aquino Creek. The existing site consists of 17,000 square feet Pedro's restaurant and a surface parking lot (APN 104-40-020), and 13.5 acres of vacant land. 1018 18,653 606,968 - - 2305 Mission College Pending Algined Data Centers Architectural review to allow a demolition of an existing office building and construct a new 495,660 square foot two-story data center, including generator yard, equipment yard, underground water storage, parking for 75 cars (with land banking), and a new SVP substation. 0 - 495,660 - 3625 Peterson Way Pending Boston Properties Pre-application for construction of 2- 8 story steel frame class A office buildings a total of 672,000 square feet with adjacent 4 level above grade parking structure with 1834 parking stalls. Existing 260,000 sq. ft. building to be demolished 0 - 618,931 - - 3402 El Camino Real Pending John Vidovich Rezoning of a 2.27 acre site that was recently burned down, and redevelop a mixed-use project with 66 apartment units, 9,440 square feet of retail, amenities on the third floor, surface parking, and two- level garage parking. 66 9,900 - - - 575 Benton Pending Prometheus (New MTC project proposal) GPA, Rezoning to PD to construct a mixed-use residential development project that consist of 355 apartment units, and approx. 26,000 square feet of retail with 697 parking spaces 355 14,000 - - - 1647 Lafayette Pending ROEM Pre-ap review for new 4,800 sq.ft. office building, 2 stories; above grade parking podium with 16 parking spaces, zoned CT (Note: General Plan designation is Very Low Density Residential). 0 - - - - 2780 El Camino Real Pending Prometheus RE group (Marilyn Ponte) General Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to Medium Density Residential; Rezone from CC to PD & Architectural Review for 58- 3 story townhomes 58 - - - - 1530 and 1540 Pomeroy Pending Omid Shakeri Rezoning of a 0.48 acre site from Low Density Multiple Dwelling (R3-18D) and Agriculture (A) to Planned Development (PD) to construct eight attached townhomes with Tentative Subdivision Map for eight private residential lots and one common lot for driveway and guest parking areas. 1540 Pomeroy (A), 1530 Pomeroy (R3-18D) (CEQ2017-01036) 0 - - - - 1700 Russell Ave Approved Air Products Use Permit to expand an existing air separation and gas production facility to increase the production of hydrogen for delivery to hydrogen fueling facilities (CEQ2017-01030) 0 - - - - 1990 El Camino Real Approved Chik-fil-A Building façade upgrade, site improvement, and an addition of 1,790 square foot basement to an existing 3,234 square foot drive-through restaurant (McDonald). The new tenant (Chick-fil-A) also proposes a total of 80 outdoor seats in an existing patio. 0 - - - - 1375 El Camino Real Pending SCS Development 53 townhomes inclusive of 8 live work units 0 - - - - 2232 El Camino Real Approved Summerhill Rezoning a 2.74 acre project site to PD for a four-story mixed-use project with 151 senior apartment homes, 17,909 square foot of commercial space, and 277 parking spaces provided in a wrapped parking structure and parking lot. 151 - - - 10,000 1575 Pomeroy Pending Kurt Anderson and Nick Speno Preliminary Review for a four-story 122 unit senior living apartment community 8/9 Santa Clara Project as of 1/23/2018 Street Number & Street Name Status of Entitlement Applicant Tidemark Description Net Amount of Dwelling Units Net Commercial (non-office) SQ. FT. Net Existing Office SQ. FT. Net Industrial SQ. FT. Net Retail SQ. FT. 3045 Stender Pending Tiemo Mehner Arch review for new 4-story 175,670 s.f. data center building with rooftop mechanical equipment. The project includes demolition of the existing single-story building. 0 - - - - 1800 De La Cruz Pending Linda Evans Use Permit for tenant improvements to an existing building in the heavy Industrial Area (MH) for conversion into a dog day care and boarding facility with covered outdoor activity area, landscape improvements and a new trash enclosure. 0 - - - - 1150 Walsh Pending Raging Wire/NTT Proposed 248,000 square foot data center and substation 1725 De La Cruz Pending Silicon Valley Taproom Use Permit to conversion of an existing 2,535 square foot light industrial building suite into a restaurant and tap room with a distilled spirits (Type 47 ABC) alcoholic beverage service license, 70 indoor seats and 12 outdoor patio seats, and to allow occassional indoor events live entertainment 0 - - - - 500 El Camino Real Approved Santa Clara University Architectural review of four-story, 368 bed dormitory (South Residence Hall) 0 - - - - 2788 San Tomas Expressway Pending Saris Regis for NVIDIA Architectural review for a new 754,100 square-foot office building and a trellis; PHASE 2 of DA and allowed area additional 300K added to to Phase II originally planned for Phase III on other parcel. 0 - 754,100 - - 2961 Corvin Pending Summerhill Development application for 38 townhomes on .27 acre site consistent with LSAP. Tentative Subdivision Map filed.38 - - - - 3005 Democracy Pending Ghenzan General Plan Amendment from the High- Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D) to a new designation allowing high-intensity mixed use development, including residential and office. 48.6 acre site. Former Yahoo office campus approval. 0 - - - - 3035 El Camino Real Pending Hayden Land Corp. Pre-application for 48 residential units (6 of which live-work units)48 - - - - 1900 Warburton Pending Samir Sharma Rezone from General Office (OG) to Planned Development (PD) to construct 13 attached condo units in two buildings with a shared driveway on a 0.55 acre site 13 - - - - 500 El Camino Real Pending SCU Architectural review of STEM complex (a 273,429 sq.ft. 4-story building over basement) and demolition of 4 buildings totaling 130,993 sq.ft. (Murphy Hall, Bannan Engineering Labs, Bannan Engineering, & Bannan Hall) approved as part of the 5-year Master Plan Use Permit project (PLN2014-10779 and certified EIR CEQ2014-01184) 0 - - - - 9/9 Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:66 528 65*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/29/1998 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 64*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):205 1 252 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 290 3 Critical V/C:0.596 3 852*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):48.2 0 234 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):53.6 2 348 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:296 1285***33 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 29 Oct 1998 << Base Vol: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 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 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 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: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 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: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.34 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 65.0 116 116.3 12.8 64.1 76.6 12.6 20.2 85.1 43.8 51.4 64.2 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.30 0.10 0.60 0.52 0.32 0.52 0.60 0.46 Uniform Del: 52.8 29.0 19.6 93.6 53.4 41.8 93.7 87.8 40.4 71.3 67.7 56.5 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.5 0.0 8.7 0.1 0.1 8.8 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.7 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: 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: 52.9 29.5 19.6 102.3 53.5 41.8 102.6 88.6 40.7 72.0 68.4 57.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.9 29.5 19.6 102.3 53.5 41.8 102.6 88.6 40.7 72.0 68.4 57.1 LOS by Move: D-C B-F D-D F F D E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 8 25 1 5 8 3 5 6 10 12 16 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:61 1023***105 Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:11/10/2016 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 93 1 Cycle Time (sec):150 1 107 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 1235*** 3 Critical V/C:0.610 3 735 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):46.8 0 387 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):43.0 2 289*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:231***470 231 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 10 Nov 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 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: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 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: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 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: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 18.0 42.7 42.7 19.4 44.1 66.3 22.1 53.3 71.3 22.6 53.7 73.1 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.61 0.08 0.36 0.61 0.47 0.61 0.36 0.13 Uniform Del: 62.6 43.8 44.2 60.5 45.5 24.2 57.6 39.8 26.5 59.6 35.5 21.0 IncremntDel: 2.9 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 65.5 44.0 44.9 62.0 46.2 24.3 58.4 40.4 26.9 61.9 35.6 21.0 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: 65.5 44.0 44.9 62.0 46.2 24.3 58.4 40.4 26.9 61.9 35.6 21.0 LOS by Move: E D D E D C E+ D C E D+ C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 6 8 9 5 14 2 4 16 13 8 8 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:66 531 65*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/29/1998 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 64*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):205 1 252 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 290 3 Critical V/C:0.597 3 852*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):48.2 0 237 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):53.7 2 356 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:298 1287***33 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 29 Oct 1998 << Base Vol: 296 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 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 1285 33 65 528 66 64 290 234 348 852 252 Added Vol: 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 298 1287 33 65 531 66 64 290 237 356 852 252 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: 298 1287 33 65 531 66 64 290 237 356 852 252 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 298 1287 33 65 531 66 64 290 237 356 852 252 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 298 1287 33 65 531 66 64 290 237 356 852 252 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.34 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 65.0 116 116.3 12.8 64.1 76.6 12.6 19.8 84.9 44.1 51.3 64.1 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.60 0.03 0.60 0.30 0.10 0.60 0.53 0.33 0.53 0.60 0.46 Uniform Del: 52.8 29.0 19.5 93.6 53.4 41.8 93.8 88.1 40.7 71.2 67.7 56.6 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.5 0.0 8.7 0.1 0.1 8.9 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.7 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: 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: 52.9 29.5 19.6 102.4 53.5 41.8 102.6 89.0 41.0 72.0 68.4 57.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.9 29.5 19.6 102.4 53.5 41.8 102.6 89.0 41.0 72.0 68.4 57.2 LOS by Move: D-C B-F D-D F F D E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 8 25 1 5 8 3 5 6 10 12 16 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:61 1025***105 Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:11/10/2016 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 93 1 Cycle Time (sec):150 1 107 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 1235*** 3 Critical V/C:0.613 3 735 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):47.0 0 389 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):43.1 2 294*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:234***473 231 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 10 Nov 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 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: 231 470 231 105 1023 61 93 1235 387 289 735 107 Added Vol: 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 234 473 231 105 1025 61 93 1235 389 294 735 107 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: 234 473 231 105 1025 61 93 1235 389 294 735 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 234 473 231 105 1025 61 93 1235 389 294 735 107 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 234 473 231 105 1025 61 93 1235 389 294 735 107 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 18.2 42.7 42.7 19.4 44.0 66.1 22.1 53.0 71.2 22.8 53.7 73.1 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.61 0.08 0.36 0.61 0.47 0.61 0.36 0.13 Uniform Del: 62.6 43.8 44.2 60.5 45.7 24.3 57.6 40.0 26.6 59.5 35.5 21.0 IncremntDel: 2.9 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 2.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 65.5 44.1 44.9 62.0 46.4 24.3 58.4 40.6 27.0 61.8 35.6 21.0 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: 65.5 44.1 44.9 62.0 46.4 24.3 58.4 40.6 27.0 61.8 35.6 21.0 LOS by Move: E D D E D C E+ D C E D+ C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 6 8 9 5 14 2 4 16 13 8 8 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:409 737 31*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 364*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):195 0 139 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 206 2 Critical V/C:0.781 0 48*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):67.7 0 161 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):51.9 1 11 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:84 1107***25 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 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: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 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: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 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: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.95 0.05 0.08 1.92 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 Final Sat.: 3150 3618 82 149 3553 1800 3150 3800 1750 1750 462 1338 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.5 76.4 76.4 51.8 111 110.7 28.9 35.4 52.9 19.4 25.9 25.9 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.37 0.40 0.78 0.30 0.34 0.06 0.78 0.78 Uniform Del: 83.0 52.0 52.0 66.3 23.0 23.6 80.0 69.1 57.1 79.5 81.8 81.8 IncremntDel: 0.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 0.1 0.1 8.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 15.2 15.2 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: 83.6 54.8 54.8 69.0 23.1 23.7 88.3 69.3 57.5 79.7 96.9 96.9 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: 83.6 54.8 54.8 69.0 23.1 23.7 88.3 69.3 57.5 79.7 96.9 96.9 LOS by Move: F D-D-E C C F E E+ E-F F HCM2kAvgQ: 3 30 30 22 12 14 14 5 8 1 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:554 1456 51*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 356 2 Cycle Time (sec):175 0 31 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 405 2 Critical V/C:0.781 0 28 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):50.7 0 329*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):45.6 1 10*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:159 737***37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 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: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 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: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 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: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.90 0.10 0.08 2.10 0.82 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 3150 3523 177 136 3885 1478 3150 3800 1750 1750 854 946 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.0 45.2 45.2 81.0 111 111.3 24.4 29.7 44.7 7.0 12.3 12.3 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.59 0.59 0.81 0.63 0.74 0.14 0.46 0.46 Uniform Del: 77.0 60.8 60.8 40.4 18.6 18.6 73.1 67.5 59.7 81.1 78.2 78.2 IncremntDel: 3.4 5.2 5.2 2.0 0.3 0.3 10.8 2.0 6.3 0.9 2.7 2.7 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: 80.5 66.1 66.1 42.4 18.8 18.8 83.9 69.4 66.0 82.0 80.8 80.8 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: 80.5 66.1 66.1 42.4 18.8 18.8 83.9 69.4 66.0 82.0 80.8 80.8 LOS by Move: F E E D B-B-F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 5 20 20 32 21 21 13 11 18 1 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:409 751 31*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 364*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):195 0 139 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 206 2 Critical V/C:0.788 0 48*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):67.9 0 161 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):52.1 1 11 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:84 1111***31 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 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: 84 1107 25 31 737 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 Added Vol: 0 4 6 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 84 1111 31 31 751 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 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: 84 1111 31 31 751 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 84 1111 31 31 751 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 84 1111 31 31 751 409 364 206 161 11 48 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.94 0.06 0.08 1.92 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 Final Sat.: 3150 3599 100 147 3555 1800 3150 3800 1750 1750 462 1338 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.6 76.4 76.4 52.3 111 111.1 28.6 35.1 52.6 19.3 25.7 25.7 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.37 0.40 0.79 0.30 0.34 0.06 0.79 0.79 Uniform Del: 82.9 52.2 52.2 66.2 22.9 23.3 80.3 69.4 57.3 79.7 82.0 82.0 IncremntDel: 0.6 3.0 3.0 2.8 0.1 0.1 8.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 16.0 16.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 83.5 55.1 55.1 69.1 22.9 23.4 89.1 69.6 57.7 79.8 98.0 98.0 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: 83.5 55.1 55.1 69.1 22.9 23.4 89.1 69.6 57.7 79.8 98.0 98.0 LOS by Move: F E+ E+ E C+ C F E E+ E-F F HCM2kAvgQ: 3 30 30 22 13 14 14 5 8 1 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:554 1465 51*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 356 2 Cycle Time (sec):175 0 31 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 405 2 CriticalV/C:0.786 0 28 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):51.1 0 329*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):45.7 1 10*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:159 742***45 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 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: 159 737 37 51 1456 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 Added Vol: 0 5 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 159 742 45 51 1465 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 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: 159 742 45 51 1465 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 742 45 51 1465 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 159 742 45 51 1465 554 356 405 329 10 28 31 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.88 0.12 0.07 2.11 0.82 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 3150 3488 212 135 3892 1472 3150 3800 1750 1750 854 946 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.0 45.7 45.7 80.8 112 111.5 24.3 29.5 44.5 7.0 12.3 12.3 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.59 0.59 0.82 0.63 0.74 0.14 0.47 0.47 Uniform Del: 77.1 60.7 60.7 40.6 18.5 18.5 73.2 67.7 59.9 81.1 78.2 78.2 IncremntDel: 3.5 5.4 5.4 2.1 0.3 0.3 11.3 2.0 6.5 0.9 2.7 2.7 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: 80.5 66.1 66.1 42.8 18.7 18.7 84.5 69.7 66.4 82.0 81.0 81.0 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: 80.5 66.1 66.1 42.8 18.7 18.7 84.5 69.7 66.4 82.0 81.0 81.0 LOS by Move: F E E D B-B-F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 5 20 20 33 21 21 13 11 18 1 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 904 71*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):85 0 117*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.574 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):13.9 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.6 0 70 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1280***72 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 3503 197 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 655 0 1095 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 53.4 53.4 7.0 60.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 15.6 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.3 9.3 37.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 31.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 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: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 34.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 34.4 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A C-A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 10 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1390 290*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):84 0 164 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.647 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.9 0 69*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 942***88 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.70 Final Sat.: 0 3384 316 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 518 0 1232 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 36.2 36.2 21.5 57.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 17.3 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.65 Uniform Del: 0.0 18.9 18.9 27.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 30.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.9 0.9 3.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.8 19.8 31.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 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 19.8 19.8 31.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 LOS by Move: A B-B-C A A A A A C-A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 7 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 918 71*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):85 0 117*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.577 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):13.8 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.6 0 70 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1290***72 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 1280 72 71 904 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1290 72 71 918 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1290 72 71 918 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1290 72 71 918 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1290 72 71 918 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 3504 196 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 655 0 1095 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 53.5 53.5 7.0 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 15.5 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.59 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.3 9.3 37.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 0.0 31.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 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 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A C-A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1399 290*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):84 0 164 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.650 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.9 0 69*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 955***88 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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: 0 942 88 290 1390 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 955 88 290 1399 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 955 88 290 1399 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 955 88 290 1399 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 955 88 290 1399 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.70 Final Sat.: 0 3388 312 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 518 0 1232 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 36.4 36.4 21.4 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 17.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.65 Uniform Del: 0.0 18.8 18.8 28.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 30.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.7 19.7 31.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 34.8 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 19.7 19.7 31.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 34.8 LOS by Move: A B-B-C A A A A A C-A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 7 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:59 899 33*** Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 88 0 Cycle Time (sec):75 1 84 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 63*** 0 Critical V/C:0.489 0 70 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.0 1 44 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):12.5 0 42 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:27 1180***32 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 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: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 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: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 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: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.87 0.13 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3602 98 1750 3472 228 1049 751 1750 675 1125 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.3 47.0 47.0 7.0 39.7 39.7 12.0 12.0 26.3 12.0 12.0 19.0 Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.52 0.52 0.20 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.19 Uniform Del: 24.9 7.8 7.8 31.4 11.2 11.2 28.9 28.9 16.2 28.2 28.2 21.9 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 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: 25.1 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.4 11.4 30.6 30.6 16.2 29.1 29.1 22.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.1 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.4 11.4 30.6 30.6 16.2 29.1 29.1 22.1 LOS by Move: C A A C-B+ B+ C C B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 1 7 7 4 4 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:146 1192***128 Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 87 0 Cycle Time (sec):68 1 74 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 179*** 0 Critical V/C:0.604 0 85 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):14.9 1 46 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.2 0 29 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:25***864 73 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 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: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 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: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 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: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 1.78 0.22 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3412 288 1750 3296 404 589 1211 1750 458 1342 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 31.2 31.2 12.7 36.9 36.9 15.1 15.1 22.1 15.1 15.1 27.8 Volume/Cap: 0.14 0.55 0.55 0.39 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.10 Uniform Del: 27.8 13.3 13.3 24.3 11.1 11.1 24.2 24.2 15.9 22.0 22.0 12.4 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 4.3 4.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.1 13.7 13.7 25.0 12.0 12.0 28.4 28.4 16.0 22.4 22.4 12.5 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: 28.1 13.7 13.7 25.0 12.0 12.0 28.4 28.4 16.0 22.4 22.4 12.5 LOS by Move: C B B C B+ B+ C C B C+ C+ B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 7 2 10 10 7 7 1 2 2 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:59 913 33*** Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 88 0 Cycle Time (sec):75 1 84 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 63*** 0 Critical V/C:0.492 0 70 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.0 1 44 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):12.5 0 42 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:27 1190***32 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 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: 27 1180 32 33 899 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 1190 32 33 913 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 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: 27 1190 32 33 913 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 27 1190 32 33 913 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 27 1190 32 33 913 59 88 63 44 42 70 84 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.88 0.12 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3603 97 1750 3475 225 1049 751 1750 675 1125 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.2 47.0 47.0 7.0 39.9 39.9 12.0 12.0 26.1 12.0 12.0 19.0 Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.53 0.53 0.20 0.49 0.49 0.53 0.53 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.19 Uniform Del: 25.1 7.8 7.8 31.4 11.2 11.2 28.9 28.9 16.3 28.3 28.3 22.0 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.2 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: 25.2 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.3 11.3 30.7 30.7 16.4 29.1 29.1 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.2 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.3 11.3 30.7 30.7 16.4 29.1 29.1 22.2 LOS by Move: C A A C-B+ B+ C C B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 1 7 7 4 4 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:146 1201***128 Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 87 0 Cycle Time (sec):68 1 74 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 179*** 0 Critical V/C:0.606 0 85 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):14.9 1 46 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.2 0 29 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:25***877 73 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 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: 25 864 73 128 1192 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 25 877 73 128 1201 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 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: 25 877 73 128 1201 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 877 73 128 1201 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 877 73 128 1201 146 87 179 46 29 85 74 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 1.78 0.22 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3415 284 1750 3299 401 589 1211 1750 458 1342 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 31.4 31.4 12.6 37.0 37.0 15.0 15.0 22.0 15.0 15.0 27.6 Volume/Cap: 0.14 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.10 Uniform Del: 27.8 13.3 13.3 24.4 11.1 11.1 24.2 24.2 16.0 22.0 22.0 12.5 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 4.4 4.