Loading...
14. Morley Bros. LLC City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. \y Agenda Date: November IS. 200S Application: GP A-200S-01, Z-200S-02, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-200S-0S, TR-200S-06, EA-2005-03 Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLC/Sobrato Development Companies Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue Recommendations: The Planning Commission, on a S-O vote, recommends denial of the following: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (File no. EA-2005-03) 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GP A-200S-01) per the model resolution. 3. REZONING (File no. Z-200S-02) per the model resolution. Rezone from P(MP) to P(RES) and PRo 4. USE PERMIT (File no. U-200S-03) per the model resolution. S. TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-2005-07) per the model resolution. 6. ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-200S-0S) per the model resolution. 7. TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-200S-06) per the model resolution. L{-l Applications: GP A-2005-0l, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, 1R-2005-06, EA-2005-03 ~oveDlber15,2005 Page 2 Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Net Site Area: Gross Site Area: Existing Land Use: Building Sq. Ft. (to be demolished): Proposed Land Uses: Proposed Net Residential Density: Proposed Net Residential Density (excluding 0.937 acre park): Proposed Gross Residential Density: Proposed Gross Residential Density (excluding 0;937-acre park): Dwelling Unit Summary: Ind ustrial/ Residential P(MP) - Planned Industrial Park Zone peRES) - Planned Residential Zone 8.5 acres 8.96 acres Office/Industrial 126,528 square feet (two buildings) Residential (130 dwelling units) & Public Park 130/8.5 = 15.29 dwellings/net acre 130/7.56 = 17.20 dwellings/net acre 130/8.96 = 14.51 dwellings/ gross acre 130/8.02 = 16.21 dwellings/ gross acre Plan # of # of Beds # of Unit Sq. Ft. Unit Type Garage Units Baths Tvpe Plan 1 13 2 2 1,188 Flat Tandem Plan 2 13 2 2.5 1,629 Flat Conventional (HC) Plan lA 27 2 2 1~97 Flat Tandem Plan 2A 27 2 2 U52 Flat Conventional Plan 3 11 3 2.5 U86 Townhome Conventional Plan 4 24 3 2.5 1,532 Townhome Conventional Plan 5 15 3 3 1,680 Townhome Conventional Total 130 Units . Parking: Parking Required (Townhouse): 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU) Parking Supplied- Garage: 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces) Open (He): 5 stalls Open (other): 110 stalls Total: 375 stalls Application Summary: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GP A-2005-01) to allocate 130 residential units for a proposed townhome and condominium development H-d. Applications: GPA-2005-0l, 2-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03 ~oveDlberI5,2005 Page 3 REZONING (File no. Z-200S-02) of an 8.96-gross acre site from Planned Industrial Park Zone P(MP) to Planned Residential Zone P(RES) USE PERMIT (File no. U-200S-03) to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,S28 square feet and construct a 130-unit townhome and condominium development with about a one acre public park, and allow tandem parking garages for a portion of the units TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-200S-07) to subdivide an 8.S net acre property into 31 lots for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-200S-0S) for the design of a 130- unit townhome and condominium development TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-200S-06) and replacement of 90+ trees for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. Background: On October 11 th the Planning Commission reviewed applications to allow the demolition of two office buildings totaling approximately 126,S28 square feet, and construct a 130-unit townhome and condominium development with about a one acre public park at 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue (Exhibit A-I). The Commission was supportive of the site layout and design of the residential development, but the project required a general plan amendment to allocate 130 residential units to this development. While the Planning Commission recommended additional residential development allocations in the North Vallco Area during its General Plan hearings, the Commission did not want to presume the intent of the City Council during the Council's deliberations on the General Plan by taking a project- related general plan amendment action. The Commission asked the applicant if he would accept a continuance of his project until after the City Council adopted an updated General Plan, but the applicant elected to accept a denial from the Commission in order to keep his project progressing forward to a City Council hearing date. Other than future general plan policy, the only other major concerns not addressed in the Commission staff report were: H-3 Applications: GP A-2005-0l, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03 ~oveDlber15,2005 Page 4 1. The location of the public park. One Commissioner felt the park should be moved from Pruneridge Avenue to the rear of the property near Highway 280. The idea was to provide additional buffering distance between the highway noise and the residential units. 2. The lack of a written agency response on the project from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The Commission was also concerned with the cumulative student enrollment/ fiscal impacts of the proposed Valko-area residential projects on the school districts. Staff has received a verbal reply from CUSD that the Town Hall Services-prepared enrollment and fiscal impact analysis fairly represents the impacts on CUSD. Past responses from CUSD representatives indicate that due to the nature of their state funding (per pupil), CUSD could accommodate the additional students generated by new residential development. Staff is still working on a response from FUHSD. Stephen Sanger from Town Hall Services will be attending the public hearing to present information on the cumulative impacts on schools from Valko residential development. The Commission's resolutions of denial are attached to the October 11 th staff report. Staff had recommended approval of the project. Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6328 for U-200S-03 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6329 for ASA-200S-0S Planning Commission Resolution No. 6330 for GP A-200S-01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6331 for Z-200S-02 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6332 for TM-200S-07 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6333 for TR-200S-06 Exhibit A-I: Planning Commission staff report dated 10/11/0S, including the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, ERC recommendation Exhibit B-1: Letters and email messages in support and opposition to the project Exhibit C-1: Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin dated 10/4/0S and presented at the October 11, 200S Commission hearing --. r'd by aVi~app City Manager L.f-y GP A-200S-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6330 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE 130 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A PROPOSED TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LAND PROPOSED FOR A PUBLIC PARK FROM INDUSTRIAL/RESIDENTIAL TO PARKS AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Project Location: GP A-200S-01 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a General Plan Amendment, for the site described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and considered public testimony from citizens and interested groups; and WHEREAS, the general plan amendment application would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment is hereby recommended for denial as modified by the Commission, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. GPA-200S- 01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. /4-5 Resolution ~o. Page 2 GPA-2005-01 October 11, 2005 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller, Commissioners Saadati, Geifer and Chen NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: I sl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development I sl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES\2005 \ GPA-2005-0l denial res. doc 144 Z-2005-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 RESOLUTION No. 6331 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE RE-ZONING OF AN 8.96-GROSS ACRE SITE FROM P(MP) -PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE TO