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.1 13.7 13.7 25.2 12.0 12.0 28.6 28.6 16.0 22.4 22.4 12.6 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: 28.1 13.7 13.7 25.2 12.0 12.0 28.6 28.6 16.0 22.4 22.4 12.6 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C C B C+ C+ B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 7 2 10 10 7 7 1 2 2 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:65 1058 162*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 271*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 318 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 336 2 Critical V/C:0.749 1 573*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):34.6 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):35.7 2 435 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:333 1749***159 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 304 435 573 318 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: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 304 435 573 318 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: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 304 435 573 318 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 0 435 573 318 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 0 435 573 318 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 0 435 573 318 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.27 0.73 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2378 1320 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.3 57.3 57.3 9.6 42.6 58.7 16.1 23.8 0.0 37.2 45.0 45.0 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.75 0.22 0.75 0.61 0.09 0.75 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 53.5 35.2 26.9 64.0 41.6 24.5 60.0 52.9 0.0 43.8 42.5 42.5 IncremntDel: 2.0 1.4 0.2 13.5 0.6 0.1 8.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 2.7 2.7 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: 0.86 0.54 0.54 0.95 0.71 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.0 20.3 14.6 74.4 30.1 12.8 68.5 53.6 0.0 44.3 45.2 45.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.0 20.3 14.6 74.4 30.1 12.8 68.5 53.6 0.0 44.3 45.2 45.2 LOS by Move: D C+ B E C B E D-A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 17 3 6 11 1 8 7 0 8 15 15 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:146 1465 380*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 168 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 170 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 694*** 2 Critical V/C:0.851 1 479 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):53.2 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.4 2 308*** LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:475 1349 660*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 345 308 479 170 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: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 345 308 479 170 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: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 345 308 479 170 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 0 308 479 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 0 308 479 170 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 0 308 479 170 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2730 969 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.3 62.0 62.0 19.8 51.6 62.4 10.8 30.0 0.0 16.1 35.4 35.4 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.53 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.19 0.69 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.69 0.69 Uniform Del: 50.6 28.4 34.9 58.6 37.6 23.5 63.0 52.8 0.0 60.8 47.4 47.4 IncremntDel: 3.2 0.2 8.9 14.4 1.0 0.1 8.5 8.5 0.0 17.2 2.3 2.3 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: 0.82 0.47 0.47 0.89 0.61 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 44.5 13.6 25.3 66.6 24.0 11.0 71.5 61.4 0.0 78.0 49.7 49.7 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: 44.5 13.6 25.3 66.6 24.0 11.0 71.5 61.4 0.0 78.0 49.7 49.7 LOS by Move: D B C E C B+ E E A E-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 9 24 12 15 2 6 16 0 8 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:65 1058 162*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 271*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 318 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 339 2 Critical V/C:0.750 1 575*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):34.7 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):35.7 2 435 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:333 1749***159 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 304 435 573 318 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: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 336 304 435 573 318 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 339 304 435 575 318 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 339 0 435 575 318 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 339 0 435 575 318 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 333 1749 159 162 1058 65 271 339 0 435 575 318 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.27 0.73 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2381 1317 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.3 57.3 57.3 9.6 42.6 58.7 16.1 24.0 0.0 37.1 45.1 45.1 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.75 0.22 0.75 0.61 0.09 0.75 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 53.5 35.3 26.9 64.0 41.6 24.5 60.0 52.8 0.0 43.8 42.4 42.4 IncremntDel: 2.0 1.4 0.2 13.6 0.6 0.1 8.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 2.7 2.7 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: 0.86 0.54 0.54 0.95 0.71 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.0 20.4 14.6 74.5 30.1 12.8 68.5 53.5 0.0 44.4 45.1 45.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.0 20.4 14.6 74.5 30.1 12.8 68.5 53.5 0.0 44.4 45.1 45.1 LOS by Move: D C+ B E C B E D-A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 17 3 6 11 1 8 7 0 8 15 15 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:146 1465 380*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 168 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 170 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 696*** 2 Critical V/C:0.852 1 482 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):53.3 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.5 2 308*** LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:475 1349 660*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 345 308 479 170 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: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 694 345 308 479 170 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 696 345 308 482 170 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 696 0 308 482 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 696 0 308 482 170 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 475 1349 660 380 1465 146 168 696 0 308 482 170 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.46 0.54 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2735 964 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.3 62.0 62.0 19.8 51.6 62.3 10.7 30.1 0.0 16.1 35.5 35.5 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.53 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.19 0.70 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 50.7 28.5 34.9 58.7 37.6 23.5 63.0 52.8 0.0 60.8 47.4 47.4 IncremntDel: 3.2 0.2 9.0 14.5 1.1 0.1 8.6 8.6 0.0 17.3 2.3 2.3 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: 0.82 0.47 0.47 0.89 0.61 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 44.5 13.6 25.4 66.7 24.0 11.1 71.6 61.4 0.0 78.1 49.7 49.7 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: 44.5 13.6 25.4 66.7 24.0 11.1 71.6 61.4 0.0 78.1 49.7 49.7 LOS by Move: D B C E C B+ E E A E-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 9 24 12 15 2 6 16 0 8 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:72 751 139*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol CntDate:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 164*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 94 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 448 2 Critical V/C:0.677 1 727*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):39.7 0 210 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):38.5 2 475 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:263 957***434 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 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: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 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: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 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: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3276 424 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.2 46.5 79.0 8.2 38.4 55.8 17.3 25.8 25.8 32.5 41.0 41.0 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.68 0.39 0.68 0.64 0.09 0.68 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 51.6 32.9 11.3 57.1 37.3 20.0 51.2 44.6 44.7 40.3 36.3 36.3 IncremntDel: 3.5 1.3 0.2 8.7 1.2 0.1 7.4 1.0 2.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 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: 55.1 34.2 11.5 65.8 38.6 20.1 58.6 45.6 47.1 41.4 37.8 37.8 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: 55.1 34.2 11.5 65.8 38.6 20.1 58.6 45.6 47.1 41.4 37.8 37.8 LOS by Move: E+ C-B+ E D+ C+ E+ D D D D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 6 15 9 3 12 2 7 8 8 9 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:104 1028***132 Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 120 1 Cycle Time (sec):135 0 117 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 853*** 2 Critical V/C:0.785 1 705 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):50.5 0 241 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):43.2 2 419*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:276***774 434 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 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: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 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: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 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: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3173 527 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.20 0.25 0.04 0.27 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.1 49.1 71.9 12.5 46.5 61.0 14.5 38.6 38.6 22.9 47.0 47.0 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.56 0.47 0.45 0.79 0.13 0.64 0.79 0.48 0.79 0.64 0.64 Uniform Del: 58.4 34.3 19.6 58.0 39.8 21.6 57.7 44.4 39.9 53.7 36.9 36.9 IncremntDel: 11.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 3.2 0.1 7.2 3.8 0.7 7.6 1.1 1.1 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.5 34.9 20.0 59.1 43.0 21.6 64.9 48.2 40.7 61.3 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: 69.5 34.9 20.0 59.1 43.0 21.6 64.9 48.2 40.7 61.3 38.0 38.0 LOS by Move: E C-B-E+ D C+ E D D E D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 7 12 12 3 19 3 5 16 8 10 14 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:72 765 139*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 164*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 94 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 448 2 Critical V/C:0.679 1 727*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):39.7 0 213 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):38.6 2 481 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:265 967***439 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 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: 263 957 434 139 751 72 164 448 210 475 727 94 Added Vol: 2 10 5 0 14 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 265 967 439 139 765 72 164 448 213 481 727 94 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: 265 967 439 139 765 72 164 448 213 481 727 94 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 265 967 439 139 765 72 164 448 213 481 727 94 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 265 967 439 139 765 72 164 448 213 481 727 94 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3276 424 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.2 46.8 79.1 8.1 38.7 56.0 17.2 25.8 25.8 32.3 40.8 40.8 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.68 0.40 0.68 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.57 0.59 0.59 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 51.7 32.8 11.2 57.2 37.3 19.9 51.3 44.7 44.9 40.6 36.4 36.4 IncremntDel: 3.7 1.3 0.2 8.9 1.3 0.1 7.6 1.0 2.6 1.2 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 34.1 11.5 66.1 38.6 19.9 58.9 45.7 47.5 41.7 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 34.1 11.5 66.1 38.6 19.9 58.9 45.7 47.5 41.7 38.0 38.0 LOS by Move: E+ C-B+ E D+ B-E+ D D D D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 6 15 9 3 12 2 7 8 8 9 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:104 1037***132 Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 120 1 Cycle Time (sec):135 0 117 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 853*** 2 Critical V/C:0.790 1 705 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):50.8 0 243 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):43.3 2 423*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:279***787 441 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 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: 276 774 434 132 1028 104 120 853 241 419 705 117 Added Vol: 3 13 7 0 9 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 279 787 441 132 1037 104 120 853 243 423 705 117 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: 279 787 441 132 1037 104 120 853 243 423 705 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 279 787 441 132 1037 104 120 853 243 423 705 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 279 787 441 132 1037 104 120 853 243 423 705 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3173 527 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.04 0.27 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.1 49.4 72.3 12.4 46.6 61.1 14.4 38.3 38.3 22.9 46.8 46.8 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.57 0.47 0.46 0.79 0.13 0.64 0.79 0.49 0.79 0.64 0.64 Uniform Del: 58.4 34.3 19.5 58.1 39.8 21.5 57.8 44.6 40.2 53.7 37.0 37.0 IncremntDel: 11.4 0.6 0.4 1.2 3.3 0.1 7.3 4.0 0.8 7.8 1.1 1.1 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.8 34.8 19.8 59.3 43.1 21.6 65.1 48.6 40.9 61.5 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 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.8 34.8 19.8 59.3 43.1 21.6 65.1 48.6 40.9 61.5 38.1 38.1 LOS by Move: E C-B-E+ D C+ E D D E D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 7 13 12 3 19 3 5 16 8 10 14 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:549 1139 132*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/28/1999 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 225*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):170 1 267 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 290 2 Critical V/C:0.684 2 790*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):79.1 0 113 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):69.7 2 318 LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:247 1835***197 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 28 Oct 1999 << 7:00-9:00 Base Vol: 247 2294 197 132 1442 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 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: 247 2294 197 132 1442 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 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: 247 2294 197 132 1442 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 247 1835 197 132 1139 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 247 1835 197 132 1139 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 247 1835 197 132 1139 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.32 0.11 0.04 0.20 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.4 72.7 95.6 25.4 82.8 105.6 22.8 38.9 54.3 22.8 38.9 64.3 Volume/Cap: 0.87 0.75 0.20 0.28 0.41 0.51 0.53 0.33 0.20 0.75 0.91 0.40 Uniform Del: 90.2 48.5 21.7 75.9 33.1 21.0 81.1 64.7 49.8 83.8 75.4 45.9 IncremntDel: 23.5 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.2 7.4 13.3 0.4 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 119.7 74.1 40.4 85.1 54.1 44.4 82.4 64.9 50.0 91.2 88.7 46.3 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: 119.7 74.1 40.4 85.1 54.1 44.4 82.4 64.9 50.0 91.2 88.7 46.3 LOS by Move: F E D F D-D F E D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 11 36 10 5 20 30 7 7 5 13 26 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:423 2523 294*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/6/2016 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 391 2 Cycle Time (sec):190 1 105 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 706*** 2 Critical V/C:0.672 2 418 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):75.1 0 274 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):74.8 2 303*** LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:110 1462***333 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 6 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 110 1828 333 294 3194 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 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: 110 1828 333 294 3194 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 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: 110 1828 333 294 3194 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 110 1462 333 294 2523 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 1462 333 294 2523 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 110 1462 333 294 2523 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.26 0.19 0.09 0.44 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.2 81.3 106.8 28.4 92.5 118.0 25.5 43.5 60.6 25.5 43.5 71.8 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.60 0.34 0.63 0.91 0.39 0.92 0.81 0.49 0.72 0.48 0.16 Uniform Del: 86.2 44.3 23.8 80.2 47.5 19.0 86.0 73.4 55.2 83.3 67.2 41.3 IncremntDel: 0.9 0.4 0.2 2.6 5.0 0.2 25.9 5.8 0.7 5.8 0.4 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 92.8 66.7 44.4 92.3 82.5 40.1 111.9 79.2 55.9 89.1 67.6 41.5 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: 92.8 66.7 44.4 92.3 82.5 40.1 111.9 79.2 55.9 89.1 67.6 41.5 LOS by Move: F E D F F D F E-E+ F E D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 27 18 11 52 23 15 20 14 12 11 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:552 1139 132*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/28/1999 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 227*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):170 1 267 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 292 2 Critical V/C:0.686 2 793*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):79.2 0 114 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):69.7 2 318 LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:247 1835***197 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 28 Oct 1999 << 7:00-9:00 Base Vol: 247 2294 197 132 1442 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 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: 247 2294 197 132 1442 549 225 290 113 318 790 267 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 247 2294 197 132 1442 552 227 292 114 318 793 267 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 247 1835 197 132 1139 552 227 292 114 318 793 267 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 247 1835 197 132 1139 552 227 292 114 318 793 267 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 247 1835 197 132 1139 552 227 292 114 318 793 267 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.32 0.11 0.04 0.20 0.32 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.21 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.4 72.7 95.6 25.4 82.8 105.6 22.8 38.9 54.3 22.8 38.9 64.3 Volume/Cap: 0.87 0.75 0.20 0.28 0.41 0.51 0.54 0.34 0.20 0.75 0.91 0.40 Uniform Del: 90.2 48.5 21.7 75.9 33.1 21.1 81.2 64.7 49.8 83.8 75.5 45.9 IncremntDel: 23.5 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.2 7.4 13.7 0.4 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 119.7 74.1 40.4 85.1 54.1 44.5 82.5 65.0 50.0 91.2 89.2 46.3 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: 119.7 74.1 40.4 85.1 54.1 44.5 82.5 65.0 50.0 91.2 89.2 46.3 LOS by Move: F E D F D-D F E D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 11 36 10 5 20 31 8 7 5 13 27 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:425 2523 294*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/6/2016 Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 394 2 Cycle Time (sec):190 1 105 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 709*** 2 Critical V/C:0.673 2 420 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):75.2 0 276 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):74.9 2 303*** LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:110 1462***333 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 6 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 110 1828 333 294 3194 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 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: 110 1828 333 294 3194 423 391 706 274 303 418 105 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 110 1828 333 294 3194 425 394 709 276 303 420 105 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 110 1462 333 294 2523 425 394 709 276 303 420 105 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 1462 333 294 2523 425 394 709 276 303 420 105 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 110 1462 333 294 2523 425 394 709 276 303 420 105 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.26 0.19 0.09 0.44 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.2 81.3 106.8 28.4 92.5 118.0 25.5 43.5 60.6 25.5 43.5 71.8 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.60 0.34 0.63 0.91 0.39 0.93 0.82 0.49 0.72 0.48 0.16 Uniform Del: 86.2 44.3 23.8 80.2 47.5 19.1 86.1 73.5 55.3 83.3 67.2 41.3 IncremntDel: 0.9 0.4 0.2 2.6 5.0 0.2 27.2 6.0 0.7 5.8 0.4 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 92.8 66.7 44.4 92.3 82.5 40.1 113.3 79.5 56.0 89.1 67.6 41.5 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: 92.8 66.7 44.4 92.3 82.5 40.1 113.3 79.5 56.0 89.1 67.6 41.5 LOS by Move: F E D F F D F E-E+ F E D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 27 18 11 52 23 15 20 14 12 11 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:2 1155 274*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 5 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.428 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.7 0 2*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):14.1 3 14*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0 1677***687 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 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 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5590 10 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.29 0.22 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 67.9 77.9 20.1 88.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 30.1 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.52 0.34 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 Uniform Del: 0.0 16.0 9.4 45.6 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 16.2 9.5 46.5 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.8 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 16.2 9.5 46.5 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.8 LOS by Move: A B A D A A A A D D A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 7 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:15 1625***36 Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 193 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.456 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.3 0 20*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.3 3 483*** LOS:C+ Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0***1190 37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 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 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 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 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5549 51 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 56.2 82.3 15.7 71.9 71.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 26.1 0.0 41.8 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.45 0.02 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.49 0.00 0.32 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.4 6.0 45.8 13.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 51.0 41.1 0.0 28.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 21.5 6.0 45.9 13.7 13.7 0.0 0.0 51.4 41.5 0.0 29.0 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 21.5 6.0 45.9 13.7 13.7 0.0 0.0 51.4 41.5 0.0 29.0 LOS by Move: A C+ A D B B A A D-D A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 9 0 1 11 11 0 0 1 7 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:24 1155 274*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 5 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.432 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.6 0 2*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):14.0 3 14*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0 1694***687 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 Growth Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1677 687 274 1155 2 0 0 2 14 0 5 Added Vol: 0 17 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1694 687 274 1155 24 0 0 2 14 0 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1694 687 274 1155 24 0 0 2 14 0 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1694 687 274 1155 24 0 0 2 14 0 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1694 687 274 1155 24 0 0 2 14 0 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5486 114 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.22 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 68.1 78.1 19.9 88.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 29.9 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.52 0.34 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 Uniform Del: 0.0 16.0 9.4 45.7 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 16.1 9.5 46.7 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.9 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: 0.0 16.1 9.5 46.7 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 50.6 0.0 33.9 LOS by Move: A B A D A A A A D D A C- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 7 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:29 1625***36 Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 193 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.459 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.3 0 20*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.3 3 483*** LOS:C+ Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0***1213 37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 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 1190 37 36 1625 15 0 0 20 483 0 193 Added Vol: 0 23 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1213 37 36 1625 29 0 0 20 483 0 193 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1213 37 36 1625 29 0 0 20 483 0 193 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1213 37 36 1625 29 0 0 20 483 0 193 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1213 37 36 1625 29 0 0 20 483 0 193 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5502 98 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 56.6 82.5 15.5 72.1 72.1 0.0 0.0 10.0 25.9 0.0 41.4 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.45 0.02 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.49 0.00 0.32 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.3 5.9 46.0 13.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 51.0 41.3 0.0 28.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 21.4 5.9 46.1 13.7 13.7 0.0 0.0 51.4 41.7 0.0 29.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 21.4 5.9 46.1 13.7 13.7 0.0 0.0 51.4 41.7 0.0 29.2 LOS by Move: A C+ A D B B A A D-D A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 1 11 11 0 0 1 7 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:30 1139 27*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 44 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 53 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 3*** 0 Critical V/C:0.415 0 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):19.2 0 136 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.2 1 78*** LOS:C+ Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:89 2202***34 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 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: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 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: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 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: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.92 0.08 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.07 0.93 Final Sat.: 3150 9257 143 1750 5456 144 1750 39 1761 1750 126 1674 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.3 70.1 70.1 7.0 60.8 60.8 14.8 22.8 22.8 13.1 21.1 21.1 Volume/Cap: 0.22 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.19 Uniform Del: 48.6 15.8 15.8 56.6 20.8 20.8 49.8 45.3 45.3 52.4 44.6 44.6 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.6 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: 48.9 15.9 15.9 58.1 20.9 20.9 50.4 46.2 46.2 54.0 44.9 44.9 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: 48.9 15.9 15.9 58.1 20.9 20.9 50.4 46.2 46.2 54.0 44.9 44.9 LOS by Move: D B B E+ C+ C+ D D D D-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 2 10 10 1 10 10 2 5 5 3 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:33 2043***37 Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 35 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 26 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 2*** 0 Critical V/C:0.549 0 2 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):17.7 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.3 1 26*** LOS:B- Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:156***1176 42 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 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: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 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: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 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: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.82 0.18 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.07 0.93 Final Sat.: 3150 9075 324 1750 5511 89 1750 33 1767 1750 129 1671 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 10.9 64.6 64.6 27.9 81.6 81.6 8.4 13.5 13.5 7.0 12.0 12.0 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.57 0.57 0.30 0.57 0.57 0.27 0.16 0.16 Uniform Del: 54.8 16.8 16.8 38.5 12.0 12.0 55.5 53.0 53.0 56.5 51.9 51.9 IncremntDel: 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.4 3.9 3.9 1.5 0.4 0.4 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: 57.6 16.8 16.8 38.6 12.2 12.2 56.9 56.9 56.9 58.0 52.3 52.3 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: 57.6 16.8 16.8 38.6 12.2 12.2 56.9 56.9 56.9 58.0 52.3 52.3 LOS by Move: E+ B B D+ B B E+ E+ E+ E+ D-D- HCM2kAvgQ: 4 5 5 1 15 15 2 5 5 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:30 1139 27*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 61 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 53 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 3*** 0 Critical V/C:0.429 0 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.6 0 159 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):22.8 1 78*** LOS:C+ Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:123 2202***34 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 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: 89 2202 34 27 1139 30 44 3 136 78 4 53 Added Vol: 34 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 123 2202 34 27 1139 30 61 3 159 78 4 53 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: 123 2202 34 27 1139 30 61 3 159 78 4 53 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 2202 34 27 1139 30 61 3 159 78 4 53 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 123 2202 34 27 1139 30 61 3 159 78 4 53 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.92 0.08 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.07 0.93 Final Sat.: 3150 9257 143 1750 5456 144 1750 33 1767 1750 126 1674 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.8 67.7 67.7 7.0 58.9 58.9 15.8 25.6 25.6 12.7 22.5 22.5 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.18 Uniform Del: 49.6 17.2 17.2 56.6 22.1 22.1 49.4 43.4 43.4 52.8 43.4 43.4 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.7 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: 50.1 17.3 17.3 58.1 22.2 22.2 50.1 44.3 44.3 54.5 43.6 43.6 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: 50.1 17.3 17.3 58.1 22.2 22.2 50.1 44.3 44.3 54.5 43.6 43.6 LOS by Move: D B B E+ C+ C+ D D D D-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 3 10 10 1 10 10 2 6 6 4 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:33 2043***37 Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 58 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 26 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 2*** 0 Critical V/C:0.575 0 2 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):20.4 0 138 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):20.6 1 26*** LOS:C+ Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:178***1176 42 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 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: 156 1176 42 37 2043 33 35 2 108 26 2 26 Added Vol: 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 30 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 178 1176 42 37 2043 33 58 2 138 26 2 26 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: 178 1176 42 37 2043 33 58 2 138 26 2 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 178 1176 42 37 2043 33 58 2 138 26 2 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 178 1176 42 37 2043 33 58 2 138 26 2 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.82 0.18 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.07 0.93 Final Sat.: 3150 9075 324 1750 5511 89 1750 26 1774 1750 129 1671 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.9 62.6 62.6 27.1 77.8 77.8 9.6 16.3 16.3 7.0 13.7 13.7 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.60 0.60 0.27 0.14 0.14 Uniform Del: 54.3 17.9 17.9 39.2 14.2 14.2 55.1 51.2 51.2 56.5 50.3 50.3 IncremntDel: 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.2 4.1 4.1 1.5 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: 57.5 17.9 17.9 39.3 14.4 14.4 57.3 55.3 55.3 58.0 50.6 50.6 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: 57.5 17.9 17.9 39.3 14.4 14.4 57.3 55.3 55.3 58.0 50.6 50.6 LOS by Move: E+ B B D B B E+ E+ E+ E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 5 1 16 16 3 6 6 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 866 0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):65 2 707*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.619 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):8.4 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):8.3 2 484 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 1730***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1730 412 0 866 490 0 0 0 484 0 707 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 1730 412 0 866 490 0 0 0 484 0 707 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 1730 412 0 866 490 0 0 0 484 0 707 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 1730 0 0 866 0 0 0 0 484 0 707 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1730 0 0 866 0 0 0 0 484 0 707 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 FinalVolume: 0 1730 0 0 866 0 0 0 0 484 0 707 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 23.6 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.62 Uniform Del: 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 17.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 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 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 18.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 18.1 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1090***0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):55 2 418 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.541 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):7.0 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):7.0 2 521*** LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 692 0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 0 692 484 0 1090 512 0 0 0 521 0 418 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: 0 692 484 0 1090 512 0 0 0 521 0 418 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: 0 692 484 0 1090 512 0 0 0 521 0 418 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: 0 692 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 521 0 418 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 692 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 521 0 418 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 FinalVolume: 0 692 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 521 0 418 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.43 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 15.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 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 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 15.6 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 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 15.6 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 883 0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):65 2 721*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.628 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):8.5 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):8.3 2 484 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 1750***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1730 412 0 866 490 0 0 0 484 0 707 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 1730 412 0 866 490 0 0 0 484 0 707 Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1750 412 0 883 490 0 0 0 484 0 721 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 1750 0 0 883 0 0 0 0 484 0 721 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1750 0 0 883 0 0 0 0 484 0 721 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 FinalVolume: 0 1750 0 0 883 0 0 0 0 484 0 721 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.3 0.0 0.0 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 23.7 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.63 Uniform Del: 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 17.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 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: 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 18.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 18.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1112***0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):55 2 427 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.548 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):6.9 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):6.9 2 521*** LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 705 0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:15 -6:15 PM Base Vol: 0 692 484 0 1090 512 0 0 0 521 0 418 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: 0 692 484 0 1090 512 0 0 0 521 0 418 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 705 484 0 1112 512 0 0 0 521 0 427 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: 0 705 0 0 1112 0 0 0 0 521 0 427 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 705 0 0 1112 0 0 0 0 521 0 427 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 FinalVolume: 0 705 0 0 1112 0 0 0 0 521 0 427 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 16.6 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.45 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 15.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 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 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 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 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 15.8 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 960 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 888*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):60 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.720 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.8 0 429 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):13.9 0 0 LOS:B Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1253***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1253 432 0 960 391 888 0 429 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1253 432 0 960 391 888 0 429 0 0 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: 0 1253 432 0 960 391 888 0 429 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 1253 0 0 960 0 888 0 429 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1253 0 0 960 0 888 0 429 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1253 0 0 960 0 888 0 429 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 15.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 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: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 17.5 0.0 13.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 17.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A B A A B+ A B A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 0 0 2 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1165 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 123 2 Cycle Time (sec):55 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.435 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):8.9 0 311*** 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):7.5 0 0 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1008***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Base Vol: 0 1008 606 0 1165 418 123 0 311 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1008 606 0 1165 418 123 0 311 0 0 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: 0 1008 606 0 1165 418 123 0 311 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 1008 0 0 1165 0 123 0 311 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1008 0 0 1165 0 123 0 311 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1008 0 0 1165 0 123 0 311 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 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: 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 18.7 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 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B-A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 967 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 896*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):60 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.726 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):16.0 0 429 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):14.0 0 0 LOS:B Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1264***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1253 432 0 960 391 888 0 429 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1253 432 0 960 391 888 0 429 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1264 432 0 967 391 896 0 429 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 1264 0 0 967 0 896 0 429 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1264 0 0 967 0 896 0 429 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1264 0 0 967 0 896 0 429 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 15.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.2 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: 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 17.7 0.0 13.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 17.7 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A B A A B+ A B A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 0 0 2 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1174 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 128 2 Cycle Time (sec):55 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.437 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):8.8 0 311*** 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):7.5 0 0 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1015***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Base Vol: 0 1008 606 0 1165 418 123 0 311 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1008 606 0 1165 418 123 0 311 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1015 606 0 1174 418 128 0 311 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 1015 0 0 1174 0 128 0 311 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1015 0 0 1174 0 128 0 311 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1015 0 0 1174 0 128 0 311 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 33.6 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 12.4 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 17.2 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 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: 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 18.7 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 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A B-A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:17 894 325*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 16*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):120 2 159 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 2 1 Critical V/C:0.461 0 5 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.1 1 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):22.1 1 80*** LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:23 1470***89 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 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: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 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: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 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: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.82 0.18 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5280 320 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3341 209 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 23.9 64.2 64.2 23.8 64.1 74.1 10.0 10.0 33.9 10.0 10.0 33.8 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.29 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.18 Uniform Del: 39.0 18.0 18.0 43.0 15.4 8.8 50.9 50.5 30.9 51.7 51.7 32.6 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.1 18.1 18.1 43.8 15.5 8.9 51.2 50.5 30.9 52.2 52.2 32.7 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: 39.1 18.1 18.1 43.8 15.5 8.9 51.2 50.5 30.9 52.2 52.2 32.7 LOS by Move: D B-B-D B A D-D C D-D-C- HCM2kAvgQ: 1 12 12 6 6 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:24 1542***350 Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 23*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):115 2 468 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 10 1 Critical V/C:0.377 0 3*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):14.1 1 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):20.1 1 139 LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:24***955 92 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 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: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 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: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 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: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5107 492 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3475 75 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 51.4 51.4 30.5 74.9 84.9 10.0 10.0 17.0 11.1 11.1 41.6 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.42 0.42 0.41 Uniform Del: 51.4 21.6 21.6 34.9 9.6 4.0 48.6 48.2 41.8 48.9 48.9 27.5 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.2 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: 52.5 21.8 21.8 35.2 9.6 4.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 49.7 49.7 27.7 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: 52.5 21.8 21.8 35.2 9.6 4.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 49.7 49.7 27.7 LOS by Move: D-C+ C+ D+ A A D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 6 8 0 1 0 0 3 3 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:17 901 325*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 16*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):120 2 159 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 2 1 Critical V/C:0.463 0 5 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.0 1 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):22.0 1 80*** LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:23 1481***89 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 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: 23 1470 89 325 894 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 23 1481 89 325 901 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 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: 23 1481 89 325 901 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 1481 89 325 901 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 23 1481 89 325 901 17 16 2 1 80 5 159 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.82 0.18 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5282 317 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3341 209 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 23.7 64.3 64.3 23.7 64.3 74.3 10.0 10.0 33.7 10.0 10.0 33.7 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.30 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.18 Uniform Del: 39.1 17.9 17.9 43.1 15.4 8.8 50.9 50.5 31.0 51.7 51.7 32.7 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.2 18.1 18.1 43.9 15.4 8.8 51.2 50.5 31.0 52.2 52.2 32.8 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: 39.2 18.1 18.1 43.9 15.4 8.8 51.2 50.5 31.0 52.2 52.2 32.8 LOS by Move: D B-B-D B A D-D C D-D-C- HCM2kAvgQ: 1 12 12 6 6 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:24 1551***350 Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 23*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):115 2 468 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 10 1 Critical V/C:0.378 0 3*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):14.0 1 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):20.1 1 139 LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:24***962 92 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 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: 24 955 92 350 1542 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 24 962 92 350 1551 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 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: 24 962 92 350 1551 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 962 92 350 1551 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 24 962 92 350 1551 24 23 10 2 139 3 468 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5111 489 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3475 75 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 51.5 51.5 30.4 75.0 85.0 10.0 10.0 17.0 11.0 11.0 41.5 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.42 0.42 0.41 Uniform Del: 51.4 21.6 21.6 35.0 9.6 4.0 48.6 48.2 41.8 49.0 49.0 27.6 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.2 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: 52.5 21.7 21.7 35.3 9.6 4.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 49.8 49.8 27.9 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: 52.5 21.7 21.7 35.3 9.6 4.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 49.8 49.8 27.9 LOS by Move: D-C+ C+ D+ A A D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 6 9 0 1 0 0 3 3 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 251 173*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 414*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):120 0 168 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 548 3 Critical V/C:0.625 2 677*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):41.3 0 88 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):39.9 2 62 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:191 898***118 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 191 898 118 173 251 472 414 548 88 62 677 168 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: 191 898 118 173 251 472 414 548 88 62 677 168 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: 191 898 118 173 251 472 414 548 88 62 677 168 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 191 898 118 173 251 0 414 548 88 62 677 168 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 191 898 118 173 251 0 414 548 88 62 677 168 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 191 898 118 173 251 0 414 548 88 62 677 168 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.64 0.36 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.38 0.62 Final Sat.: 1750 4949 650 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4485 1113 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.5 34.8 34.8 19.0 23.3 0.0 25.2 33.7 33.7 20.5 29.0 29.0 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.34 0.00 0.63 0.34 0.18 0.12 0.63 0.63 Uniform Del: 37.5 36.9 36.9 47.2 41.7 0.0 43.1 34.3 32.7 42.1 40.7 40.7 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.8 0.8 4.4 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.1 37.7 37.7 51.6 42.0 0.0 45.0 34.4 32.8 42.2 41.6 41.6 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: 38.1 37.7 37.7 51.6 42.0 0.0 45.0 34.4 32.8 42.2 41.6 41.6 LOS by Move: D+ D+ D+ D-D A D C-C-D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 11 11 6 4 0 8 4 2 1 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 898***293 Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 510*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):124 0 183 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 1362 3 Critical V/C:0.677 2 645*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):42.8 0 298 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):39.9 2 180 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:114***243 53 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:30 -6:30 PM Base Vol: 114 243 53 293 898 427 510 1362 298 180 645 183 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: 114 243 53 293 898 427 510 1362 298 180 645 183 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: 114 243 53 293 898 427 510 1362 298 180 645 183 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 243 53 293 898 0 510 1362 298 180 645 183 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 243 53 293 898 0 510 1362 298 180 645 183 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 243 53 293 898 0 510 1362 298 180 645 183 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.44 0.56 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.31 0.69 Final Sat.: 1750 4596 1002 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4361 1237 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.24 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.9 18.0 18.0 37.3 43.3 0.0 29.7 45.8 45.8 11.0 27.1 27.1 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.37 0.37 0.56 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.65 0.46 0.65 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 54.2 47.9 47.9 36.4 34.4 0.0 42.8 32.4 29.7 54.7 44.4 44.4 IncremntDel: 10.5 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.4 0.0 2.5 0.7 0.5 5.2 1.5 1.5 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 64.7 48.2 48.2 37.8 35.8 0.0 45.3 33.1 30.2 59.9 46.0 46.0 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: 64.7 48.2 48.2 37.8 35.8 0.0 45.3 33.1 30.2 59.9 46.0 46.0 LOS by Move: E D D D+ D+ A D C-C E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 4 4 9 13 0 11 12 7 5 10 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project AM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 252 177*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 417*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):120 0 175 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 548 3 Critical V/C:0.630 2 677*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):41.4 0 88 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.0 2 62 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:191 899***118 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 191 898 118 173 251 472 414 548 88 62 677 168 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: 191 898 118 173 251 472 414 548 88 62 677 168 Added Vol: 0 1 0 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 191 899 118 177 252 474 417 548 88 62 677 175 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 191 899 118 177 252 0 417 548 88 62 677 175 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 191 899 118 177 252 0 417 548 88 62 677 175 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 191 899 118 177 252 0 417 548 88 62 677 175 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.64 0.36 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.36 0.64 Final Sat.: 1750 4949 650 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4448 1150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.5 34.6 34.6 19.3 23.3 0.0 25.2 33.7 33.7 20.5 29.0 29.0 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.34 0.00 0.63 0.34 0.18 0.12 0.63 0.63 Uniform Del: 37.4 37.2 37.2 47.1 41.7 0.0 43.2 34.3 32.7 42.1 40.7 40.7 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.8 0.8 4.