P(RES)- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND PR- PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310 - 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location; Z-200S-02 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning does not meet the following requirement: That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino; and . WHEREAS, the rezoning application is part of a larger project that includes an amendment to the General Plan that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment and all other project-related applications; /4-7 Resolution No. Page 2 z- 2005-02 October 11, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-200S-02 is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-200S-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S and are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller, Commissioners Saadati, Geifer and Chen COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I sl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPOR T\ RES \ 2005 \ Z-2005-02 denial res.doc fL/ -0 U-2005-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6328 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 126,528 SQUARE FEET AND CONSTRUCT A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 40 2-CAR TANDEM PARKING GARAGES AND AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310-19320 PRUNERDIGE AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Use Permit application is part of a larger project that includes an amendment to the General Plan that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment and all other project-related applications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application /4-q Resolution No. Page 2 U-2005-03 October 11, 2005 No. U-200S-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-200S-03 (EA-2005-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Commissioners Saadati, Geifer, Chen Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PD REPOR T\ RES \ 2005 \ U-2005-03denial res. doc l-/ -10 TM-200S-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 RESOLUTION No. 6332 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 8.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 31 LOTS FOR A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK AT 19310 - 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-200S-07 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the tentative map application is part of a larger project that includes an amendment to the General Plan that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment and all other project-related applications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tentative Map is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-200S-07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S are incorporated by reference herein. 14 -II Page 2 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: .COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller, Commissioners Saadati, Geifer and Chen COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s I Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \2005\ TM-2005-07denial res.doc /4-/8-. ASA-2005-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 RESOLUTION No. 6329 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-200S-0S (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the architectural and site approval application is part of a larger project that includes an amendment to the General Plan that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment and all other project-related applications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby recommended for denial, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-200S- OS as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S, and are incorporated by reference herein. /4-/3 Resolution No. Page 2 ASA-2005-05 October 11, 2005 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller Commissioners Saadati, Geifer, Chen COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Isl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development IslGilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\PlanningIPDREPORTlRESI2005\ASA-2005-05 denial res. doc tLf-fl-! TR-2005-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 RESOLUTION No. 6333 (Denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE AND REPLACE APPROXIMATELY 90 TREES AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2005-06 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove and replace approximately 90 trees as part of the residential redevelopment of an office building, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant intends to replace the trees by planting about SOO new trees as part of the project; and WHEREAS, the tree removal application is part of a larger project that includes an amendment to the General Plan that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited for lack of a development allocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently reviewing the whole general plan and the Commission does not wish to presume the intent of the City Council during its general plan deliberations by taking action on the project-related general plan amendment and all other project-related applications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning /Lf-16 Resolution No. Page 2 TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Application TR-2005-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Wong, Vice-Chair Miller, Commissioners Saadati, Geifer, and Chen COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Isl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development I sl Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G; \ Planning \ PO REPOR T\ RES \ 2005 \ TR-2005-06 denial res.doc /4--/0 fYh¡6i+ r·H CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: GP A-200S-01, Z-200S-02, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-200S-0S, TR- 200S-06, EA-2005-03 Agenda Datê: October 11, 200S Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLC/Sobrato Development Companies Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GPA-200S-01) to allocate 130 residential units for a proposed townhome and condominium development REZONING (Pile no. Z-200S-02) of an 8.96-gross acre site from Planned Industrial Park Zone P(MP) to Planned Residential Zone PeRES) USE PERMIT (File no. U-200S-03) to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,S28 square feet and construct a 130-unit townhome and condominium development with about a one acre public park, and allow tandem parking garages for a portion of the units TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-2005-07) to subdivide an 8.5 net acre property into 31 lots for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-200S-0S) for the design of a 130- unit townhome and condominium development TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-2005-06) and replacement of 90+ trees for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approvals of the: Mitigated Negative Declaration (File no. EA-200S-03) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GPA-200S-01) per the model resolution. REZONING (Pile no. Z-200S-02) per the model resolution. Rezone from P(MP) to PeRES) and PR. USE PERMIT (Pile no. U-200S-03) per the model resolution. JL.f-/7 File No. GPA-2005-01, Z-1.005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-'Lù05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 2 TENT A TIVE MAP (File no. TM-2005-07) per the model resolution. ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-2005-05) per the model resolution. TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-2005-06) per the model resolution. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Net Site Area: Gross Site Area: Existing Land Use: Building Sq. Ft. (to be demolished): Proposed Land Uses: Proposed Net Residential Density: Proposed Net Residential Density (excluding 0.937 acre park): Proposed Gross Residential Density: Proposed Gross Residential Density (excluding 0.937-acre park): Dwelling Unit Summary: Industrial/ Residential P(MP) - Planned Industrial Park Zone PeRES) - Planned Residential Zone 8.5 acres 8.96 acres Office/Industrial 126,528 square feet (two buildings) Residential (130 dwelling units) & Public Park 130/8.5 = 15.29 dwellings/net acre 130/7.56 = 17.20 dwellings/net acre 130/8.96 = 14.51 dwellings/ gross acre 130/8.02 = 16.21 dwellings/ gross acre Plan # of # of Beds # of Unit Sq. Ft. Unit Type Garage Units Baths Tvpe Plan 1 13 2 2 1,188 Flat Tandem Plan 2 13 2 2.5 1,629 Flat Conventional (HC) Plan 1A 27 2 2 1,397 Flat Tandem Plan 2A 27 2 2 1,452 Flat Conventional Plan 3 11 3 2.5 1,486 Townhome Conventional Plan 4 24 3 2.5 1,532 Townhome Conventional Plan 5 15 3 3 1,680 Townhome Conventional Total 130 Units Parking: Parking Required (Townhouse): Parking Supplied-- Garage: Open (HC): Open (other): Total: 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU) 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces) 5 stalls 11 0 stalls 375 stalls ILf-ff: File No. GPA-2005-01, 2-2005-03, V-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-¿Ll05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 3 DISCUSSION Noticing. This project was the subject of a citywide postcard noticing. . Site Description. The 8.5 acre property fronts on Pruneridge Avenue and abuts the Hamptons Apartment complex in what is commonly known as Valko Park North. The property was developed in 1974 with two industrial office buildings: a 2-story 86,338 square foot building toward the center and rear of the property and a smaller 3-story 40,190 square foot building toward the front. The buildings were previously occupied by HP Company and vacated sometime between 1992 and 1999 and have not been occupied since. Vehicular access from Pruneridge Avenue occurs at two locations: 1) An unsignalized driveway entrance on the adjacent westerly Irvine Co. property (The Hamptons Apartments) and the main signalized entrance located on Ridgeview Court (a private street). In addition, along the rear property line, there is an ingress/ egress and parking easement for the benefit of the Hamptons Apartments property. There are about 162 trees on the property and in the public right-of-way fronting the property. There are three specimen size Coast Live Oaks located in the right-of-way landscape strip and a row of tall Coastal Redwoods along the highway. The other trees, both native and non-native, are mainly smaller diameter, and appear to have been planted when the property was developed. The property is immediately surrounded by the Hewlett Packard industrial office campus to the north across Pruneridge Avenue, industrial/ office buildings to the east, u.s. Highway 280 and its Wolfe Road off-ramp to the south and the 342-unit Hampton Apartments to the west. At further distances, industrial and office uses characterize the areas north and east, the Vallco Regional Shopping Center is to the south across Highway 280, and a wide mixture of land uses: single-family residences, apartments, hotels, banks, restaurants, a church and numerous local-serving commercial uses, occupy the areas to the east across Wolfe Road. Project Description. The applicant is proposing to demolish the office buildings and construct a 130-unit, for-sale condominium development and a 0.937-acre improved, public park. The development is a combination of townhouse and stacked flat style residences. The 130 attached dwellings are organized into 20 building clusters with each cluster having 5 to 8 dwellings. Two stacked flats are located on each end of a building cluster with one flat entrance oriented toward the side of a cluster. The other flat and townhouse entrances are oriented toward the front. The garages are on a depressed grade and tucked under the building such that the jLf-ICf File No. GPA-200S-01, Z-2005-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-¿005-05, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 4 buildings are three stories in height from the driveway side of the building cluster and two stories in height from the front, pedestrian entrances. All perimeter dwellings are designed to front on Pruneridge Avenue, the public park, Ridgeview Court or the Hampton Apartments. All of the dwellings are connected by a network of driveway segments with the main driveway midpoint on the property and aligned with a main driveway that enters into the Ridgeview industrial park to the east. A network of landscaped pedestrian walkways connect all of the dwellings with the open parking, the private recreation area, the industrial park, the Hampton Apartments, the public park and sidewalk. The proposed public park is located at the front of the property on the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Ridgeview Court. The park design is conceptual in nature and will need to be reviewed and approved by the City at a later time if the development is approved. All dwellings have a 2-car garage. The 40 smaller, 2-bedroom flats have a tandem (one vehicle behind the other) garage and the 90 other units have side-by-side garage spaces for a total of 260 enclosed parking spaces. In addition there are l1S open parking spaces distributed around the development with a portion of them within a convenient walking distance of the proposed public park. General Plan Land Use Policy. Although the general plan land use designation for this property is "Industrial/Residential", the applicant does not have an inherent development right to redevelop this property into a residential project. One major amendment to the adopted 1993 General Plan provided for the metering of residential development in historically non-residential areas through a development allocation system. "Pots" of potential residential units, commercial and office/ industrial square footages were allocated to different geographic areas or project types in the City. Developers applied on a first come-first served basis for" development allocations". Presently all of the residential development allocation that could have been assigned to Valko Park was exhausted by the Hamptons, Arioso, Menlo Equities and Vallco/Rose Bowl residential projects. Valko Fashion Park is a special case where development potential is controlled by the Valko Development Agreement, not the general plan development allocation system. With the General Plan residential development allocation for Valko Park exhausted, the applicant has applied for a General Plan amendment to obtain an allocation of 130 dwelling units for his project, which may be granted on a discretionary basis by the City if decisionmakers believe it is wise land use policy to change the land use of this property. The City-initiated general plan update, currently under review by the City Council, would provide for additional residential development in Valko Park North, . /4-d.O File No. GPA-2005-01, 2-2005-03, V-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-~1l05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 5 but those city-initiated amendments have not been adopted yet. Overall, the General Plan balances potential levels of residentiat commercial and office/industrial development to ensure over the long-term that the City's transportatio!1 system stays within acceptable levels of traffic congestion. As will be discussed under the Traffic section of this staff report, a 130-unit residential development generates far fewer peak hour vehicular trips than 126,SOO square feet of office use, so the change in land use will not negatively impact the City's long range balancing of land uses and traffic congestion as long as the industrial office potential is traded out for the residential potential. Staff believes the proposed residential project complies with the proposed General Plan language regarding Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks, which was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission and is currently under review by the City Council. The following sections present the applicant's justifications in support for the general plan residential development allocation of 130 dwelling units. Obsolescence of Existing Office Buildings. The applicant has commissioned a physical assessment of the buildings prepared by FaciliCorp, a facilities management consulting firm, dated August 31, 200S (Exhibit A). The report concludes that the inefficient floor plan, low floor to ceiling heights, poor day lighting & artificial lighting, outdated mechanical and electrical infrastructure and lack of loading dock facilities make the building obsolete and highly difficult to lease. Letter from five different commercial real estate brokers (Exhibit B) basically echoed the building deficiencies described by FaciliCorp and the very poor marketability of the buildings. Letters in Support of the Project. The applicant met with numerous groups of residents and businesses located near the proposed project site and received letters of support from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition, ds Wireless, business owner Philip Tam, Pinky & Winky retail store, and Tiara Town, a Valko Mall business (Exhibit C). Fiscal Impact on the City. The applicant commissioned a fiscal impact analysis of the project on City revenues and expenditures. The study was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems and dated September 200S (Exhibit D). Estimating factors were derived from the 2004-0S Cupertino Adopted Budget. The report concluded that the project would generate taxes and fees of $l1S, 129 and expenditures of $82,884 for a net fiscal surplus of $32,24S per annum. Cost savings will come from privately maintained project roads and the proposed Landscape and Lighting Assessment District on the future homeowners to fund the maintenance cost of the proposed public park. 14-;}.