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.1 38.0 38.0 51.6 42.0 0.0 45.1 34.4 32.8 42.2 41.7 41.7 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: 38.1 38.0 38.0 51.6 42.0 0.0 45.1 34.4 32.8 42.2 41.7 41.7 LOS by Move: D+ D+ D+ D-D A D C-C-D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 11 11 6 4 0 9 4 2 1 9 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing Plus Project PM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 899***299 Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:10/12/2016 Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 512*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):124 0 188 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 1362 3 Critical V/C:0.679 2 645*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):42.9 0 298 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.0 2 180 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:114***244 53 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Oct 2016 << 5:30 -6:30 PM Base Vol: 114 243 53 293 898 427 510 1362 298 180 645 183 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: 114 243 53 293 898 427 510 1362 298 180 645 183 Added Vol: 0 1 0 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 244 53 299 899 430 512 1362 298 180 645 188 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 244 53 299 899 0 512 1362 298 180 645 188 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 244 53 299 899 0 512 1362 298 180 645 188 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 244 53 299 899 0 512 1362 298 180 645 188 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.44 0.56 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.30 0.70 Final Sat.: 1750 4599 999 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4334 1263 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.24 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.15 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.9 17.7 17.7 37.4 43.2 0.0 29.7 45.9 45.9 11.0 27.2 27.2 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.37 0.37 0.57 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.65 0.46 0.65 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 54.2 48.1 48.1 36.4 34.5 0.0 42.8 32.3 29.6 54.6 44.4 44.4 IncremntDel: 10.7 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.4 0.0 2.5 0.7 0.5 5.2 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 64.9 48.4 48.4 37.9 35.9 0.0 45.3 33.0 30.2 59.8 46.0 46.0 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: 64.9 48.4 48.4 37.9 35.9 0.0 45.3 33.0 30.2 59.8 46.0 46.0 LOS by Move: E D D D+ D+ A D C-C E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 4 4 9 13 0 11 12 7 5 10 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:70 556 74*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 73*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):205 1 273 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 323 3 Critical V/C:0.631 3 931*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):50.7 0 262 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):55.3 2 384 LOS:E+ Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:324 1318***37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 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: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 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: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 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: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.35 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 64.9 113 112.7 13.7 61.5 75.1 13.5 21.1 86.0 45.5 53.1 66.8 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.63 0.04 0.63 0.33 0.11 0.63 0.55 0.36 0.55 0.63 0.48 Uniform Del: 53.4 31.8 21.2 93.2 55.6 42.9 93.3 87.4 40.6 70.7 67.3 55.2 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.6 0.0 10.6 0.1 0.1 10.7 1.1 0.3 0.9 0.9 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: 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: 53.6 32.5 21.3 103.8 55.7 43.0 104.0 88.5 40.9 71.6 68.2 55.8 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: 53.6 32.5 21.3 103.8 55.7 43.0 104.0 88.5 40.9 71.6 68.2 55.8 LOS by Move: D-C-C+ F E+ D F F D E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 9 27 1 6 9 3 6 7 12 13 17 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:46 1057***125 Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 93 1 Cycle Time (sec):150 1 122 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 1288*** 3 Critical V/C:0.644 3 763 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):48.1 0 410 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):44.1 2 326*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:245***504 239 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 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: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 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: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 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: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 18.1 40.2 40.2 21.0 43.2 65.0 21.8 52.6 70.7 24.1 54.9 76.0 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.64 0.06 0.37 0.64 0.50 0.64 0.37 0.14 Uniform Del: 62.9 46.3 46.5 59.7 46.7 24.7 57.9 40.8 27.4 58.9 34.8 19.6 IncremntDel: 3.8 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 2.9 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 66.6 46.7 47.4 61.5 47.6 24.8 58.8 41.6 27.8 61.8 34.9 19.7 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: 66.6 46.7 47.4 61.5 47.6 24.8 58.8 41.6 27.8 61.8 34.9 19.7 LOS by Move: E D D E D C E+ D C E C-B- HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 9 6 15 1 4 17 14 9 8 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:70 559 74*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 73*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):205 1 273 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 323 3 Critical V/C:0.632 3 931*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):50.7 0 265 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):55.4 2 392 LOS:E+ Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:326 1320***37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 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: 324 1318 37 74 556 70 73 323 262 384 931 273 Added Vol: 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 326 1320 37 74 559 70 73 323 265 392 931 273 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: 326 1320 37 74 559 70 73 323 265 392 931 273 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 326 1320 37 74 559 70 73 323 265 392 931 273 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 326 1320 37 74 559 70 73 323 265 392 931 273 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.35 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 64.9 113 112.7 13.7 61.5 75.1 13.5 20.8 85.7 45.7 53.0 66.7 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.63 0.04 0.63 0.33 0.11 0.63 0.56 0.36 0.56 0.63 0.48 Uniform Del: 53.4 31.8 21.2 93.2 55.7 42.9 93.3 87.7 40.9 70.7 67.3 55.2 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.6 0.0 10.7 0.1 0.1 10.8 1.2 0.3 1.0 0.9 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: 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: 53.6 32.4 21.2 103.8 55.8 43.0 104.1 88.9 41.2 71.7 68.2 55.9 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: 53.6 32.4 21.2 103.8 55.8 43.0 104.1 88.9 41.2 71.7 68.2 55.9 LOS by Move: D-C-C+ F E+ D F F D E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 9 27 1 6 9 3 6 7 12 13 17 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:46 1059***125 Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 93 1 Cycle Time (sec):150 1 122 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 1288*** 3 Critical V/C:0.647 3 763 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):48.3 0 412 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):44.2 2 331*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:248***507 239 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 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: 245 504 239 125 1057 46 93 1288 410 326 763 122 Added Vol: 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 248 507 239 125 1059 46 93 1288 412 331 763 122 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: 248 507 239 125 1059 46 93 1288 412 331 763 122 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 248 507 239 125 1059 46 93 1288 412 331 763 122 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 248 507 239 125 1059 46 93 1288 412 331 763 122 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.13 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 18.2 40.2 40.2 21.0 43.0 64.8 21.8 52.4 70.6 24.3 54.9 76.0 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.65 0.06 0.37 0.65 0.50 0.65 0.37 0.14 Uniform Del: 62.8 46.3 46.5 59.7 46.8 24.8 57.9 41.1 27.5 58.8 34.8 19.6 IncremntDel: 3.8 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 2.9 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 66.6 46.7 47.4 61.5 47.7 24.9 58.8 41.8 28.0 61.7 34.9 19.7 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: 66.6 46.7 47.4 61.5 47.7 24.9 58.8 41.8 28.0 61.7 34.9 19.7 LOS by Move: E D D E D C E+ D C E C-B- HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 9 6 15 1 4 17 14 9 8 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:419 795 31*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 376*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):195 0 139 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 230 2 Critical V/C:0.816 0 48*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):69.4 0 195 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):53.2 1 12 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:110 1155***27 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 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: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 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: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 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: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.95 0.05 0.08 1.92 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 Final Sat.: 3150 3615 85 139 3561 1800 3150 3800 1750 1750 462 1338 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.3 76.3 76.3 53.3 112 112.3 28.5 36.3 53.6 17.0 24.8 24.8 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.39 0.40 0.82 0.33 0.41 0.08 0.82 0.82 Uniform Del: 83.9 53.1 53.1 66.2 22.6 22.8 80.7 68.7 57.7 81.8 82.9 82.9 IncremntDel: 0.9 3.7 3.7 3.5 0.1 0.1 10.8 0.3 0.6 0.2 19.9 19.9 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: 84.8 56.8 56.8 69.8 22.6 22.9 91.5 69.0 58.2 82.0 103 102.7 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: 84.8 56.8 56.8 69.8 22.6 22.9 91.5 69.0 58.2 82.0 103 102.7 LOS by Move: F E+ E+ E C+ C+ F E E+ F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 4 32 32 24 13 14 15 6 10 1 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:584 1503 51*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 364 2 Cycle Time (sec):175 0 31 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 426 2 Critical V/C:0.818 0 28 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):53.1 0 362*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):47.5 1 10*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:195 776***46 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 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: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 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: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 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: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.88 0.12 0.07 2.10 0.83 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 3150 3493 207 131 3866 1502 3150 3800 1750 1750 854 946 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.3 45.9 45.9 80.2 109 108.8 24.7 29.9 47.2 7.0 12.2 12.2 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.66 0.77 0.14 0.47 0.47 Uniform Del: 75.7 61.3 61.3 42.0 20.5 20.5 73.0 67.7 58.8 81.1 78.3 78.3 IncremntDel: 4.0 7.1 7.1 2.9 0.4 0.4 11.4 2.4 7.4 0.9 2.8 2.8 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: 79.7 68.4 68.4 44.9 20.9 20.9 84.4 70.2 66.2 82.0 81.0 81.0 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: 79.7 68.4 68.4 44.9 20.9 20.9 84.4 70.2 66.2 82.0 81.0 81.0 LOS by Move: E-E E D C+ C+ F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 6 22 22 35 24 24 13 11 20 1 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:419 809 31*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 376*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):195 0 139 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 230 2 Critical V/C:0.823 0 48*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):69.8 0 195 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):53.3 1 12 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:110 1159***33 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 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: 110 1155 27 31 795 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 Added Vol: 0 4 6 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 110 1159 33 31 809 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 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: 110 1159 33 31 809 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 1159 33 31 809 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 110 1159 33 31 809 419 376 230 195 12 48 139 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.94 0.06 0.08 1.92 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 Final Sat.: 3150 3597 102 137 3563 1800 3150 3800 1750 1750 462 1338 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.4 76.3 76.3 53.8 113 112.7 28.3 36.0 53.4 16.9 24.6 24.6 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.39 0.40 0.82 0.33 0.41 0.08 0.82 0.82 Uniform Del: 83.8 53.3 53.3 66.1 22.5 22.6 80.9 69.0 57.9 81.9 83.1 83.1 IncremntDel: 0.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 11.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 20.9 20.9 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: 84.7 57.2 57.2 69.9 22.5 22.7 92.4 69.3 58.4 82.1 104 104.0 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: 84.7 57.2 57.2 69.9 22.5 22.7 92.4 69.3 58.4 82.1 104 104.0 LOS by Move: F E+ E+ E C+ C+ F E E+ F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 4 33 33 25 13 14 15 6 10 1 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:584 1512 51*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 364 2 Cycle Time (sec):175 0 31 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 426 2 Critical V/C:0.823 0 28 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):53.5 0 362*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):47.6 1 10*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:195 781***54 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 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: 195 776 46 51 1503 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 Added Vol: 0 5 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 195 781 54 51 1512 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 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: 195 781 54 51 1512 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 195 781 54 51 1512 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 195 781 54 51 1512 584 364 426 362 10 28 31 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.87 0.13 0.07 2.10 0.83 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 3150 3461 239 131 3873 1496 3150 3800 1750 1750 854 946 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.3 46.3 46.3 80.0 109 109.0 24.6 29.7 47.0 7.0 12.1 12.1 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.82 0.66 0.77 0.14 0.47 0.47 Uniform Del: 75.8 61.2 61.2 42.3 20.4 20.4 73.1 67.9 59.0 81.1 78.3 78.3 IncremntDel: 4.0 7.4 7.4 3.1 0.4 0.4 11.8 2.5 7.6 0.9 2.8 2.8 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: 79.8 68.6 68.6 45.3 20.8 20.8 84.9 70.5 66.7 82.0 81.1 81.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 79.8 68.6 68.6 45.3 20.8 20.8 84.9 70.5 66.7 82.0 81.1 81.1 LOS by Move: E-E E D C+ C+ F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 6 22 22 35 24 24 13 11 20 1 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 963 71*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):85 0 117*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.586 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):13.8 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.5 0 70 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1320***72 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 3508 191 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 655 0 1095 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 53.7 53.7 7.0 60.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 15.3 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.2 9.2 37.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 32.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 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: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 35.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 35.1 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1444 290*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):84 0 164 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.666 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.9 0 69*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1006***88 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.70 Final Sat.: 0 3402 298 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 518 0 1232 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 37.3 37.3 20.9 58.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 Uniform Del: 0.0 18.4 18.4 28.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.1 1.1 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.5 19.5 32.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0 35.8 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 19.5 19.5 32.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 0.0 35.8 LOS by Move: A B-B-C-A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 7 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 977 71*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):85 0 117*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.589 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):13.8 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.4 0 70 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1330***72 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 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 1320 72 71 963 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1330 72 71 977 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1330 72 71 977 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1330 72 71 977 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1330 72 71 977 0 0 0 0 70 0 117 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.63 Final Sat.: 0 3510 190 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 655 0 1095 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 53.8 53.8 7.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.2 9.2 37.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 32.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 35.3 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: 0.0 9.6 9.6 39.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 35.3 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1453 290*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):84 0 164 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.670 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.9 0 69*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1019***88 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 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 1006 88 290 1444 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1019 88 290 1453 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1019 88 290 1453 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1019 88 290 1453 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1019 88 290 1453 0 0 0 0 69 0 164 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.70 Final Sat.: 0 3406 294 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 518 0 1232 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 37.5 37.5 20.8 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 Uniform Del: 0.0 18.3 18.3 28.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 31.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.1 1.1 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.4 19.4 32.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 36.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 19.4 19.4 32.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 36.1 LOS by Move: A B-B-C-A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 11 7 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:66 951 33*** Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 88 0 Cycle Time (sec):75 1 84 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 63*** 0 Critical V/C:0.493 0 70 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.0 1 54 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):12.5 0 44 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:28 1189***36 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 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: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 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: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 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: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.87 0.13 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.39 0.61 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3591 109 1750 3460 240 1049 751 1750 695 1105 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 13.7 47.1 47.1 7.0 40.4 40.4 11.9 11.9 25.6 11.9 11.9 18.9 Volume/Cap: 0.09 0.53 0.53 0.20 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.19 Uniform Del: 25.5 7.8 7.8 31.4 11.0 11.0 28.9 28.9 16.8 28.3 28.3 22.0 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.2 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: 25.6 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.3 11.3 30.8 30.8 16.8 29.2 29.2 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.6 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.3 11.3 30.8 30.8 16.8 29.2 29.2 22.2 LOS by Move: C A A C-B+ B+ C C B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 1 8 8 4 4 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:146 1246***128 Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 87 0 Cycle Time (sec):68 1 74 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 179*** 0 Critical V/C:0.626 0 85 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.1 1 49 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.3 0 30 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:33***928 74 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 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: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 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: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 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: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.78 0.22 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3427 273 1750 3312 388 589 1211 1750 470 1330 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 32.1 32.1 12.2 37.3 37.3 14.7 14.7 21.7 14.7 14.7 26.9 Volume/Cap: 0.18 0.57 0.57 0.41 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.11 Uniform Del: 27.9 13.0 13.0 24.7 11.1 11.1 24.5 24.5 16.2 22.3 22.3 13.0 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 25.6 12.1 12.1 29.6 29.6 16.3 22.8 22.8 13.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 25.6 12.1 12.1 29.6 29.6 16.3 22.8 22.8 13.1 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C C B C+ C+ B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 2 11 11 7 7 1 2 2 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:66 965 33*** Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 88 0 Cycle Time (sec):75 1 84 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 63*** 0 Critical V/C:0.496 0 70 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.0 1 54 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):12.5 0 44 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:28 1199***36 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 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: 28 1189 36 33 951 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 1199 36 33 965 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 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: 28 1199 36 33 965 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 1199 36 33 965 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 28 1199 36 33 965 66 88 63 54 44 70 84 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.87 0.13 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.39 0.61 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3592 108 1750 3463 237 1049 751 1750 695 1105 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 13.6 47.2 47.2 7.0 40.6 40.6 11.8 11.8 25.4 11.8 11.8 18.8 Volume/Cap: 0.09 0.53 0.53 0.20 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.19 Uniform Del: 25.6 7.8 7.8 31.4 11.0 11.0 29.0 29.0 16.9 28.4 28.4 22.1 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.2 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: 25.7 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.2 11.2 30.9 30.9 17.0 29.3 29.3 22.3 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: 25.7 8.0 8.0 32.0 11.2 11.2 30.9 30.9 17.0 29.3 29.3 22.3 LOS by Move: C A A C-B+ B+ C C B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 1 8 8 4 4 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:146 1255***128 Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 87 0 Cycle Time (sec):68 1 74 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 179*** 0 Critical V/C:0.629 0 85 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.2 1 49 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.3 0 30 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:33***941 74 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 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: 33 928 74 128 1246 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 33 941 74 128 1255 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 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: 33 941 74 128 1255 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 33 941 74 128 1255 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 33 941 74 128 1255 146 87 179 49 30 85 74 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.79 0.21 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3430 270 1750 3314 386 589 1211 1750 470 1330 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 32.3 32.3 12.1 37.4 37.4 14.6 14.6 21.6 14.6 14.6 26.7 Volume/Cap: 0.18 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.11 Uniform Del: 27.9 12.9 12.9 24.8 11.1 11.1 24.6 24.6 16.3 22.4 22.4 13.1 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 5.2 5.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 25.7 12.1 12.1 29.8 29.8 16.4 22.8 22.8 13.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 25.7 12.1 12.1 29.8 29.8 16.4 22.8 22.8 13.2 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C C B C+ C+ B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 2 11 11 7 7 1 2 2 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:67 1096 191*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 272*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 321 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 375 2 Critical V/C:0.769 1 580*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):35.8 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.2 2 438 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:336 1781***201 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 308 438 580 321 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: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 308 438 580 321 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: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 308 438 580 321 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 0 438 580 321 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 0 438 580 321 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 0 438 580 321 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.27 0.73 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2381 1318 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.2 56.9 56.9 11.0 43.7 59.4 15.7 24.9 0.0 35.1 44.4 44.4 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.77 0.28 0.77 0.62 0.09 0.77 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.77 0.77 Uniform Del: 53.6 35.9 27.9 63.2 41.0 24.1 60.4 52.5 0.0 45.6 43.2 43.2 IncremntDel: 2.1 1.6 0.2 13.6 0.7 0.1 9.8 1.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 3.2 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: 0.86 0.54 0.54 0.94 0.70 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.2 21.1 15.4 73.2 29.3 12.3 70.2 53.5 0.0 46.5 46.4 46.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.2 21.1 15.4 73.2 29.3 12.3 70.2 53.5 0.0 46.5 46.4 46.4 LOS by Move: D C+ B E C B E D-A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 18 4 7 12 1 8 7 0 8 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:144 1492 386*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 167 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 192 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 698*** 2 Critical V/C:0.864 1 501 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):54.8 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):37.3 2 328*** LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:472 1370 665*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 343 328 501 192 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: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 343 328 501 192 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: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 343 328 501 192 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 0 328 501 192 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 0 328 501 192 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 0 328 501 192 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.43 0.57 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2674 1025 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 29.6 61.5 61.5 19.8 51.8 62.0 10.3 29.7 0.0 16.9 36.3 36.3 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.55 0.86 0.86 0.71 0.19 0.72 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.72 0.72 Uniform Del: 51.2 28.9 35.5 58.8 37.7 23.7 63.5 53.2 0.0 60.4 47.2 47.2 IncremntDel: 3.5 0.3 10.0 16.0 1.1 0.1 10.6 9.6 0.0 18.2 2.7 2.7 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: 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.89 0.61 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.5 14.1 27.0 68.2 24.1 11.2 74.1 62.8 0.0 78.7 50.0 50.0 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: 45.5 14.1 27.0 68.2 24.1 11.2 74.1 62.8 0.0 78.7 50.0 50.0 LOS by Move: D B C E C B+ E E A E-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 9 25 12 15 2 6 17 0 9 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:67 1096 191*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 272*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 321 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 378 2 Critical V/C:0.770 1 582*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):35.8 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):36.3 2 438 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:336 1781***201 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 308 438 580 321 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: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 375 308 438 580 321 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 378 308 438 582 321 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 378 0 438 582 321 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 378 0 438 582 321 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 336 1781 201 191 1096 67 272 378 0 438 582 321 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.27 0.73 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2384 1315 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.2 56.8 56.8 11.0 43.7 59.4 15.7 25.1 0.0 35.1 44.4 44.4 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.77 0.28 0.77 0.62 0.09 0.77 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.77 0.77 Uniform Del: 53.6 35.9 27.9 63.2 41.0 24.1 60.4 52.4 0.0 45.7 43.2 43.2 IncremntDel: 2.1 1.6 0.2 13.6 0.7 0.1 9.9 1.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 3.2 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: 0.86 0.54 0.54 0.94 0.70 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.3 21.2 15.4 73.3 29.3 12.3 70.3 53.4 0.0 46.6 46.3 46.3 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: 48.3 21.2 15.4 73.3 29.3 12.3 70.3 53.4 0.0 46.6 46.3 46.3 LOS by Move: D C+ B E C B E D-A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 19 4 7 12 1 8 7 0 8 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:144 1492 386*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 167 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 192 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 700*** 2 Critical V/C:0.865 1 504 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):54.9 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):37.3 2 328*** LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:472 1370 665*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 343 328 501 192 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: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 698 343 328 501 192 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 700 343 328 504 192 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 700 0 328 504 192 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 700 0 328 504 192 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 472 1370 665 386 1492 144 167 700 0 328 504 192 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.43 0.57 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2679 1020 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.26 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 29.6 61.5 61.5 19.8 51.7 62.0 10.3 29.8 0.0 16.9 36.4 36.4 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.55 0.87 0.87 0.71 0.19 0.72 0.87 0.00 0.87 0.72 0.72 Uniform Del: 51.2 29.0 35.5 58.8 37.7 23.7 63.5 53.2 0.0 60.5 47.2 47.2 IncremntDel: 3.5 0.3 10.1 16.0 1.1 0.1 10.8 9.6 0.0 18.3 2.7 2.7 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: 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.89 0.61 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.6 14.1 27.0 68.3 24.1 11.3 74.2 62.8 0.0 78.8 50.0 50.0 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: 45.6 14.1 27.0 68.3 24.1 11.3 74.2 62.8 0.0 78.8 50.0 50.0 LOS by Move: D B C E C B+ E E A E-D D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 9 25 12 15 2 6 17 0 9 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:72 807 161*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 164 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 97 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 500 2 Critical V/C:0.730 1 731 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):44.3 0 292*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.7 2 564*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:296 1000***477 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 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 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 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: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 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: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3266 433 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.26 0.27 0.05 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.5 45.0 75.7 8.7 37.3 54.8 17.5 28.6 28.6 30.6 41.7 41.7 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.73 0.45 0.73 0.71 0.09 0.67 0.58 0.73 0.73 0.67 0.67 Uniform Del: 52.0 34.7 13.4 57.0 39.1 20.6 51.0 42.8 44.7 43.4 35.7 35.7 IncremntDel: 5.7 2.0 0.3 11.7 2.1 0.1 7.0 1.0 6.7 3.6 1.4 1.4 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: 57.7 36.7 13.7 68.7 41.2 20.6 58.1 43.8 51.4 46.9 37.2 37.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.7 36.7 13.7 68.7 41.2 20.6 58.1 43.8 51.4 46.9 37.2 37.2 LOS by Move: E+ D+ B E D C+ E+ D D-D D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 7 16 10 4 14 2 6 8 11 11 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:104 1086***138 Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 120 1 Cycle Time (sec):135 0 134 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 862*** 2 Critical V/C:0.854 1 731 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):56.1 0 285 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):46.2 2 480*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:356***840 505 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 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: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 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: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 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: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3126 573 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.22 0.29 0.04 0.29 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.9 51.1 75.2 12.0 45.2 58.8 13.6 35.9 35.9 24.1 46.4 46.4 Volume/Cap: 0.85 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.85 0.14 0.68 0.85 0.61 0.85 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 57.3 33.5 18.6 58.6 41.8 22.9 58.6 47.1 43.5 53.7 38.0 38.0 IncremntDel: 15.6 0.6 0.5 1.4 5.8 0.1 10.4 7.2 2.4 12.1 1.5 1.5 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: 72.9 34.1 19.1 60.0 47.7 23.0 69.0 54.3 45.9 65.9 39.5 39.5 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: 72.9 34.1 19.1 60.0 47.7 23.0 69.0 54.3 45.9 65.9 39.5 39.5 LOS by Move: E C-B-E+ D C+ E D-D E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 9 13 14 3 21 3 5 17 11 12 15 15 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:72 821 161*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 164 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 97 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 500 2 Critical V/C:0.737 1 731 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):44.5 0 295*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.8 2 570*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:298 1010***482 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 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 1000 477 161 807 72 164 500 292 564 731 97 Added Vol: 2 10 5 0 14 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 298 1010 482 161 821 72 164 500 295 570 731 97 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: 298 1010 482 161 821 72 164 500 295 570 731 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 298 1010 482 161 821 72 164 500 295 570 731 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 298 1010 482 161 821 72 164 500 295 570 731 97 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3266 433 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.28 0.05 0.22 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.4 45.1 75.8 8.7 37.4 54.9 17.5 28.6 28.6 30.7 41.8 41.8 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.74 0.45 0.74 0.72 0.09 0.67 0.58 0.74 0.74 0.67 0.67 Uniform Del: 52.1 34.8 13.4 57.0 39.2 20.5 51.0 42.8 44.7 43.4 35.7 35.7 IncremntDel: 6.2 2.1 0.3 12.4 2.3 0.1 7.0 1.0 7.1 3.7 1.4 1.4 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: 58.3 37.0 13.7 69.4 41.5 20.6 58.0 43.8 51.8 47.2 37.1 37.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 58.3 37.0 13.7 69.4 41.5 20.6 58.0 43.8 51.8 47.2 37.1 37.1 LOS by Move: E+ D+ B E D C+ E+ D D-D D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 7 17 10 4 14 2 6 8 11 11 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:104 1095***138 Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 120 1 Cycle Time (sec):135 0 134 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 862*** 2 Critical V/C:0.859 1 731 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):56.5 0 287 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):46.4 2 484*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:359***853 512 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 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: 356 840 505 138 1086 104 120 862 285 480 731 134 Added Vol: 3 13 7 0 9 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 359 853 512 138 1095 104 120 862 287 484 731 134 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: 359 853 512 138 1095 104 120 862 287 484 731 134 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 359 853 512 138 1095 104 120 862 287 484 731 134 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 359 853 512 138 1095 104 120 862 287 484 731 134 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3126 573 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.22 0.29 0.04 0.29 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.9 51.3 75.5 11.9 45.3 58.8 13.6 35.7 35.7 24.1 46.2 46.2 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.59 0.52 0.50 0.86 0.14 0.68 0.86 0.62 0.86 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 57.3 33.4 18.5 58.7 41.9 22.8 58.6 47.3 43.7 53.8 38.1 38.1 IncremntDel: 16.2 0.7 0.5 1.4 6.1 0.1 10.5 7.6 2.6 12.6 1.5 1.5 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: 73.5 34.1 19.1 60.1 48.0 22.9 69.2 54.8 46.3 66.3 39.6 39.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.5 34.1 19.1 60.1 48.0 22.9 69.2 54.8 46.3 66.3 39.6 39.6 LOS by Move: E C-B-E D C+ E D-D E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 9 14 14 3 21 3 5 17 11 12 15 15 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:585 1311 144*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 254*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):170 1 287 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 307 2 Critical V/C:0.730 2 830*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):83.0 0 122 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):72.3 2 347 LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:251 1945***205 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 251 2431 205 144 1660 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 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: 251 2431 205 144 1660 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 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: 251 2431 205 144 1660 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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 1945 205 144 1311 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 251 1945 205 144 1311 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 251 1945 205 144 1311 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.34 0.12 0.05 0.23 0.33 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.4 72.7 95.6 25.4 82.8 105.6 22.8 38.9 54.3 22.8 38.9 64.3 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.80 0.21 0.31 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.35 0.22 0.82 0.95 0.43 Uniform Del: 90.4 49.9 21.8 76.2 34.4 21.7 81.9 65.0 50.1 84.6 76.5 46.5 IncremntDel: 25.8 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 2.4 0.2 0.2 12.0 20.2 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 122.2 76.8 40.6 85.5 56.2 45.9 84.3 65.3 50.3 96.7 96.7 47.0 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: 122.2 76.8 40.6 85.5 56.2 45.9 84.3 65.3 50.3 96.7 96.7 47.0 LOS by Move: F E-D F E+ D F E D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 38 11 5 23 33 9 7 6 14 29 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:484 2677 334*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 463*** 2 CycleTime (sec):190 1 143 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 771 2 Critical V/C:0.697 2 460*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):86.7 0 302 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):82.1 2 312 LOS:F Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:125 1604***358 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 125 2005 358 334 3389 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 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: 125 2005 358 334 3389 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 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: 125 2005 358 334 3389 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 125 1604 358 334 2677 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 125 1604 358 334 2677 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 125 1604 358 334 2677 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.28 0.20 0.11 0.47 0.28 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.2 81.3 106.8 28.4 92.5 118.0 25.5 43.5 60.6 25.5 43.5 71.8 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.66 0.36 0.71 0.96 0.45 1.09 0.89 0.54 0.74 0.53 0.22 Uniform Del: 86.6 45.8 24.2 81.4 49.9 19.9 87.0 75.0 56.3 83.6 68.0 42.3 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.7 0.2 5.0 10.2 0.3 71.6 10.9 1.1 6.7 0.6 0.2 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 93.4 69.3 45.2 95.9 91.7 42.0 158.6 85.9 57.4 90.3 68.6 42.5 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: 93.4 69.3 45.2 95.9 91.7 42.0 158.6 85.9 57.4 90.3 68.6 42.5 LOS by Move: F E D F F D F F E+ F E D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 30 19 13 58 26 20 23 15 12 12 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:588 1311 144*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 256*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):170 1 287 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 309 2 Critical V/C:0.731 2 833*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):83.2 0 123 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):72.4 2 347 LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:251 1945***205 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 251 2431 205 144 1660 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 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: 251 2431 205 144 1660 585 254 307 122 347 830 287 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 251 2431 205 144 1660 588 256 309 123 347 833 287 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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 1945 205 144 1311 588 256 309 123 347 833 287 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 251 1945 205 144 1311 588 256 309 123 347 833 287 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 251 1945 205 144 1311 588 256 309 123 347 833 287 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.34 0.12 0.05 0.23 0.34 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.4 72.7 95.6 25.4 82.8 105.6 22.8 38.9 54.3 22.8 38.9 64.3 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.80 0.21 0.31 0.47 0.54 0.61 0.36 0.22 0.82 0.96 0.43 Uniform Del: 90.4 49.9 21.8 76.2 34.4 21.7 82.0 65.1 50.1 84.6 76.5 46.5 IncremntDel: 25.8 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 2.5 0.3 0.2 12.0 20.9 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 122.2 76.8 40.6 85.5 56.2 46.0 84.5 65.3 50.3 96.7 97.4 47.0 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: 122.2 76.8 40.6 85.5 56.2 46.0 84.5 65.3 50.3 96.7 97.4 47.0 LOS by Move: F E-D F E+ D F E D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 38 11 5 23 33 9 8 6 14 29 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:486 2677 334*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 466*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):190 1 143 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 774 2 Critical V/C:0.699 2 462*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):87.2 0 304 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):82.3 2 312 LOS:F Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:125 1604***358 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 125 2005 358 334 3389 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 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: 125 2005 358 334 3389 484 463 771 302 312 460 143 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 125 2005 358 334 3389 486 466 774 304 312 462 143 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 125 1604 358 334 2677 486 466 774 304 312 462 143 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 125 1604 358 334 2677 486 466 774 304 312 462 143 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 125 1604 358 334 2677 486 466 774 304 312 462 143 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.28 0.20 0.11 0.47 0.28 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.2 81.3 106.8 28.4 92.5 118.0 25.5 43.5 60.6 25.5 43.5 71.8 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.66 0.36 0.71 0.96 0.45 1.10 0.89 0.54 0.74 0.53 0.22 Uniform Del: 86.6 45.8 24.2 81.4 49.9 20.0 87.0 75.1 56.4 83.6 68.0 42.3 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.7 0.2 5.0 10.2 0.3 74.1 11.2 1.1 6.7 0.6 0.2 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 93.4 69.3 45.2 95.9 91.7 42.1 161.1 86.3 57.5 90.3 68.7 42.5 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: 93.4 69.3 45.2 95.9 91.7 42.1 161.1 86.3 57.5 90.3 68.7 42.5 LOS by Move: F E D F F D F F E+ F E D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 30 19 13 58 27 20 23 16 12 12 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:2 1186 455*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 24 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.609 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):26.1 0 2*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):19.4 3 86*** LOS:B- Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0 1769 1267*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 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 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 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 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5591 9 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.40 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 60.6 70.6 27.4 88.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 37.4 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.61 0.68 0.63 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.04 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.3 17.0 41.7 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.4 0.0 28.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 21.7 18.1 43.6 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.8 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 21.7 18.1 43.6 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.8 LOS by Move: A C+ B-D A A A A D D-A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 15 19 9 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:15 1733***78 Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 327 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.604 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):28.2 0 20*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):27.8 3 1000*** LOS:C Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0***1258 205 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 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 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 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 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5552 48 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 45.5 86.0 12.0 57.5 57.5 0.0 0.0 10.0 40.5 0.0 52.5 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.58 0.09 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.65 0.00 0.43 Uniform Del: 0.0 29.7 5.2 49.8 23.7 23.7 0.0 0.0 51.0 33.8 0.0 23.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 30.1 5.2 50.2 24.2 24.2 0.0 0.0 51.4 34.8 0.0 23.7 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: 0.0 30.1 5.2 50.2 24.2 24.2 0.0 0.0 51.4 34.8 0.0 23.7 LOS by Move: A C A D C C A A D-C-A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 1 1 16 16 0 0 1 14 0 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:24 1186 455*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 24 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.609 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):26.1 0 2*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):19.4 3 86*** LOS:B- Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0 1786 1267*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 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 1769 1267 455 1186 2 0 0 2 86 0 24 Added Vol: 0 17 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1786 1267 455 1186 24 0 0 2 86 0 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1786 1267 455 1186 24 0 0 2 86 0 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1786 1267 455 1186 24 0 0 2 86 0 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1786 1267 455 1186 24 0 0 2 86 0 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5489 111 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.40 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 60.6 70.6 27.4 88.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 37.4 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.62 0.68 0.63 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.04 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.4 17.0 41.7 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.4 0.0 28.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 21.9 18.1 43.6 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.8 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 21.9 18.1 43.6 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.8 LOS by Move: A C+ B-D A A A A D D-A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 15 19 9 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:29 1733***78 Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 327 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.606 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):28.3 0 20*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):27.8 3 1000*** LOS:C Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0***1281 205 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 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 1258 205 78 1733 15 0 0 20 1000 0 327 Added Vol: 0 23 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1281 205 78 1733 29 0 0 20 1000 0 327 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1281 205 78 1733 29 0 0 20 1000 0 327 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1281 205 78 1733 29 0 0 20 1000 0 327 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1281 205 78 1733 29 0 0 20 1000 0 327 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5508 92 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 45.8 86.1 11.9 57.7 57.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 40.3 0.0 52.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.59 0.09 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.65 0.00 0.43 Uniform Del: 0.0 29.6 5.1 49.9 23.6 23.6 0.0 0.0 51.0 33.9 0.0 23.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 30.0 5.1 50.4 24.2 24.2 0.0 0.0 51.4 35.0 0.0 24.0 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 30.0 5.1 50.4 24.2 24.2 0.0 0.0 51.4 35.0 0.0 24.0 LOS by Move: A C A D C C A A D-C-A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 1 1 16 16 0 0 1 14 0 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:30 1224 44*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 44 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 131 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 3*** 0 Critical V/C:0.591 0 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):25.8 0 136 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):26.6 1 224*** LOS:C Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:89 2795***65 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 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: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 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: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 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: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.88 0.12 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.03 0.97 Final Sat.: 3150 9186 214 1750 5466 134 1750 39 1761 1750 53 1747 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 14.1 63.3 63.3 7.0 56.2 56.2 17.6 16.1 16.1 26.6 25.1 25.1 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.60 0.60 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 50.7 21.9 21.9 57.1 24.4 24.4 47.3 51.4 51.4 44.4 43.1 43.1 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 4.4 4.4 2.7 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: 51.0 22.1 22.1 60.4 24.5 24.5 47.7 55.8 55.8 47.1 43.8 43.8 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: 51.0 22.1 22.1 60.4 24.5 24.5 47.7 55.8 55.8 47.1 43.8 43.8 LOS by Move: D-C+ C+ E C C D E+ E+ D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 2 16 16 2 11 11 2 6 6 9 5 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:33 2574***131 Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 35 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 80 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 2*** 0 Critical V/C:0.716 0 2 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):22.0 0 108 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):22.4 1 125*** LOS:C+ Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:156***1358 216 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 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: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 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: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 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: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.28 0.72 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.02 0.98 Final Sat.: 3150 8108 1290 1750 5529 71 1750 33 1767 1750 44 1756 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 8.6 62.1 62.1 27.8 81.2 81.2 9.5 10.7 10.7 12.5 13.6 13.6 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.72 0.72 0.26 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.42 0.42 Uniform Del: 57.0 19.0 19.0 40.9 14.3 14.3 54.4 55.7 55.7 54.6 52.0 52.0 IncremntDel: 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.1 14.9 14.9 13.3 1.4 1.4 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: 67.8 19.0 19.0 41.4 15.0 15.0 55.5 70.6 70.6 67.8 53.5 53.5 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: 67.8 19.0 19.0 41.4 15.0 15.0 55.5 70.6 70.6 67.8 53.5 53.5 LOS by Move: E B-B-D B B E+ E E E D-D- HCM2kAvgQ: 5 7 7 4 22 22 2 6 6 7 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:30 1224 44*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 61 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 131 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 3*** 0 Critical V/C:0.606 0 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):27.0 0 159 0 AvgDelay (sec/veh):27.9 1 224*** LOS:C Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:123 2795***65 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 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: 89 2795 65 44 1224 30 44 3 136 224 4 131 Added Vol: 34 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 123 2795 65 44 1224 30 61 3 159 224 4 131 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: 123 2795 65 44 1224 30 61 3 159 224 4 131 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 2795 65 44 1224 30 61 3 159 224 4 131 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 123 2795 65 44 1224 30 61 3 159 224 4 131 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.88 0.12 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.03 0.97 Final Sat.: 3150 9186 214 1750 5466 134 1750 33 1767 1750 53 1747 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.8 61.8 61.8 7.0 55.0 55.0 18.2 18.3 18.3 26.0 26.0 26.0 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.62 0.62 0.45 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.36 0.36 Uniform Del: 51.5 23.0 23.0 57.1 25.3 25.3 47.3 50.1 50.1 45.0 42.4 42.4 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.3 0.3 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 4.3 4.3 3.2 0.6 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: 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: 52.1 23.2 23.2 60.4 25.4 25.4 47.7 54.4 54.4 48.1 43.0 43.0 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: 52.1 23.2 23.2 60.4 25.4 25.4 47.7 54.4 54.4 48.1 43.0 43.0 LOS by Move: D-C C E C C D D-D-D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 3 16 16 2 11 11 2 7 7 9 5 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:33 2574***131 Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 58 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 80 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 2*** 0 Critical V/C:0.743 0 2 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.7 0 138 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):24.5 1 125*** LOS:C Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:178***1358 216 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 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: 156 1358 216 131 2574 33 35 2 108 125 2 80 Added Vol: 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 30 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 178 1358 216 131 2574 33 58 2 138 125 2 80 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: 178 1358 216 131 2574 33 58 2 138 125 2 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 178 1358 216 131 2574 33 58 2 138 125 2 80 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 178 1358 216 131 2574 33 58 2 138 125 2 80 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.28 0.72 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.02 0.98 Final Sat.: 3150 8108 1290 1750 5529 71 1750 26 1774 1750 44 1756 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 9.5 60.7 60.7 27.1 78.4 78.4 10.3 13.1 13.1 12.0 14.8 14.8 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.74 0.74 0.40 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.39 0.39 Uniform Del: 56.5 19.8 19.8 41.4 16.3 16.3 54.4 54.3 54.3 55.0 50.9 50.9 IncremntDel: 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.8 14.7 14.7 16.2 1.2 1.2 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: 68.3 19.9 19.9 41.9 17.2 17.2 56.2 69.0 69.0 71.2 52.1 52.