( ~---~- File No. GPA-2005-01, Z-L005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2Ù05-0S, TR-2005-06 October It 2005 Page 6 Project Consistency with Cupertino Initiatives: Measures A. B & c. Should the Cupertino Initiatives, Measures A, B & C, be passed by the voters in the November elections, the proposed project would conform to the possible residential density limitation (30 dwellings/net acre); the maximum height restriction (45 feet); and the minimum street setback (1:1 setback to building height ratio) for the "Valko Park" Exception Area. This is confirmed by the law firm of Hopkins and Carley in an opinion dated August 22, 200S (Exhibit E). Staff has checked the plans against the proposed initiative development restrictions and makes the same conclusion, also noting that the net density of the project is about half of what would be allowed under Measure A if it was passed. Rezoning. The applicant proposes rezoning the property from P(MP)- Planned Industrial Park Zone to P(RES)- Planned Residential. Staff recommends that the proposal be modify to rezone the proposed public park and associated public right-of- way to PR- Public Park not P(RES). Zoning plat map and legal description will need to be revised and this condition is incorporated in the model resolution. Tentative Subdivision Map. The applicant proposes subdividing the property into 20 "building cluster" lots (numbered 1 through 20),10 private common area lots (labeled A through J) and a parcel to be improved as a park and conveyed to the City (labeled K). According to the applicant all of the parcels, except K, will be owned in fee title by the homeowners' association with the units in each building cluster to be sold as "airspace" condominiums to individual homebuyers. According to the applicant the parcelization of the common areas is needed to meet State Department of Real Estate (DRE) requirements for project phasing. According to the applicant, DRE requires building access and the installation of the surrounding improvements before homebuyers can move in. Staff does not have a problem with this approach, but needs assurances that common areas remain under the ownership and maintenance responsibility of a homeowners' association. A condition has been placed in the tentative map resolution. Hazardous Materials. The property was previously in agricultural uses and for the last 30 years in industrial office uses. Use of haZardous materials associated with those land uses may have contaminated the soil and a change of land use to residential would expose those future residents to potential hazardous materials. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property was conducted by Lowney Associates in reports dated May 17, 200S and August 31,2005 respectively (Exhibit F & G). The Phase I Study involves historical research of aerial photographs and other records, and public agency regulatory 'records to identify past land uses and potential hazardous materials used on the property. The Phase II Report involves boring into the ground to collect soil samples for chemical testing. The soil analysis found minute quantities of /Lf-,;}d File No. GPA-2005-01. Z-L005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-L.lJ05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 7 agricultural pesticides commonly used in the Santa Clara Valley's agricultural activities. Studied chemicals were determined to be in concentrations below California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), which are the current regulatory standards for direct exposure. Arsenic levels exceeded the CHHSL, but because naturally-occurring arsenic concentration in the Bay Area commonly exceeds the CHHSL standard, remediation is not required by regulatory agencies according to the consultant. The consultant concludes that further evaluation of soil quality does not appear warranted at this time. Noise. Highway 280 generates noise that would impact any potential residents living on the southern portion of the project site. A noise assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated August 8, 200S (Exhibit H). An addendum to the report, dated September 21, 200S (Exhibit I), address project mitigations. The report concluded that the southern portion of the site would be subject to "clearly unacceptable" noise levels of 81 to 84 dBA Ldn. Ground level noise at the southerly patios/ decks could be reduced to 7S dBA Ldn with a sound wall of 11 to 13 feet in height. Upper level balconies adjacent to Highway 280 will need enclosures composed of solid materials to alleviate noise impacts. (See Figure 1 of Sept. 21, 200S report). A condition has been added to the resolution(s) requiring a sound wall and noise barriers at a number of balconies. Final design should be accomplished at the building permit stage as staff will need to analyze the sound attenuation wall location to make sure it does not harm the existing grove of redwood trees. Traffic. A traffic report was prepared by Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants, to analyze potential traffic impacts of the project (Exhibit n. The report studied a proposed project traffic of 139 residential units, slightly larger than the present proposal, and compared it to the traffic generated by the existing offices when occupied. The reported looked at future traffic and analyzed the effects on surrounding signalized intersections and their levels of service. The report concluded that there will be a net decrease of 769 daily vehicular trips, of which there will be 162 fewer AM peak-hour trips and 144 fewer PM peak-hour trips. The pattern of traffic is of course different from an office project so an intersection level of service analysis was completed on surrounding signalized intersections, which demonstrated no significant impact at the studied intersections. Parking. The Cupertino parking ordinance requires 2.8 parking stalls (2 enclosed + 0.8 open stalls) for each townhouse unit. Although this project has a combination of townhouse and condo flat housing styles, the higher townhouse parking requirement was applied to all units. Below is the breakdown of required and supplied parking: Parking Required (Townhouse): 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU) J!.f-d3 File No. GPA-2005-01, Z-2005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-LU05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 8 Parking Supplied-- Garage: 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces) Open (HC): 5 stalls Open (other): 110 stalls Total Provided: 375 stalls parking ratio: 2.88 Transporation consultants, Fehr & Peers, also conducted a parking survey of the parking requirements of some surrounding jurisdictions for attached housing units, and a guest parking survey of six residential developments that had 2-car garages for each unit (Exhibit K). The average guest parking increment of the surveyed cities was 0.39 and guest parking usage of the six surveyed sites ranged from 0.11 to 0.83 spaces per unit. The applicant's provision of 0.88 guest spaces per unit will exceed actual guest parking demand. A condition has been added to the resolution requiring the CC&R's to state that the garages shall be used to park cars. School Enrollment & Fiscal Analysis. The City commissioned a fiscal and enrollment impact analysis of the residential project on the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The consultant, Town Hall Services, in a report dated September 2005 (Exhibit 1), determined that the project would generate about 61 students (29 of which would attend Eisenhower Elementary School, 16 would attend Hyde Middle School, and 16 would attend Cupertino High School). The elementary and middle schools are over-capacity, but recent and near- term facility improvements, attendance boundary changes or adding new classroom facilities will reduce, and likely eliminate, that over-capacity condition. Cupertino High School has excess capacity of 21 students, enough to accommodate the 16 high school students generated by the project. In addition, the District's new residence verification program is expected to dis-enroll about 30 to 50 students from Cupertino High alone. Taking into account new operational revenues and costs, the study concluded there would be a net fiscal loss of $539 per student for CUSD as a result of the additional students from the development and a net fiscal gain of $3,135 to $4,575 per student for the high school district. Plans and the study were submitted to both school districts for comment, but responses were not received by the time of this report preparation. Staff will pursue comments from the school district prior to the hearing. The applicant will pay statutorily required school impact fees, which, according to state law, fully mitigates school impacts. Other requirements or fees may not be imposed. The applicant has provided a legal opinion (Exhibit M). The City Attorney concurs with this opinion. Tree Removal & Replacement. There are about 162 trees on the property or in the adjoining public right-of-way (Exhibit N). All appear to be planted as part of the office development with the exception of three specimen size oak trees in the street planting IL/-.;Y-f File No. GPA-200S-01, Z-LOOS-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-LUOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 9 strip at the northwest corner of the property. Seventy trees are proposed for retention, including the redwood grove along the highway, the Chinese Elms and Coast Live Oaks along the public right-of-way and the trees located in the proposed park. The full list is shown on sheet C7 of the plan set. 92 trees are proposed for removal- none of which are considered specimen trees by the City. The applicant proposes to mitigate the tree removal by planting about SOO new trees as part of the development. Architecture. The applicant has worked with staff for several months on the design of his project and City Architect, Larry Cannon, has provided input into the design. The project has adopted a Craftsman style of architecture to complement the existing Hampton Apartments. Within the Craftsman theme, the project has three different architectural styles, four different building sizes and six different color and material combinations, which include variations on roof, trim, gable siding, stucco, fascia, entry and garage doors and stone elements. Each entry way is personalized with gable, shed, column and trellis elements. A wide variety of exterior finishes are used to individualize the units and the each building cluster-shingle, stone, board and batten and horizontal siding consistent with a Craftsman architecture. The walkways are accented with picket fencing, period lighting and other decorative features. Staff would like to shorten a north/ south running driveway that faces Pruneridge Avenue. This is easily accomplished by £lipping one of the park-facing units and orienting it toward Pruneridge A venue. Staff will illustrate this design change at the hearing. A condition of approval has been added to the resolution to accommodate this design change. Public Park. The applicant is proposing to convey a 0.937-acre, improved public park to the City of Cupertino and enter into an assessment district to levy fees to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the park. Based on an estimated residential population of 308 persons the estimated park acreage need is 0.924 acres. General Plan policy #S.S3: New Residential Development in Non-residential Areas encourages the provision of public park space as opposed to private recreational space. The public park should be oriented to the street and easily accessible to the public. The siting of the proposed park is on the corner of Pruneridge A venue and Ridgeview Court and has nearby parking which is consistent with general plan policy. General Plan policy #S-47: Park Minimum Acreage encourages the acquisition of parkland of at least 3.S acres, but that acreage is disproportionate to the park need generated by this development. Policy #S-47 further provides that smaller parks may be considered as a high priority in neighborhoods which have no park or recreation areas, which is the case for the Vallco Park North area. If-d.;:; File No. GPA-200S-01, Z-LOOS-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-LuOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 10 The park is shown conceptually on the plan set. Its ultimate design would require future city review and approval. Submitted by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner C" ~ ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolutions ERC Recommendation & Initial Study Exhibit A: Facility Assessment prepared by FaciliCorp, dated August 31, 200S Exhibit B: Letters from five commercial real estate brokers Exhibit C: Six letters in support of project Exhibit D: Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc. dated September 2005 Exhibit E: Memorandum from Hopkins & Carley regarding the Cupertino Initiatives dated August 22, 200S Exhibit F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California prepared by Lowney Associates, dated May 17, 200S Exhibit G: Soil Quality Evaluation, Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California, prepared by Lowney Associates, dated August 3t 200S and revised September 20, 200S. Exhibit H: Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA - Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated August 8, 200S Exhibit I: Response to Noise Comments, Pruneridge Avenue Residentiat prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated September 21, 200S Exhibit J: Draft Report- Transportation Impact Analysis, Pruneridge Residential Development, prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated August 200S. Exhibit K: Supplemental Parking Information for the Pruneridge Residential Project prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated September 23, 200S. Exhibit L: Pruneridge Avenue Development, Morley Brothers,L.L.c., Fiscal and Enrollment Impact Analysis, prepared by Town Hall Services, dated September 200S. Exhibit M: Memorandum from Hopkins & Carley, regarding school impact fees, dated August 22, 200S Exhibit N: Tree Survey for 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA 9S014, prepared by McClenahan Consulting LLC, dated June 17, 200S. Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcGPreports \ GP-2005-01.doc /!.f-d{P U-2005-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS TOT ALING APPROXIMATELY 126,528 SQUARE FEET AND CONSTRUCT A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND ST ACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 40 2-CAR TANDEM PARKING GARAGES AND AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310-19320 PRUNERDIGE A VENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application /4-;)7 Resolution No. Page 2 U-2005-03 October 11, 2005 No. U-200S-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: .PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-200S-03 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Pruneridge Residential, Cupertino, California" consisting of forty sheets labeled Tl, Cl - C7, 11.1 - 11.8, Bl, A-I - A-23, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. RELINQUISHMENT OF POTENTIAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT Prior to final building occupancy, the applicant shall relinquish to the adjacent apartment property owner to the west any potential ingress/ egress easement over the apartment property that is not needed for circulation or ingress/ egress to the project property. 3. TANDEM PARKING GARAGES ¡Lf-,J? Resolution No. Page 3 U-2005-03 October 11, 2005 40 2-car tandem parking garages associated with condominium flat-- floor plan 1 and plan lA are approved. 4. NOISE MITIGATION To mitigate significant vehicular noise generated by traffic on Highway 280, the noise mitigations recommended by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in a noise assessment and subsequent response to the City dated August 8, 200S and September 21, 200S shall be incorporated in the building plans. This includes a noise attenuation wall along the southern property line and solid materials to buffer exterior noise for upper level balconies adjacent to Highway 280. The City Arborist shall review the location and construction details of the sound wall to ensure the preservation of the row of Coast Redwoods along the southerly property line. To mitigate interior noise levels generated by highway traffic, the Applicant shall incorporate in his building plans higher STC-rated construction materials and provide mechanical ventilation of the residential units. S. PARKING GARAGES TO BE USED FOR PARKING Applicant shall write into the homeowners association's CC&R's that all garages shall be kept sufficiently free and clear to house two parked automobiles. 