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 68.3 19.9 19.9 41.9 17.2 17.2 56.2 69.0 69.0 71.2 52.1 52.1 LOS by Move: E B-B-D B B E+ E E E D-D- HCM2kAvgQ: 6 7 7 4 23 23 3 7 7 7 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1006 0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):65 2 905*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.782 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):10.8 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):9.9 2 497 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 2163***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 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 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 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 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 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 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 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 FinalVolume: 0 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 23.9 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.78 Uniform Del: 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 18.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.5 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: 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 21.8 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 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 21.8 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1445***0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):55 2 523 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.657 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):6.5 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):6.9 2 534*** LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 953 0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 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: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 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: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 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: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 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 FinalVolume: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.64 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 18.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 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 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 19.9 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: 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 19.9 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A C+ A B- HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1023 0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):65 2 919*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.791 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.1 2 497 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 2183***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 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 2163 0 0 1006 0 0 0 0 497 0 905 Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2183 0 0 1023 0 0 0 0 497 0 919 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 2183 0 0 1023 0 0 0 0 497 0 919 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 2183 0 0 1023 0 0 0 0 497 0 919 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 FinalVolume: 0 2183 0 0 1023 0 0 0 0 497 0 919 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.79 Uniform Del: 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 18.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.8 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 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 22.0 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 6.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 22.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1467***0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):55 2 532 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.664 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):6.5 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):6.9 2 534*** LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 966 0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 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: 0 953 0 0 1445 0 0 0 0 534 0 523 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 966 0 0 1467 0 0 0 0 534 0 532 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: 0 966 0 0 1467 0 0 0 0 534 0 532 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 966 0 0 1467 0 0 0 0 534 0 532 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 FinalVolume: 0 966 0 0 1467 0 0 0 0 534 0 532 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 14.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.66 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 18.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1 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: 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.4 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A C+ A C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1038 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 1192*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):60 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.883 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):22.5 0 573 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.4 0 0 LOS:B- Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1413***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 0 0 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: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 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 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 15.8 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.2 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: 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 22.9 0.0 12.2 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 22.1 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 22.9 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A C+ A A B+ A C+ A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 0 0 2 0 16 0 5 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1300 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 283 2 Cycle Time (sec):55 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.524 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):9.3 0 363*** 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):8.3 0 0 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1227***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 0 0 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: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 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 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 33.9 0.0 12.1 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.4 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 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: 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.8 0.0 19.6 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 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.8 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B-A B-A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1045 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 1200*** 2 Cycle Time(sec):60 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.889 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):23.0 0 573 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):18.8 0 0 LOS:B- Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1424***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1413 0 0 1038 0 1192 0 573 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1424 0 0 1045 0 1200 0 573 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 1424 0 0 1045 0 1200 0 573 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1424 0 0 1045 0 1200 0 573 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1424 0 0 1045 0 1200 0 573 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 15.8 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.2 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: 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 12.2 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 22.6 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A C+ A A B+ A C A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 2 0 17 0 5 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1309 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 288 2 Cycle Time (sec):55 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.526 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):9.3 0 363*** 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):8.3 0 0 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1234***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1227 0 0 1300 0 283 0 363 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1234 0 0 1309 0 288 0 363 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 1234 0 0 1309 0 288 0 363 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1234 0 0 1309 0 288 0 363 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1234 0 0 1309 0 288 0 363 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 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 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: 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.7 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 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B-A B-A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:17 951 467*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 16*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):120 2 187 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 2 1 Critical V/C:0.537 0 5 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):27.9 1 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):24.4 1 80*** LOS:C Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:23 1600***89 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 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: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 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: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 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: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.84 0.16 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5305 295 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3341 209 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 22.8 59.0 59.0 29.0 65.2 75.2 10.0 10.0 32.8 10.0 10.0 39.0 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.31 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.18 Uniform Del: 39.9 22.2 22.2 40.5 15.0 8.4 50.9 50.5 31.7 51.7 51.7 29.1 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.0 22.6 22.6 42.0 15.1 8.4 51.2 50.5 31.7 52.2 52.2 29.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.0 22.6 22.6 42.0 15.1 8.4 51.2 50.5 31.7 52.2 52.2 29.1 LOS by Move: D C+ C+ D B A D-D C D-D-C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 15 15 9 6 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:24 1660***399 Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 23*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):115 2 586 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 10 1 Critical V/C:0.400 0 3*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.4 1 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.7 1 139 LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:24***1050 92 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 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: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 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: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 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: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5148 451 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3475 75 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 48.4 48.4 30.1 71.4 81.4 10.0 10.0 17.0 14.6 14.6 44.6 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.48 Uniform Del: 51.4 24.2 24.2 35.9 11.6 5.0 48.6 48.2 41.8 45.7 45.7 26.5 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 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: 52.5 24.4 24.4 36.4 11.7 5.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 46.1 46.1 26.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.5 24.4 24.4 36.4 11.7 5.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 46.1 46.1 26.8 LOS by Move: D-C C D+ B+ A D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 10 7 10 0 1 0 0 3 3 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:17 958 467*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 16*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):120 2 187 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 2 1 Critical V/C:0.539 0 5 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):27.9 1 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):24.4 1 80*** LOS:C Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:23 1611***89 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 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: 23 1600 89 467 951 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 23 1611 89 467 958 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 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: 23 1611 89 467 958 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 1611 89 467 958 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 23 1611 89 467 958 17 16 2 1 80 5 187 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.84 0.16 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5306 293 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3341 209 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 22.7 59.1 59.1 28.9 65.3 75.3 10.0 10.0 32.7 10.0 10.0 38.9 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.31 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.18 Uniform Del: 40.0 22.2 22.2 40.6 15.0 8.4 50.9 50.5 31.8 51.7 51.7 29.2 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.1 22.6 22.6 42.2 15.0 8.4 51.2 50.5 31.8 52.2 52.2 29.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.1 22.6 22.6 42.2 15.0 8.4 51.2 50.5 31.8 52.2 52.2 29.2 LOS by Move: D C+ C+ D B A D-D C D-D-C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 15 15 9 6 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:24 1669***399 Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 23*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):115 2 586 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 10 1 Critical V/C:0.402 0 3*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.4 1 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.7 1 139 LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:24***1057 92 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 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: 24 1050 92 399 1660 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 24 1057 92 399 1669 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 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: 24 1057 92 399 1669 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 1057 92 399 1669 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 24 1057 92 399 1669 24 23 10 2 139 3 586 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5151 448 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3475 75 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 48.5 48.5 30.0 71.5 81.5 10.0 10.0 17.0 14.5 14.5 44.5 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.48 Uniform Del: 51.4 24.2 24.2 36.0 11.6 4.9 48.6 48.2 41.8 45.7 45.7 26.6 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 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: 52.5 24.3 24.3 36.5 11.7 5.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 46.2 46.2 26.9 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: 52.5 24.3 24.3 36.5 11.7 5.0 49.0 48.3 41.8 46.2 46.2 26.9 LOS by Move: D-C C D+ B+ A D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 10 7 10 0 1 0 0 3 3 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 265 193*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 453*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):120 0 243 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 609 3 Critical V/C:0.675 2 691*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):42.7 0 88 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.8 2 64 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:191 916***130 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 191 916 130 193 265 505 453 609 88 64 691 243 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: 191 916 130 193 265 505 453 609 88 64 691 243 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: 191 916 130 193 265 505 453 609 88 64 691 243 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 191 916 130 193 265 0 453 609 88 64 691 243 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 191 916 130 193 265 0 453 609 88 64 691 243 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 191 916 130 193 265 0 453 609 88 64 691 243 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.19 0.81 Final Sat.: 1750 4903 696 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4141 1456 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 29.9 33.2 33.2 19.6 22.9 0.0 25.6 35.7 35.7 19.5 29.7 29.7 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.37 0.00 0.68 0.36 0.17 0.13 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 37.9 38.6 38.6 47.2 42.3 0.0 43.4 33.1 31.2 43.0 40.8 40.8 IncremntDel: 0.7 1.2 1.2 6.3 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.6 39.8 39.8 53.5 42.6 0.0 46.2 33.3 31.3 43.1 42.2 42.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.6 39.8 39.8 53.5 42.6 0.0 46.2 33.3 31.3 43.1 42.2 42.2 LOS by Move: D+ D D D-D A D C-C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 12 12 7 4 0 10 5 2 1 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 919***331 Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 557*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):124 0 222 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 1378 3 Critical V/C:0.714 2 681*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):44.0 0 298 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.7 2 195 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:114***261 55 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 114 261 55 331 919 487 557 1378 298 195 681 222 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: 114 261 55 331 919 487 557 1378 298 195 681 222 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: 114 261 55 331 919 487 557 1378 298 195 681 222 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 261 55 331 919 0 557 1378 298 195 681 222 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 261 55 331 919 0 557 1378 298 195 681 222 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 261 55 331 919 0 557 1378 298 195 681 222 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.46 0.54 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.24 0.76 Final Sat.: 1750 4624 974 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4221 1376 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.3 15.9 15.9 37.4 42.0 0.0 30.7 46.7 46.7 12.0 28.0 28.0 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.64 0.45 0.64 0.71 0.71 Uniform Del: 54.8 49.9 49.9 37.3 35.8 0.0 42.6 31.7 29.0 53.9 44.3 44.3 IncremntDel: 14.2 0.4 0.4 2.4 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.5 4.6 2.0 2.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.0 50.3 50.3 39.7 37.7 0.0 45.8 32.4 29.5 58.5 46.3 46.3 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: 69.0 50.3 50.3 39.7 37.7 0.0 45.8 32.4 29.5 58.5 46.3 46.3 LOS by Move: E D D D D+ A D C-C E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 4 4 11 14 0 12 12 7 5 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project AM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 266 197*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 456*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):120 0 250 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 609 3 Critical V/C:0.680 2 691*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):42.9 0 88 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.9 2 64 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:191 917***130 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 191 916 130 193 265 505 453 609 88 64 691 243 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: 191 916 130 193 265 505 453 609 88 64 691 243 Added Vol: 0 1 0 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 191 917 130 197 266 507 456 609 88 64 691 250 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 191 917 130 197 266 0 456 609 88 64 691 250 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 191 917 130 197 266 0 456 609 88 64 691 250 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 191 917 130 197 266 0 456 609 88 64 691 250 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.17 0.83 Final Sat.: 1750 4904 695 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4110 1487 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.0 33.0 33.0 19.9 22.9 0.0 25.5 35.7 35.7 19.5 29.6 29.6 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.37 0.00 0.68 0.36 0.17 0.13 0.68 0.68 Uniform Del: 37.9 38.8 38.8 47.1 42.3 0.0 43.5 33.2 31.2 43.0 40.9 40.9 IncremntDel: 0.7 1.3 1.3 6.4 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 1.4 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.6 40.1 40.1 53.5 42.6 0.0 46.3 33.3 31.3 43.1 42.3 42.3 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: 38.6 40.1 40.1 53.5 42.6 0.0 46.3 33.3 31.3 43.1 42.3 42.3 LOS by Move: D+ D D D-D A D C-C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 12 12 7 4 0 10 5 2 1 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background Plus Project PM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 920***337 Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 559*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):124 0 227 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 1378 3 Critical V/C:0.716 2 681*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):44.1 0 298 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):40.7 2 195 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:114***262 55 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 114 261 55 331 919 487 557 1378 298 195 681 222 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: 114 261 55 331 919 487 557 1378 298 195 681 222 Added Vol: 0 1 0 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 262 55 337 920 490 559 1378 298 195 681 227 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 262 55 337 920 0 559 1378 298 195 681 227 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 262 55 337 920 0 559 1378 298 195 681 227 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 262 55 337 920 0 559 1378 298 195 681 227 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.46 0.54 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.22 0.78 Final Sat.: 1750 4627 971 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4198 1399 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.3 15.7 15.7 37.5 41.9 0.0 30.7 46.8 46.8 12.0 28.1 28.1 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.45 0.45 0.64 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.64 0.45 0.64 0.72 0.72 Uniform Del: 54.8 50.1 50.1 37.4 35.8 0.0 42.7 31.7 28.9 53.9 44.3 44.3 IncremntDel: 14.4 0.5 0.5 2.6 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.5 4.5 2.0 2.0 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.2 50.6 50.6 40.0 37.8 0.0 45.8 32.3 29.4 58.5 46.3 46.3 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: 69.2 50.6 50.6 40.0 37.8 0.0 45.8 32.3 29.4 58.5 46.3 46.3 LOS by Move: E D D D D+ A D C-C E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 4 4 11 14 0 12 12 7 5 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)Future Growth AM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:72 578 76*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=ProtectFinal Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 75*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):205 1 282 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 334 3 Critical V/C:0.653 3 962*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):51.4 0 274 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):55.9 2 405 LOS:E+ Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:337 1367***38 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 335 1365 38 76 575 72 75 334 271 397 962 282 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: 335 1365 38 76 575 72 75 334 271 397 962 282 Added Vol: 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 337 1367 38 76 578 72 75 334 274 405 962 282 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: 337 1367 38 76 578 72 75 334 274 405 962 282 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 337 1367 38 76 578 72 75 334 274 405 962 282 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 337 1367 38 76 578 72 75 334 274 405 962 282 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.36 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 65.0 113 112.9 13.6 61.6 75.0 13.5 20.8 85.8 45.6 53.0 66.6 Volume/Cap: 0.34 0.65 0.04 0.65 0.34 0.11 0.65 0.58 0.37 0.58 0.65 0.50 Uniform Del: 53.5 32.3 21.1 93.4 55.8 43.0 93.5 87.9 41.1 71.1 67.8 55.7 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.7 0.0 12.5 0.1 0.1 12.7 1.5 0.3 1.2 1.1 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 53.8 33.0 21.2 105.9 55.9 43.0 106.2 89.4 41.4 72.3 68.9 56.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.8 33.0 21.2 105.9 55.9 43.0 106.2 89.4 41.4 72.3 68.9 56.4 LOS by Move: D-C-C+ F E+ D F F D E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 9 28 1 6 9 3 6 7 12 14 18 15 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #1: Wolfe Rd/El Camino Real (SR 82) Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:48 1096***129 Lanes:1 0 3 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 96 1 Cycle Time (sec):150 1 126 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 1333*** 3 Critical V/C:0.670 3 790 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):48.9 0 426 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):44.6 2 342*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:256***524 247 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road El Camino Real Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 253 521 247 129 1094 48 96 1333 424 337 790 126 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: 253 521 247 129 1094 48 96 1333 424 337 790 126 Added Vol: 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 256 524 247 129 1096 48 96 1333 426 342 790 126 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: 256 524 247 129 1096 48 96 1333 426 342 790 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 256 524 247 129 1096 48 96 1333 426 342 790 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 256 524 247 129 1096 48 96 1333 426 342 790 126 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.14 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 18.2 40.3 40.3 21.0 43.1 64.8 21.8 52.4 70.6 24.3 55.0 76.0 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.67 0.06 0.38 0.67 0.52 0.67 0.38 0.14 Uniform Del: 63.0 46.6 46.7 59.9 47.2 24.9 58.0 41.5 27.8 59.1 35.0 19.7 IncremntDel: 4.5 0.5 1.1 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 3.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 67.6 47.0 47.8 62.0 48.3 24.9 59.0 42.3 28.4 62.5 35.1 19.8 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: 67.6 47.0 47.8 62.0 48.3 24.9 59.0 42.3 28.4 62.5 35.1 19.8 LOS by Move: E D D E D C E+ D C E D+ B- HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 10 6 15 1 5 18 15 10 9 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:434 836 32*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 389*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):195 0 144 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 238 2 Critical V/C:0.852 0 50*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):72.0 0 201 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):54.6 1 12 LOS:D- Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:113 1199***34 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 113 1195 28 32 822 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 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: 113 1195 28 32 822 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 Added Vol: 0 4 6 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 113 1199 34 32 836 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 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: 113 1199 34 32 836 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 1199 34 32 836 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 113 1199 34 32 836 434 389 238 201 12 50 144 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.94 0.06 0.08 1.92 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 Final Sat.: 3150 3598 102 136 3563 1800 3150 3800 1750 1750 464 1336 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.9 76.3 76.3 53.7 113 113.2 28.3 36.4 53.3 16.5 24.7 24.7 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.40 0.42 0.85 0.34 0.42 0.08 0.85 0.85 Uniform Del: 84.4 54.2 54.2 66.9 22.4 22.6 81.3 68.8 58.2 82.2 83.4 83.4 IncremntDel: 1.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 0.1 0.1 14.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 25.1 25.1 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 85.4 59.2 59.2 71.7 22.5 22.7 95.5 69.1 58.8 82.5 108 108.5 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: 85.4 59.2 59.2 71.7 22.5 22.7 95.5 69.1 58.8 82.5 108 108.5 LOS by Move: F E+ E+ E C+ C+ F E E+ F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 4 35 35 26 14 14 16 6 10 1 14 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #2: Wolfe Rd/Fremont Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:604 1565 53*** Lanes:0 1 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 377 2 Cycle Time (sec):175 0 32 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 441 2 Critical V/C:0.851 0 29 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):55.7 0 374*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):48.8 1 10*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:201 808***55 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Fremont Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 201 803 47 53 1556 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 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: 201 803 47 53 1556 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 Added Vol: 0 5 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 201 808 55 53 1565 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 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: 201 808 55 53 1565 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 201 808 55 53 1565 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 201 808 55 53 1565 604 377 441 374 10 29 32 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 1.87 0.13 0.07 2.10 0.83 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.52 Final Sat.: 3150 3464 236 131 3873 1495 3150 3800 1750 1750 856 944 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.01 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.2 46.2 46.2 80.1 109 109.1 24.8 29.7 46.9 7.0 11.9 11.9 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.65 0.65 0.84 0.68 0.80 0.14 0.50 0.50 Uniform Del: 76.0 61.8 61.8 43.2 20.8 20.8 73.2 68.2 59.6 81.1 78.7 78.7 IncremntDel: 4.8 9.6 9.6 4.1 0.4 0.4 13.6 3.0 9.2 0.9 3.2 3.2 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: 80.7 71.4 71.4 47.3 21.3 21.3 86.8 71.3 68.8 82.0 81.9 81.9 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: 80.7 71.4 71.4 47.3 21.3 21.3 86.8 71.3 68.8 82.0 81.9 81.9 LOS by Move: F E E D C+ C+ F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 6 23 23 38 25 25 14 12 22 1 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1010 74*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):85 0 121*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.610 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):14.2 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.7 0 73 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1377***75 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1367 75 74 996 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 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 1367 75 74 996 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1377 75 74 1010 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1377 75 74 1010 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1377 75 74 1010 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1377 75 74 1010 0 0 0 0 73 0 121 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.62 Final Sat.: 0 3509 191 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 659 0 1091 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 53.8 53.8 7.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.51 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.62 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.4 9.4 37.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 32.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.5 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.9 9.9 40.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 36.0 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 9.9 9.9 40.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 36.0 LOS by Move: A A A D A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 12 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #3: Wolfe Rd/Marion Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:0 1504 301*** Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):84 0 170 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.694 1!0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):24.9 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):16.4 0 72*** LOS:B Lanes:0 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:0 1053***91 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Marion Way 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 10 10 7 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1040 91 301 1495 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 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 1040 91 301 1495 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1053 91 301 1504 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1053 91 301 1504 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1053 91 301 1504 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1053 91 301 1504 0 0 0 0 72 0 170 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.70 Final Sat.: 0 3405 294 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 521 0 1229 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 37.4 37.4 20.8 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 Uniform Del: 0.0 18.7 18.7 28.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 31.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.3 1.3 4.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.9 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: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 20.0 20.0 33.5 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 37.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 20.0 20.0 33.5 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 37.2 LOS by Move: A B-B-C-A A A A A D+ A D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 12 8 10 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:68 998 34*** Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 91 0 Cycle Time (sec):75 1 87 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 65*** 0 Critical V/C:0.513 0 73 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.2 1 56 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):12.6 0 46 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:29 1242***37 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 1232 37 34 984 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 1232 37 34 984 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 29 1242 37 34 998 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 1242 37 34 998 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 1242 37 34 998 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 1242 37 34 998 68 91 65 56 46 73 87 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.87 0.13 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.39 0.61 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3593 107 1750 3464 236 1050 750 1750 696 1104 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 13.3 47.2 47.2 7.0 40.9 40.9 11.8 11.8 25.1 11.8 11.8 18.8 Volume/Cap: 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.21 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.20 Uniform Del: 25.8 7.9 7.9 31.4 10.9 10.9 29.1 29.1 17.2 28.5 28.5 22.1 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.2 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: 26.0 8.2 8.2 32.1 11.1 11.1 31.4 31.4 17.2 29.5 29.5 22.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.0 8.2 8.2 32.1 11.1 11.1 31.4 31.4 17.2 29.5 29.5 22.4 LOS by Move: C A A C-B+ B+ C C B C C C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 1 8 8 4 4 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #4: Wolfe Rd/Inverness Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:151 1298***133 Lanes:0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Permit Signal=Permit Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 90 0 Cycle Time (sec):68 1 77 1 Loss Time (sec):9 0 186*** 0 Critical V/C:0.651 0 88 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.7 1 51 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):15.6 0 31 LOS:B Lanes:1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol:34***972 77 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Inverness Way Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 959 77 133 1289 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 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: 34 959 77 133 1289 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 34 972 77 133 1298 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 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: 34 972 77 133 1298 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 972 77 133 1298 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 34 972 77 133 1298 151 90 186 51 31 88 77 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.79 0.21 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3428 272 1750 3314 386 587 1213 1750 469 1331 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 32.6 32.6 11.8 37.4 37.4 14.6 14.6 21.6 14.6 14.6 26.4 Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.59 0.59 0.44 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.11 Uniform Del: 27.9 12.9 12.9 25.1 11.3 11.3 24.7 24.7 16.3 22.4 22.4 13.3 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.2 6.1 6.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 26.1 12.6 12.6 30.9 30.9 16.4 22.9 22.9 13.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 13.4 13.4 26.1 12.6 12.6 30.9 30.9 16.4 22.9 22.9 13.4 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C C B C+ C+ B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 8 8 3 12 12 7 7 1 2 2 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:69 1135 197*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 282*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 333 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 390 2 Critical V/C:0.797 1 603*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):36.9 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):37.1 2 454 LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:348 1845***207 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 387 319 454 601 333 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: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 387 319 454 601 333 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 390 319 454 603 333 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 390 0 454 603 333 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 390 0 454 603 333 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 348 1845 207 197 1135 69 282 390 0 454 603 333 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.27 0.73 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2383 1316 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.32 0.12 0.06 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.2 56.8 56.8 11.0 43.6 59.3 15.7 25.0 0.0 35.1 44.4 44.4 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.80 0.29 0.80 0.64 0.09 0.80 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.80 0.80 Uniform Del: 53.8 36.5 28.0 63.4 41.4 24.2 60.6 52.6 0.0 45.9 43.7 43.7 IncremntDel: 2.5 2.0 0.2 16.4 0.8 0.1 12.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 3.9 3.9 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: 0.86 0.54 0.54 0.94 0.70 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 48.9 21.9 15.5 76.2 29.7 12.4 72.5 53.8 0.0 46.9 47.6 47.6 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: 48.9 21.9 15.5 76.2 29.7 12.4 72.5 53.8 0.0 46.9 47.6 47.6 LOS by Move: D C+ B E-C B E D-A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 9 20 4 7 12 1 9 8 0 9 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #5: De Anza Blvd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:149 1545 400*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Ignore Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 173 2 Cycle Time (sec):140 0 198 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 725*** 2 Critical V/C:0.896 1 521 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):58.7 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):39.0 2 339*** LOS:D+ Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:489 1419 689*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 723 356 339 518 198 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: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 723 356 339 518 198 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 725 356 339 521 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 725 0 339 521 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 725 0 339 521 198 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 489 1419 689 400 1545 149 173 725 0 339 521 198 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.43 0.57 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 2680 1019 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.25 0.39 0.13 0.27 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 29.6 61.5 61.5 19.8 51.7 62.0 10.3 29.8 0.0 16.8 36.4 36.4 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.57 0.90 0.90 0.73 0.19 0.75 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 51.5 29.3 36.3 59.1 38.2 23.7 63.6 53.6 0.0 60.7 47.6 47.6 IncremntDel: 4.2 0.3 13.1 20.2 1.4 0.1 12.7 12.6 0.0 22.9 3.3 3.3 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: 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.89 0.61 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 46.5 14.3 30.4 72.8 24.6 11.3 76.3 66.2 0.0 83.6 50.9 50.9 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: 46.5 14.3 30.4 72.8 24.6 11.3 76.3 66.2 0.0 83.6 50.9 50.9 LOS by Move: D B C E C B+ E-E A F D D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 10 28 13 17 2 6 18 0 9 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:75 848 166*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 170 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 100 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 516 2 Critical V/C:0.760 1 757 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):45.5 0 303*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):41.6 2 587*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:308 1045***498 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 306 1035 493 166 834 75 170 516 300 581 757 100 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: 306 1035 493 166 834 75 170 516 300 581 757 100 Added Vol: 2 10 5 0 14 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 308 1045 498 166 848 75 170 516 303 587 757 100 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: 308 1045 498 166 848 75 170 516 303 587 757 100 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 308 1045 498 166 848 75 170 516 303 587 757 100 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 308 1045 498 166 848 75 170 516 303 587 757 100 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.76 0.24 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3268 432 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.22 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.4 45.2 75.9 8.7 37.5 54.9 17.5 28.5 28.5 30.6 41.6 41.6 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.76 0.47 0.76 0.74 0.10 0.70 0.60 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 52.3 35.1 13.5 57.1 39.5 20.5 51.2 43.1 45.1 43.8 36.2 36.2 IncremntDel: 7.2 2.5 0.3 14.4 2.7 0.1 8.4 1.1 8.3 4.4 1.8 1.8 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: 59.5 37.6 13.8 71.5 42.2 20.6 59.7 44.3 53.4 48.2 37.9 37.9 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: 59.5 37.6 13.8 71.5 42.2 20.6 59.7 44.3 53.4 48.2 37.9 37.9 LOS by Move: E+ D+ B E D C+ E+ D D-D D+ D+ HCM2kAvgQ: 7 17 11 4 15 2 7 9 12 12 13 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #6: Wolfe Rd/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:108 1132***143 Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 124 1 CycleTime (sec):135 0 138 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 893*** 2 Critical V/C:0.887 1 757 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):59.4 0 296 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):48.1 2 499*** LOS:D Lanes:2 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:369***881 528 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap 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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 366 868 521 143 1123 108 124 893 294 495 757 138 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: 366 868 521 143 1123 108 124 893 294 495 757 138 Added Vol: 3 13 7 0 9 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 369 881 528 143 1132 108 124 893 296 499 757 138 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: 369 881 528 143 1132 108 124 893 296 499 757 138 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 369 881 528 143 1132 108 124 893 296 499 757 138 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 369 881 528 143 1132 108 124 893 296 499 757 138 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 3150 3129 570 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.23 0.30 0.05 0.30 0.06 0.07 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.8 51.6 75.7 11.5 45.3 58.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 24.1 46.3 46.3 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.61 0.54 0.53 0.89 0.14 0.71 0.89 0.64 0.89 0.71 0.71 Uniform Del: 57.6 33.5 18.6 59.1 42.4 22.9 58.8 47.7 43.9 54.1 38.4 38.4 IncremntDel: 20.0 0.7 0.6 2.0 7.9 0.1 12.3 9.7 3.0 15.8 1.8 1.8 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: 77.6 34.3 19.2 61.2 50.3 23.0 71.1 57.4 46.9 69.9 40.3 40.3 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: 77.6 34.3 19.2 61.2 50.3 23.0 71.1 57.4 46.9 69.9 40.3 40.3 LOS by Move: E-C-B-E D C+ E E+ D E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 10 14 14 3 23 3 5 17 11 13 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:608 1353 149*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 264*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):170 1 297 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 320 2 Critical V/C:0.756 2 862*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):86.5 0 127 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):74.6 2 359 LOS:E Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:260 2012***212 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 260 2515 212 149 1713 605 262 318 126 359 859 297 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 2515 212 149 1713 605 262 318 126 359 859 297 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 260 2515 212 149 1713 608 264 320 127 359 862 297 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 260 2012 212 149 1353 608 264 320 127 359 862 297 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 260 2012 212 149 1353 608 264 320 127 359 862 297 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 260 2012 212 149 1353 608 264 320 127 359 862 297 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.35 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.23 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.4 72.7 95.6 25.4 82.8 105.6 22.8 38.9 54.3 22.8 38.9 64.3 Volume/Cap: 0.91 0.82 0.22 0.32 0.49 0.56 0.62 0.37 0.23 0.85 0.99 0.45 Uniform Del: 90.6 50.8 21.9 76.4 34.7 22.1 82.2 65.3 50.2 85.0 77.3 46.8 IncremntDel: 31.8 2.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.7 2.9 0.3 0.2 14.8 28.3 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 128.4 78.6 40.8 85.7 56.8 46.9 85.1 65.5 50.4 99.8 106 47.3 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: 128.4 78.6 40.8 85.7 56.8 46.9 85.1 65.5 50.4 99.8 106 47.3 LOS by Move: F E-D F E+ D F E D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 12 40 11 5 24 34 9 8 6 15 31 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #7: Lawrence Expwy/Homestead Rd Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:501 2769 345*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 480*** 2 CycleTime (sec):190 1 147 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 800 2 Critical V/C:0.721 2 477*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):89.9 0 314 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):86.7 2 323 LOS:F Lanes:2 0 3 0 1 Final Vol:129 1658***370 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Lawrence Expressway 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: 18 86 86 30 97 97 27 46 46 27 46 46 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 2072 370 345 3505 499 477 797 312 323 475 147 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: 129 2072 370 345 3505 499 477 797 312 323 475 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 129 2072 370 345 3505 501 480 800 314 323 477 147 User Adj: 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.79 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: 129 1658 370 345 2769 501 480 800 314 323 477 147 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 129 1658 370 345 2769 501 480 800 314 323 477 147 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 129 1658 370 345 2769 501 480 800 314 323 477 147 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.21 0.11 0.49 0.29 0.15 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.1 81.3 106.8 28.4 92.6 118.1 25.5 43.5 60.6 25.5 43.5 71.8 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.68 0.38 0.73 1.00 0.46 1.13 0.92 0.56 0.76 0.55 0.22 Uniform Del: 86.8 46.4 24.4 81.7 51.4 20.2 87.0 75.7 56.9 83.9 68.3 42.4 IncremntDel: 1.2 0.8 0.2 5.9 16.3 0.3 85.8 14.7 1.3 8.0 0.7 0.2 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: 1.07 1.50 1.86 1.12 1.63 2.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 93.7 70.3 45.6 97.1 100 42.6 172.8 90.4 58.2 91.9 69.1 42.6 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: 93.7 70.3 45.6 97.1 100 42.6 172.8 90.4 58.2 91.9 69.1 42.6 LOS by Move: F E D F F D F F E+ F E D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 31 20 14 62 27 22 24 16 13 13 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:24 1228 465*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 24 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.621 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):26.5 0 2*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):19.6 3 87*** LOS:B- Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0 1847 1292*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1830 1292 465 1228 2 0 0 2 87 0 24 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 1830 1292 465 1228 2 0 0 2 87 0 24 Added Vol: 0 17 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1847 1292 465 1228 24 0 0 2 87 0 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1847 1292 465 1228 24 0 0 2 87 0 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1847 1292 465 1228 24 0 0 2 87 0 24 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1847 1292 465 1228 24 0 0 2 87 0 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5493 107 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.41 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 60.6 70.6 27.4 88.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 37.4 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.64 0.70 0.65 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.04 Uniform Del: 0.0 21.7 17.2 41.9 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.4 0.0 28.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 22.2 18.4 44.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.9 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: 0.0 22.2 18.4 44.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 50.5 51.7 0.0 28.9 LOS by Move: A C+ B-D A A A A D D-A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 16 20 9 5 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #8: Wolfe Rd/Apple Park Wy Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:30 1792***79 Lanes:0 1 2 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):120 1 334 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.623 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):28.6 0 21*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):28.0 3 1018*** LOS:C Lanes:0 0 3 0 2 Final Vol:0***1324 206 Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Street Name: Wolfe Road Apple Park Way 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 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1301 206 79 1792 16 0 0 21 1018 0 334 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 1301 206 79 1792 16 0 0 21 1018 0 334 Added Vol: 0 23 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1324 206 79 1792 30 0 0 21 1018 0 334 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1324 206 79 1792 30 0 0 21 1018 0 334 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1324 206 79 1792 30 0 0 21 1018 0 334 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1324 206 79 1792 30 0 0 21 1018 0 334 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.80 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 3150 3150 5508 92 0 0 1750 4551 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 46.4 86.3 11.7 58.1 58.1 0.0 0.0 10.0 39.9 0.0 51.6 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.60 0.09 0.26 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.67 0.00 0.44 Uniform Del: 0.0 29.4 5.1 50.2 23.7 23.7 0.0 0.0 51.0 34.4 0.0 24.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.4 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 29.9 5.1 50.6 24.4 24.4 0.0 0.0 51.5 35.6 0.0 24.5 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: 0.0 29.9 5.1 50.6 24.4 24.4 0.0 0.0 51.5 35.6 0.0 24.5 LOS by Move: A C A D C C A A D-D+ A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 13 1 2 16 16 0 0 1 14 0 9 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:31 1265 45*** Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 63 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 133 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 3*** 0 Critical V/C:0.621 0 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):27.2 0 164 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):28.0 1 227*** LOS:C Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:126 2875***66 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 92 2875 66 45 1265 31 46 3 141 227 4 133 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: 92 2875 66 45 1265 31 46 3 141 227 4 133 Added Vol: 34 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 23 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 126 2875 66 45 1265 31 63 3 164 227 4 133 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: 126 2875 66 45 1265 31 63 3 164 227 4 133 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 126 2875 66 45 1265 31 63 3 164 227 4 133 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 126 2875 66 45 1265 31 63 3 164 227 4 133 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.88 0.12 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.03 0.97 Final Sat.: 3150 9189 211 1750 5466 134 1750 32 1768 1750 53 1747 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.4 61.9 61.9 7.0 55.5 55.5 18.1 18.4 18.4 25.7 25.9 25.9 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.63 0.63 0.46 0.52 0.52 0.25 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 51.9 23.1 23.1 57.2 25.1 25.1 47.4 50.1 50.1 45.3 42.5 42.5 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.3 0.3 3.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 4.9 4.9 3.6 0.6 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: 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: 52.6 23.4 23.4 60.5 25.3 25.3 47.9 55.0 55.0 48.9 43.1 43.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.6 23.4 23.4 60.5 25.3 25.3 47.9 55.0 55.0 48.9 43.1 43.1 LOS by Move: D-C C E C C D E+ E+ D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 3 17 17 2 12 12 2 7 7 9 5 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #9: Wolfe Rd/Pruneridge Ave Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol:34 2648***132 Lanes:0 1 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 59 1 Cycle Time (sec):125 0 81 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 2*** 0 Critical V/C:0.763 0 2 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):25.4 0 142 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):24.8 1 126*** LOS:C Lanes:2 0 4 1 0 Final Vol:184***1401 218 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Pruneridge Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 162 1401 218 132 2648 34 36 2 112 126 2 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: 162 1401 218 132 2648 34 36 2 112 126 2 81 Added Vol: 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 30 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 184 1401 218 132 2648 34 59 2 142 126 2 81 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: 184 1401 218 132 2648 34 59 2 142 126 2 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 184 1401 218 132 2648 34 59 2 142 126 2 81 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 184 1401 218 132 2648 34 59 2 142 126 2 81 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 4.30 0.70 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.02 0.98 Final Sat.: 3150 8132 1265 1750 5529 71 1750 25 1775 1750 43 1757 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 9.6 61.3 61.3 26.8 78.5 78.5 10.3 13.1 13.1 11.8 14.7 14.7 Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.76 0.76 0.41 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.39 0.39 Uniform Del: 56.6 19.6 19.6 41.7 16.6 16.6 54.5 54.4 54.4 55.2 51.1 51.1 IncremntDel: 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.9 16.6 16.6 18.7 1.2 1.2 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: 70.0 19.7 19.7 42.3 17.6 17.6 56.4 71.1 71.1 73.9 52.3 52.3 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: 70.0 19.7 19.7 42.3 17.6 17.6 56.4 71.1 71.1 73.9 52.3 52.3 LOS by Move: E B-B-D B B E+ E E E D-D- HCM2kAvgQ: 6 8 8 4 25 25 3 7 7 7 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1055 0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):65 2 945*** 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.814 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):11.7 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):10.5 2 515 LOS:B+ Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 2246***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2226 24 0 1038 99 0 0 0 515 0 931 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 2226 24 0 1038 99 0 0 0 515 0 931 Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2246 24 0 1055 99 0 0 0 515 0 945 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 2246 0 0 1055 0 0 0 0 515 0 945 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 2246 0 0 1055 0 0 0 0 515 0 945 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 FinalVolume: 0 2246 0 0 1055 0 0 0 0 515 0 945 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.81 Uniform Del: 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 18.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.5 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: 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 23.0 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 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 23.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A B A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 13 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #10: Wolfe Rd/I-280 NB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1507***0 Lanes:1 0 2 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec):55 2 547 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.684 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):6.7 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh):7.1 2 553*** LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:0 991 0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Northbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 978 108 0 1485 283 0 0 0 553 0 538 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: 0 978 108 0 1485 283 0 0 0 553 0 538 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 991 108 0 1507 283 0 0 0 553 0 547 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: 0 991 0 0 1507 0 0 0 0 553 0 547 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 991 0 0 1507 0 0 0 0 553 0 547 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 FinalVolume: 0 991 0 0 1507 0 0 0 0 553 0 547 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 5600 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 14.1 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 Uniform Del: 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 18.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.3 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 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 20.7 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: 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 20.7 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A C+ A C+ HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1080 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap VolCnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 1232*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):60 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.915 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):25.4 0 589 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):20.3 0 0 LOS:C+ Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1470***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1459 10 0 1073 31 1224 0 589 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1459 10 0 1073 31 1224 0 589 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1470 10 0 1080 31 1232 0 589 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 1470 0 0 1080 0 1232 0 589 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1470 0 0 1080 0 1232 0 589 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1470 0 0 1080 0 1232 0 589 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 25.6 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 16.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.2 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: 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 26.1 0.0 12.3 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 24.9 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 26.1 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A C A A B+ A C A B A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 13 0 0 2 0 18 0 5 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #11: Wolfe Rd/I-280 SB Ramps Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 1351 0 Lanes:1 0 4 0 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 292 2 Cycle Time (sec):55 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec):9 0 0 0 Critical V/C:0.542 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):9.4 0 374*** 2 Avg Delay (sec/veh):8.4 0 0 LOS:A Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 Final Vol:0 1271***0 Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 Southbound Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1264 12 0 1342 203 287 0 374 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 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1264 12 0 1342 203 287 0 374 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1271 12 0 1351 203 292 0 374 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 1271 0 0 1351 0 292 0 374 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1271 0 0 1351 0 292 0 374 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1271 0 0 1351 0 292 0 374 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 7600 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 33.9 0.0 12.1 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.9 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 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A B-A B-A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:18 991 479*** Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 17*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):120 2 193 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 2 1 Critical V/C:0.556 0 5*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):28.3 1 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):24.6 1 83 LOS:C Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:24 1665***92 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 1654 92 479 984 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 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: 24 1654 92 479 984 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 Added Vol: 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 24 1665 92 479 991 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 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: 24 1665 92 479 991 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 1665 92 479 991 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 24 1665 92 479 991 18 17 2 1 83 5 193 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.84 0.16 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.89 0.11 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5306 293 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3348 202 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 22.1 59.3 59.3 28.7 65.9 75.9 10.0 10.0 32.1 10.0 10.0 38.7 Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.32 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.19 Uniform Del: 40.5 22.4 22.4 40.9 14.8 8.2 50.9 50.5 32.2 51.7 51.7 29.3 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.6 22.9 22.9 42.7 14.8 8.2 51.3 50.5 32.2 52.3 52.3 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.6 22.9 22.9 42.7 14.8 8.2 51.3 50.5 32.2 52.3 52.3 29.4 LOS by Move: D C+ C+ D B A D-D C-D-D-C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 16 16 9 6 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #12: Wolfe Rd/Vallco Pkwy Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap Final Vol:25 1725***412 Lanes:1 0 3 0 2 Signal=Split Signal=Split Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes:Final Vol: 24*** 1 Cycle Time (sec):115 2 603 0 Loss Time (sec):12 0 10 1 Critical V/C:0.415 0 3*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):15.5 1 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):21.9 1 144 LOS:C+ Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:25***1092 95 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 1085 95 412 1716 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 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: 25 1085 95 412 1716 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 25 1092 95 412 1725 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 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: 25 1092 95 412 1725 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 1092 95 412 1725 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 1092 95 412 1725 25 24 10 2 144 3 603 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.75 0.25 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 2.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5151 448 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3478 72 3150 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 48.6 48.6 30.0 71.6 81.6 10.0 10.0 17.0 14.4 14.4 44.4 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.50 Uniform Del: 51.4 24.3 24.3 36.1 11.7 4.9 48.6 48.2 41.8 45.9 45.9 26.8 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 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: 52.6 24.5 24.5 36.6 11.8 4.9 49.1 48.3 41.8 46.4 46.4 27.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.6 24.5 24.5 36.6 11.8 4.9 49.1 48.3 41.8 46.4 46.4 27.2 LOS by Move: D-C C D+ B+ A D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 10 7 11 0 1 0 0 3 3 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth AM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 275 203*** Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 471*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):120 0 256 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 629 3 Critical V/C:0.703 2 716*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):43.6 0 91 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):41.3 2 66 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:198 950***134 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 198 949 134 199 274 522 468 629 91 66 716 249 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: 198 949 134 199 274 522 468 629 91 66 716 249 Added Vol: 0 1 0 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 198 950 134 203 275 524 471 629 91 66 716 256 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 198 950 134 203 275 0 471 629 91 66 716 256 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 198 950 134 203 275 0 471 629 91 66 716 256 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 198 950 134 203 275 0 471 629 91 66 716 256 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.18 0.82 Final Sat.: 1750 4907 692 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4123 1474 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 30.4 33.0 33.0 19.8 22.4 0.0 25.5 36.1 36.1 19.1 29.6 29.6 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.39 0.00 0.70 0.37 0.17 0.13 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 37.7 39.1 39.1 47.3 42.8 0.0 43.7 33.0 31.0 43.3 41.2 41.2 IncremntDel: 0.7 1.5 1.5 7.6 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.7 1.7 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.4 40.6 40.6 54.9 43.1 0.0 47.1 33.1 31.1 43.5 42.8 42.8 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: 38.4 40.6 40.6 54.9 43.1 0.0 47.1 33.1 31.1 43.5 42.8 42.8 LOS by Move: D+ D D D-D A D C-C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 13 13 8 4 0 10 5 2 1 11 11 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc.Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Future Growth PM Intersection #13: Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore Final Vol:0 953***348 Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol:Lanes:Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date:n/a Rights=Include Lanes:Final Vol: 578*** 2 Cycle Time (sec):124 0 234 0 Loss Time (sec):12 1 1428 3 Critical V/C:0.741 2 704*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh):45.0 0 309 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh):41.4 2 202 LOS:D Lanes:1 0 2 1 0 Final Vol:118***271 57 Signal=Protect/Rights=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: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 270 57 342 952 503 576 1428 309 202 704 229 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: 118 270 57 342 952 503 576 1428 309 202 704 229 Added Vol: 0 1 0 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 118 271 57 348 953 506 578 1428 309 202 704 234 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 118 271 57 348 953 0 578 1428 309 202 704 234 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 118 271 57 348 953 0 578 1428 309 202 704 234 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 118 271 57 348 953 0 578 1428 309 202 704 234 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.46 0.54 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.22 0.78 Final Sat.: 1750 4626 973 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4201 1396 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 11.3 15.4 15.4 37.9 42.0 0.0 30.7 46.8 46.8 12.0 28.0 28.0 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.66 0.47 0.66 0.74 0.74 Uniform Del: 54.9 50.5 50.5 37.3 36.2 0.0 43.0 32.1 29.2 54.1 44.6 44.6 IncremntDel: 16.9 0.5 0.5 2.8 2.3 0.0 3.8 0.8 0.5 5.5 2.4 2.4 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 71.8 51.1 51.1 40.2 38.6 0.0 46.8 32.9 29.7 59.5 47.0 47.0 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: 71.8 51.1 51.1 40.2 38.6 0.0 46.8 32.9 29.7 59.5 47.0 47.0 LOS by Move: E D-D-D D+ A D C-C E+ D D HCM2kAvgQ: 6 4 4 11 15 0 13 12 7 6 12 12 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Appendix D Cupertino Village Shopping Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum Date: July 9, 2018 To: Mr. Erick Serrano, City of Cupertino From: Brian Jackson Lance Knox, AICP Subject: Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and the Proposed Cupertino Village Hotel Project Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a shared parking analysis of the existing Cupertino Village Shopping Center and proposed Cupertino Village hotel in Cupertino, California. The shopping center consists of a mix of retail uses, including a grocery store, specialty markets and restaurants. The shopping center has a total of 770 parking stalls (536 surface parking stalls and 234 parking stalls within a parking structure) for employees and patrons. The project, as proposed, would construct a new hotel at the southern boundary of the shopping center with access via Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The project would replace the existing 3,385 square-foot (s.f.) Duke of Edinburgh restaurant and pub and 10,044 s.f. of adjacent vacant commercial space with a 185-room upscale boutique hotel, including a 2,502 s.f. restaurant and 5,568 s.f. of meeting space. The project would eliminate approximately 66 surface parking stalls from the site and construct a two-level below-grade parking garage containing 248 parking stalls. The purpose of this parking analysis is to determine the maximum number of parking spaces that would be required to serve the peak parking demand of the existing shopping center plus the new hotel based on shared parking calculations. Shopping Center Parking Demand Parking counts of the existing Cupertino Village Shopping Center were conducted on Tuesday May 1st, Thursday May 3rd, and Saturday May 12th, 2018, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM. The number of occupied spaces was counted every 30-minutes within the shopping center surface lots and parking garage (see Figure 1). Table 1 shows the total number of occupied parking spaces throughout the day on a typical weekday (average of two weekdays) and on a typical Saturday. The total number of spaces includes unrestricted parking, as well as any short-term and restricted parking. The chart shown on Figure 2 illustrates that the parking demand on a typical weekday at the shopping center peaks during two different time periods: once during lunch time between about 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM, and again in the evening between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM. This figure also shows that parking demand during a typical weekday increases gradually from a low at 8:00 AM to a peak occupancy of 464 spaces at 1:00 PM. After 1:00 PM, the demand for parking in the shopping center decreases steadily until about 4:30 PM. After 4:30 PM, the demand for parking begins to increase again, reaching a peak of 376 occupied spaces at 7:30 PM. After 7:30 PM, the parking demand begins to slowly decline. During the hour with the highest parking demand, 60 percent of the total available parking spaces in the shopping center were occupied, leaving 306 parking spaces still available on a typical weekday. Shared Parking Analysis for the CuperƟno Village Shopping Center and New Hotel Figure 1 Cupertino Village Shopping Center Parking Study Boundaries Surface Parking LotsParking Garage Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 3 Table 1 Existing Parking Demand at the Cupertino Village Shopping Center Hour of Day Total Parking Spaces Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Available Total Parking Spaces Spaces Occupied % Occupied Spaces Available 8:00 AM 770 67 9% 703 770 48 6% 722 8:30 AM 770 94 12% 676 770 100 13% 670 9:00 AM 770 137 18% 633 770 138 18% 632 9:30 AM 770 176 23% 594 770 200 26% 570 10:00 AM 770 206 27% 564 770 263 34% 507 10:30 AM 770 251 33% 519 770 375 49% 395 11:00 AM 770 295 38% 475 770 492 64% 278 11:30 AM 770 351 46% 419 770 619 80% 151 12:00 PM 770 400 52% 370 770 730 95% 40 12:30 PM 770 444 58% 326 770 726 94% 44 1:00 PM 770 464 60% 306 770 719 93% 51 1:30 PM 770 430 56% 340 770 629 82% 141 2:00 PM 770 379 49% 391 770 562 73% 208 2:30 PM 770 336 44% 434 770 534 69% 236 3:00 PM 770 310 40% 460 770 478 62% 292 3:30 PM 770 315 41% 455 770 492 64% 278 4:00 PM 770 309 40% 461 770 491 64% 279 4:30 PM 770 308 40% 462 770 502 65% 268 5:00 PM 770 309 40% 461 770 509 66% 261 5:30 PM 770 314 41% 456 770 528 69% 242 6:00 PM 770 322 42% 448 770 552 72% 218 6:30 PM 770 358 46% 412 770 602 78% 168 7:00 PM 770 394 51% 376 770 631 82% 139 7:30 PM 770 394 51% 376 770 577 75% 193 8:00 PM 770 392 51% 378 770 552 72% 218 8:30 PM 770 320 42% 450 770 451 59% 319 9:00 PM 770 254 33% 516 770 349 45% 421 9:30 PM 770 177 23% 593 770 231 30% 539 10:00 PM 770 128 17% 642 770 152 20% 618 Notes: 1 Average Weekday Parking Counts 1 Saturday Parking Counts 1 Average weekday parking total is based on parking counts conducted on May 1st and 3rd, 2018. The Saturday parking total is based on parking counts conducted on May 12th, 2018. Also shown in Table 1 (above) and illustrated on Figure 2 (below), the peak demand for parking on a typical Saturday is significantly higher (35 percent higher) compared to the parking demand on a typical weekday at the shopping center. The demand for parking on a Saturday generally follows the same pattern as the demand for parking on a typical weekday, with two peaks: one around lunch time (between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM) and the other in the late evening (between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM). Parking demand at its peak was counted to be 730 occupied spaces (95 percent occupancy) at noon on Saturday, leaving a total of only 40 parking spaces unoccupied. Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 4 Figure 2 Cupertino Village Shopping Center Parking Count Data 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PMParking SpacesTime of Day Cupertino Village Shopping Center Average Weekday & Weekend Parking Total Parking Spaces Spaces Occupied ‐ Weekday Spaces Occupied ‐ Weekend Hotel Parking Requirement The City of Cupertino Zoning Code (Section 19.124.040) states that hotel uses are required to provide one parking stall per room plus one parking stall per employee. The project as proposed would construct a 185-room hotel with up to 62 staff members, which would equate to a total parking requirement of 247 spaces (185 + 62 = 247). According to the project site plan, the project would provide a total of 248 parking spaces: 11 spaces at-grade west of the building entrance, 121 spaces on the first below-grade level of the garage, and 116 spaces on the second below-grade level of the garage. Of the 248 parking spaces provided, 16 spaces would be designated for valet services. Valet parking is typically restricted from general guest parking due to either nonstandard parking stall dimensions and/or access limitations. However, it is common for hotels to provide special parking arrangements such as valet parking to meet the required parking demand. Parking exceptions, including valet parking, are allowed with City approval per Section 19.124.060C of the Zoning Code. Shared Parking As previously shown in Table 1 and Figure 2, the Cupertino Village Shopping Center parking is nearly fully occupied (95 percent) at noon on a typical Saturday. Thus, there is clearly a potential for parking overflow at the shopping center on Saturdays, particularly on a busy holiday weekend. Since the hotel parking demand would be low (approximately 55 percent occupied) during this period of the day, the hotel parking garage could serve as overflow parking for the shopping center, if necessary, through a shared parking agreement. This shared parking opportunity is described below. Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 5 Shared Parking Analysis Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses due to variations in parking demand by hour among differing land uses. Since the shopping center and proposed hotel are considered complementary uses, some of the total on-site parking could be shared between these uses. An analysis was conducted to determine the number of parking spaces that could be shared. The shared parking analysis presented in this memorandum is based on the observed parking demand of the existing shopping center and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) publication entitled Shared Parking, 2nd Edition which provides parking occupancy rates for many land uses, including hotel, according to the time of day. The parking occupancy rates can be applied to the peak parking demand for each land use. Comparing the hourly parking demand for each land use separately with the combined parking demand for both the shopping center and hotel components shows whether or not the overall parking supply can be reduced through implementation of a shared parking plan. Thus, the application of the principal of shared parking is an effective way to reduce the total parking demand for a single mixed-use development or two complementary developments. Table 2 shows the parking occupancy and the possibility for shared parking between the proposed hotel and the adjacent shopping center. Results of the shared parking analysis show how parking demand varies throughout the day, with the peak parking demand for hotels occurring overnight (starting at about 11:00 PM) and the peak parking demand for the shopping center occurring at 1:00 PM during the week and at noon on Saturdays (weekends). Based on the analysis, the combined parking demand for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and the new hotel would peak at 1:00 PM on a typical weekday, when the parking demand is at approximately 55% for the hotel and about 60% for the shopping center. During a typical weekend, the combined parking demand for the shopping center and hotel would peak at noon, when the parking demand reaches approximately 55% for the hotel and about 95% for the shopping center. The maximum combined parking demand would be 600 parking spaces during the week and 866 parking spaces on the weekend. Together, the shopping center and hotel would provide a total potential shared parking supply of 1,002 spaces. Although the counts show the Cupertino Village Shopping Center currently provides adequate parking to serve the peak parking demand generated by all the individual land uses that comprise the shopping center, the lots are nearly fully occupied at noon on a typical Saturday. Thus, there is clearly a potential for parking overflow at the shopping center on weekends, particularly on a busy holiday weekend. Since the hotel parking spaces will only be about 55% occupied during this time period, the hotel parking garage could be used by patrons and/or employees of the shopping center, if necessary, through a shared parking arrangement. While it is unlikely that hotel guests or employees would have a need to utilize the shopping center parking lots or garage because, as proposed, the project is providing adequate parking per the City Code, the hotel would have the option to do so if necessary since the shopping center parking would only be about 15 percent occupied when the hotel parking demand would peak at night (around 11:00 PM). Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 6 Table 2 Cupertino Village Shared Parking Analysis Wkdy Wknd Wkdy 3 Wknd 4 Wkdy Wknd Parking Demand by Hour6:00 AM 23 23 235 235 258 2587:00 AM 54 48 222 222 276 2708:00 AM 67 48 198 198 265 2469:00 AM 137 138 173 173 310 31110:00 AM 206 263 148 148 354 41111:00 AM 295 492 148 148 443 640Noon 400 730 136 136 536 8661:00 PM 464 719 136 136 600 855 2:00 PM 379 562 148 148 527 7103:00 PM 310 478 148 148 458 6264:00 PM 309 491 161 161 470 6525:00 PM 309 509 173 173 482 6826:00 PM 322 552 185 185 507 7377:00 PM 394 631 185 185 579 8168:00 PM 392 552 198 198 590 7509:00 PM 254 349 210 210 464 55910:00 PM 128 152 235 235 363 38711:00 PM 85 116 247 247 332 363Midnight 0 0 247 247 247 247 Maximum Combined Parking Demand 600 866 Total Shared Parking Supply 5 1,002 1,002 Notes: Wkdy = Weekday; Wknd = Weekend Source: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005 . 1 2 3 4 5 Total Demand Hour of Day Business Hotel 2Shopping Center 1 Hotel parking demand by hour was determined by multiplying the City of Cupertino's parking requirement for hotels (per the Zoning Code Section 19.124.040), calculated to be 247 spaces, by the parking occupancy ratios contained in the ULI Shared Parking . Business Hotel, weighted average of guest (83%) and employee (17%) ratios on weekdays. Business Hotel, weighted average of guest (80%) and employee (20%) ratios on weekends. The proposed shared parking supply excludes the 16 valet parking stalls that would be introduced by the proposed hotel, since those parking spaces could not be shared. Shopping Center parking demand by hour was obtained from parking counts conducted by Hexagon in May 2018. The shopping center contains a total of 770 parking spaces. Reduced Parking Opportunity for the Hotel Project As demonstrated by the shared parking analysis, there is a clear opportunity for the proposed hotel and existing shopping center to share parking. Based on the shared parking analysis, a maximum of 866 parking spaces would be required to meet the combined parking demand generated by the shopping center and hotel (which occurs on Saturday). Since the shopping center and hotel would provide a combined parking supply of 1,002 spaces, the results of the analysis show that there would always be at least 136 vacant parking spaces for use by hotel or shopping center patrons Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 7 and employees. This excess parking supply presents an opportunity for the hotel to provide significantly less parking than the standard hotel parking requirement contained in the City Code. The City of Cupertino Zoning Code (Section 19.124.060) does allow for parking exceptions with City approval. Any project proposing an alternative parking standard (e.g., reduced parking supply) must meet certain criteria before the parking exception will be granted, including the following conditions:  The applicant must submit a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply.  If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and the reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the applicable properties to run with the land. For the proposed hotel, we recommend providing 0.76 parking spaces per room. This parking rate reflects the average Saturday parking demand observed at several comparable hotel sites in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (see Table 3 below). A parking rate of 0.76 spaces per room equates to a parking supply of 141 spaces, which is 106 fewer spaces than the City’s standard parking requirement for hotels. Table 3 Hotel Parking Demand Ratios Wed. Sat. Thurs. Sat. Thurs. Sat. Thurs. Sat. Thurs. Sat. Wed. Sat. 3/30/16 4/2/16 4/7/16 4/9/16 4/30/15 5/2/15 4/30/15 5/2/15 4/30/15 5/2/15 6/11/14 6/14/14 Total Rooms 82 82 120 120 160 160 173 173 145 145 123 123 Occupied Rooms 65 68 82 69 155 156 125 164 82 144 123 121 Total Parking Spaces 77 77 112 112 153 153 283 283 127 127 N/A N/A Occupied Parking Spaces 39 55 66 88 115 125 88 146 55 107 76 67 Parking Demand Ratio 0.60 0.81 0.80 1.28 0.74 0.80 0.70 0.89 0.67 0.74 0.62 0.55 0.84 1.00 0.69 0.80 0.76 0.89 Notes: 1 The weekend parking demand ratio from the Fairfield Inn & Suites (San Carlos) was omitted due to anomalies. This ratio is significantly greater than the others, and it is very likely that some outside factors affected the parking survey on this day (e.g., people utilizing the free and unrestricted parking to avoid parking fees at other parking locations, such as the airport). Average Occupancy Ratio : Maximum Occupancy Ratio : Average Weekday Parking Demand Ratio : Maximum Weekday Parking Demand Ratio : Average Weekend Parking Demand Ratio1: Maximum Weekend Parking Demand Ratio 1: Belmont San Carlos Mountain View Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Cupertino Holiday Inn Fairfield Inn & Suites Hilton Garden Inn Sheraton Inn Courtyard by Marriott Aloft Hotel Conclusions The existing Cupertino Village Shopping Center and proposed hotel experience varying parking demands throughout the day, which will peak at different times. For this reason, the proposed hotel and the shopping center are considered complementary developments and could implement a shared parking arrangement. Based on the shared parking analysis, a maximum of 866 parking spaces would be required to meet the combined parking demand generated by the shopping center and hotel. Together, the shopping center and hotel would provide a total potential shared parking supply of 1,002 spaces, which would be more than adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand generated by the hotel and all the individual land uses that comprise the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. Shared Parking Analysis for the Cupertino Village Shopping Center and New Hotel July 9, 2018 Page | 8 The excess parking supply as a result of a shared parking agreement between the hotel and the shopping center presents an opportunity for the hotel to provide significantly less parking than the standard hotel parking requirement contained in the City of Cupertino Zoning Code. We recommend the project provide 0.76 parking spaces per room. This parking rate reflects the average Saturday parking demand observed at several comparable hotel sites in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. A parking rate of 0.76 spaces per room equates to a parking supply of 141 spaces, which is 106 fewer spaces than the City’s standard parking requirement for hotels.