6. SITE PLAN REVISION To screen the onsite north/south driveway that abuts Pruneridge Avenue, the Applicant shall move one of the park-facing residential units onto the driveway terminus. The site plan revisions shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development at the building permit stage. 7. BUILDING FINISHES, MATERIALS, PAVEMENT TREATMENTS, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, FURNITURE, FENCING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW At the building permit stage, all building finishes, materials, pavement treatments, architectural details, furniture, fencing, lighting and landscaping shall be reviewed for substantial consistency with the approved plans and exhibits and approved by the Director of Community Development. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you /4- dCj Resolution No. Page 4 U-2005-03 October 11,2005 fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING (BMR) Prior to building permit approval, the Applicant shall enter into BMR housing agreement with the City of Cupertino. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 14. TRAFFIC SIGNS, DETAILS, AND LEGENDS Traffic control signs, details and legends shall be placed at locations specified by the City. All improvement plans shall include all necessary signage, details and legends. 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not /4-:f; Resolution No. Page S U-2005-03 October I 1,2005 available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 17. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed 18. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 19. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 min. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00 g. Park Fees: $ 990,000.00 h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.c.) Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. 14-3/ Resolution No. Page 6 V-200S-03 October 11, 2005 -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 23. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS In addition, the applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. The City encourages the use of HMP (Hydromodification plan) BMP's in the design of the project. The property owners with treatment BMP's will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. 24. NPDES CQNSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction BMP's to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance 25. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The applicant shall enter into a City-established assessment district to fund the continual maintenance of the public park by the City for this development. In addition, the park design and construction must be reviewed and approved by the City. /L.( - 3d- Resolution No. Page 7 U-2005-03 October I I, 2005 26. SIDEWALK EASEMENT The Applicant shall grant to the City an easement for the sidewalk portion along Pruneridge Avenue within private property. 27. TRAFFIC Public Works accepts the overall conclusion that the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)that a net decrease in estimated vehicle trips generated by the proposed development from those generated by the previous office building use of the site will result in less than significant impacts on the intersections studied and the surrounding neighborhood streets. As stated previously, the project will be required to make improvements to correct equipment or operational deficiencies at the signalized intersections along Pruneridge Avenue at Tantau Avenue, the HP Driveway, and Wolfe Road. The improvements shall include upgrading of the existing Emergency Vehicle Preempt (EVP) system facilities and installation of pedestrian countdown traffic signal heads. The project shall amend the TlA or provide a separate analysis to determine whether the traffic signal at the HP Driveway is currently warranted and whether its operation meets current MUTCD standards. Although Public Works accepts the conclusion of the TIA as stated above, the intersection Levels of Service conclusions are somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan and CMP traffic studies. The project's consultant shall discuss the potential sources of the inconsistencies with Public Works and follow up with amendments to the TIA, if necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: /1./- !/:.J Resolution No. Page 8 V-200S-03 October 11, 2005 ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \2005 \ U-2005-03.doc /'1-3/ ASA-200S-0S CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDINGAPPROV AL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-200S-0S (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that complement m~ighboring structures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby recommended for approvat subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-200S- /4-:£ Resolution No. Page 2 ASA-2005-05 October 11, 2005 OS as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION !II: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Pruneridge Residentiat Cupertino, California" consisting of forty sheets labeled II, Cl - C7, 11.1 - 11.8, Bl, A-I - A-23, and submitted material boards, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. RELINQUISHMENT OF POTENTIAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT Prior to final building occupancy, the applicant shall relinquish to the adjacent apartment property owner to the west any potential ingress/ egress easement over the apartment property that is not needed for circulation or ingress/ egress to the project property. 3. TANDEM PARKING GARAGES 40 2-car tandem parking garages associated with condominium flat-- floor plan 1 and plan lA are approved. 4. NOISE MITIGATION To mitigate significant vehicular noise generated by traffic on Highway 280, the noise mitigations recommended by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in a noise assessment and subsequent response to the City dated August 8, 200S and September 21, 200S shall be incorporated in the building plans. This includes a noise attenuation wall along the southern property line and solid materials to buffer exterior noise for upper level balconies adjacent to Highway 280. The City Arborist shall review the location and construction details of the sound wall to ensure the preservation of the row of Coast Redwoods along the southerly property line. To mitigate interior noise levels generated by highway traffic, the Applicant shall incorporate in his building plans higher STC-rated construction materials and provide mechanical ventilation of the residential units. S. PARKING GARAGES TO BE USED FOR PARKING Applicant shall write into the homeowners association's CC&R's that all garages shall be kept sufficiently free and clear to house two parked automobiles. 6. SITE PLAN REVISION To screen the onsite north/south driveway that abuts Pruneridge Avenue, the Applicant shall move one of the park-facing residential units onto the driveway terminus. The site plan revisions shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development at the building permit stage. I if - 3Ú/ Resolution ~o. Page 3 ASA-2005-05 October 11, 2005 7. BUILDING FINISHES, MATERIALS, PAVEMENT TREATMENTS, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, FURNITURE, FENCING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW At the building permit stage, all building finishes, materials, pavement treatments, architectural details, furniture, fencing, lighting and landscaping shall be reviewed for substanti?ll consistency with the approved plans and exhibits and approved by the Director of Community Development. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING (BMR) Prior to building permit approval, the Applicant shall enter into BMR housing agreement with the City of Cupertino. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. /4-57 Resolution No. Page 4 ASA-200S-0S October 11, 2005 14. TRAFFIC SIGNS, DETAILS, AND LEGENDS Traffic control signs, details and legends shaH be placed at locations specified by the City. All improvement plans shall include all necessary signage, details and legends. 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 17. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shaH be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed 18. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 19. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 min. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00 g. Park Fees: $ 990,000.00 /4-3 'if Resolution No. Page 5 ASA-2005-05 October 11, 2005 h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.c.) Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 21. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 23. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS In addition, the applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. The City encourages the use of HMP (Hydromodification plan) BMP's in the design of the project. The property owners with treatment BMP's will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. 24. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction BMP's to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance /4-3C¡ Resolution ~o. Page 6 ASA-200S-0S October 11, 2005 25. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The applicant shall enter into a City-established assessment district to fund the continual maintenance of the public park by the City for this development. In addition, the park design and construction must be reviewed and approved by the City. 26. SIDEWALK EASEMENT The Applicant shall grant to the City an easement for the sidewalk portion along Pruneridge Avenue within private property. 27. TRAFFIC Public Works accepts the overall conclusion that the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)that a net decrease in estimated vehicle trips generated by the proposed development from those generated by the previous office building use of the site will result in less than significant impacts on the intersections studied and the surrounding neighborhood streets. As stated previously, the project will be required to make improvements to correct equipment or operational deficiencies at the signalized intersections along Pruneridge Avenue at Tantau Avenue, the HP Driveway, and Wolfe Road. The improvements shall include upgrading of the existing Emergency Vehicle Preempt (EVP) system facilities and installation of pedestrian countdown traffic signal heads. The project shall amend the TlA or provide a separate analysis to determine whether the traffic signal at the HP Driveway is currently warranted and whether its operation meets current MUTCD standards. Although Public Works accepts the conclusion of the TIA as stated above, the intersection Levels of Service conclusions are somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan and CMP traffic studies. The project's consultant shall discuss the potential sources of the inconsistencies with Public Works and follow up with amendments to the TIA, if necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: /4-40 Resolution No. Page 7 ASA-2005-05 October 11, 2005 ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Com.munity Development G: IPlanninglP DREPOR TlRESI2005 IASA -2005-05 res. doc Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission /4 -4/ GP A-200S-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE 130 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A PROPOSED TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LAND PROPOSED FOR A PUBLIC PARK FROM INDUSTRIAL/RESIDENTIAL TO PARKS AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Project Location: GP A-200S-01 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a General Plan Amendment, for the site described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and considered public testimony from citizens and interested groups; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan amendment is necessary to create additional housing opportunies near job-producing areas and provide public parkland for existing and future residents of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that there will not be significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment is hereby recommended for approval as modified by the Commission, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. GPA-200S- 01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. /'-/ - Lf;;). Resolution No. Page 2 GPA-2005-01 October 11, 200S PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES\ 2005 \ GPA-200S-0l res. doc J4-tj?J Z-200S-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF AN 8.96-GROSS ACRE SITE FROM P(MP) - PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE TO P(RES)- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND PR- PUBLIC PARK LOCATED AT 19310 -19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2005-02 (EA-2005-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. /4-f-/t.{ Resolution No. Page 2 z- 2005-02 October 11, 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-200S-02 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-200S-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plat Map Pruneridge Avenue at Ridgeview Ct., Cupertino, CA, dated 9/12/0S, and Exhibit B: Zoning Plat Description Pruneridge Ave. at Ridgeview Ct. Cupertino, California, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. REVISIONS TO ZONING PLAT MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Applicant shall provide a zoning plat map, and separate legal descriptions for the P(RES)- Planned Residential and PR- Public Park zoned areas. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission c:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \2005 \ Z-2005-02 res. doc /Lj-Lfs TM-200S-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 8.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 31 LOTS FOR A 130-UNIT TOWNHOME AND STACKED FLAT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 0.937-ACRE PUBLIC PARK AT 19310 - 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-200S-07 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. £) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. /4-'-Ib Page 2 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 --- SECTION 1II: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recoII}IIlendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Tentative Map Cupertino, California 130 Residential Condominium Units 19310 Pruneridge Avenue & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue" consisting of seven sheets labeled C1 - C7, and Circulation Diagram, consisting of one sheet, and labeled L1.2, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TENTATIVE MAP REVISION Revise tentative map as needed to reflect site design changes in the locations of the residential units. 3. CONDOMINIUM PLAN Prior to occupancy of the units, the Applicant shall provide the condominium unit boundary planes) to the City. 4. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMON AREAS The Applicant shall designate through the CC&Rs the homeowners' association as the responsible party for all maintenance of private common areas in this development. 5. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS The Applicant shall submit a final map for City approval that describes and records public pedestrian easements from the abutting apartment property through the development to the public park that is in conformance with Sheet 11.2 of the project plan set. 6. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES As part of the approval of this project, the Applicant shall convey to the City, Lot "K" to be used for public park purposes. Lot "K" shall be conveyed at such time when the park is fully designed and improved and the maintenance assessment district is established to the satisfaction of the City. 7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you 14-47 Page 3 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 -- fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 8. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 9. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 10. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 11. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 12. TRAFFIC SIGNS, DETAILS, AND LEGENDS Traffic control signs, details and legends shall be placed at locations specified by the City. All improvement plans shall include all necessary signage, details and legends. 13. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 14. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of .the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 14-4ó Page 4 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 15. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The dev.eloper shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,785.00 min. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00 g. Park Fees: $ 990,000.00 h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C) Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City CounciL However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. /4-tfC¡ Page 5 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 19. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 20. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 21. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS In addition, the applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. The City encourages the use of HMP (Hydromodification plan) BMP's in the design of the project. The property owners with treatment BMP's will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. 22. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction BMP's to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance 23. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The applicant shall enter into a City-established assessment district to fund the continual maintenance of the public park by the City for this development. In addition, the park design and construction must be reviewed and approved by the City. 24. SIDEWALK EASEMENT The Applicant shall grant to the City an easement for the sidewalk portion along Pruneridge Avenue within private property. 25. TRAFFIC Public Works accepts the overall conclusion that the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) that a net decrease in estimated vehicle trips generated by the 14-50 Page 6 TM-2005-07 October 11, 2005 proposed development from those generated by the previous office building use of the site will result in less than significant impacts on the intersections studied and the surrounding neighborhood streets. As stated previously, the project will be required to make improvements to correct equipment or operational deficiencies at the signalized intersections along Pruneridge Avenue at Tantau Avenue, the HP Driveway, and Wolfe Road. The improvements shall include upgrading of the existing Emergency Vehicle Preempt (EVP) system facilities and installation of pedestrian countdown traffic signal heads. The project shall amend the TIA or provide a separate analysis to determine whether the traffic signal at the HP Driveway is currently warranted and whether its operation meets current MUTCD standards. Although Public Works accepts the conclusion of the TIA as stated above, the intersection Levels of Service conclusions are somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan and CMP traffic studies. The project's consultant shall discuss the potential sources of the inconsistencies with Public Works and follow up with amendments to the TIA, if necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2005 \ TM-2005-07res.doc It..\.-Sl TR-200S-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 9S014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE AND REPLACE APPROXIMA TEL Y 90 TREES AT 19310 - 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE SECTION I; PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-200S-06 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC)/Sobrato Development Companies 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove and replace approximately 90 trees as part of the residential redevelopment of an office building, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant intends to replace the trees by planting about SOO new trees as part of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-200S-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11, 200S are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit titled: "Tentative Map Tree Plan Pruneridge Avenue & Ridgeview Court, Cupertino, California" consisting of Li-5d. Resolution No. Page 2 TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 one sheet labeled C7 and tree protection recommendations outlined in a tree survey prepared by McClenahan Consulting LLC and dated June 17, 200S, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENT Removed trees shall be replaced in conformance with landscape plans sheets Ll.1, 11.3,11.4, 11.S, and 11.6. Final selection of species and tree sizes shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 3. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. TREE PRESERVATION BOND FOR THREE OAK TREES Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall provide a tree bond or equivalent financial instrument in the amount of $30,000 for the protection of three coast live oak trees designated tree nos. 640 through 642 in a tree survey prepared by McClenahan Consultinp; LLC and dated June 17, 200S. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 200S, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\RES\2005\ TR-2005-06 res.doc L.f-53 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 14, 200S As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 14, 200S. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-200S-03, ASA-200S-0S, GP A-200S-01 Z-200S-02, TR-200S-06 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC) 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue Applicant: Location: DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST Use Permit to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,528 square feet and construct a 130-unit townhome development and a .937-acre park. Architectural and Site Approval for a 130-unit townhome development. General Plan Amendment to allocate 130 residential units for a proposed townhome development. Rezoning of an 8.5-acre site from Planned Industrial Zone to Planned Residential Zone. Tree removal of trees for a 130-unit townhome development. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. Mitigated conditions are: the soils report and a proposal to reduce traffic noise needs to be submitted ((; ;¿ £/1 z¿;~ Ciddy Wordell Acting Community Development Director g/erc/REC EA-2005-03 H-54 14-55" City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department I OF CUPERJINO SJãtt:'\;Jslfo.n -'-~"r3itX iiSl ~:"'M",'.'8"M;;""""""lB,!X~~Wd!,,,,;ftt';t:"'1i2il EA File No. fl'A--7N\!5" --o~ Case File No. "ttachments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: R~\ Wi- $ Q... \""1IC,-(' f>o,r-<......... ~. Ellvironmenta e~'n: {;y .~ .¡ \.~ ~~ cë .~ ~£ :~'""~o~ :-~.~l b v·~, p. ~~a8P Av p Co-fv$ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - ~5" Building ~overage - % EXiS~SU~~~g - s.f: Ptopqsed Bldg. - s.f. Zone - P( WI f> G.P. Designation -J:i \I 'J / ¡eu,~~ Assessor's Parcel No. - 31b-- of.., -..6$OJ 051 It Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 130!8.?C, :::. jLf.5/ f::: )/G'R.. PIc.· Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 APpn.1šre'~pec!Ji> Area Plani: (Check) 3 II i" 80 o Monta Vista Design Guidelines 0 S. De Anza Conceptual Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.t. Price 13 'Ow 1\ 2 / I <A~ 13 ., Z I &Z.q 27 /I 2- I~n 2..- , '2..1 VI / '/-'-2- \1 fI T J. J.j ~'"' ZA ';, ~ " "'J " Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape s.t. FAR· Max. Parking Provided 35' I s pqC/l.S ) YES þI , NO 0 1.f7.s~ (; pctc.Æ-S It Non-Residential, Building Area - Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - J4~r:;(p A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OU'T$\DIõ 1>.GlõNCIES (Con\inuCld\ 1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 4. Transportation Eiement 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hiliside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valiey Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (Califomia History Excesses Center. 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, IISoils of Santa Clara Countý' 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Deveiopment Depl. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Depl. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources: if such sources are used. job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each DaQe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,(Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ,(Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) / 14-57 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ;...'" 0 c'" _c C1: c; c -01.... ea ns 0 ca 0101.... .... .!!! u u ..s:::: tJ .-.... ,c<.)<.) <.) ISSUES: .....- ~ 1-t;::5t;o 1-;;:01 o 01 C~ "' .- 'i CI c. "'._ c. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] CD c E en c .-... "' C E E Õ .2'- CD CI :!: 0 CD.~- ....1.- :¡; <.) D.en en C ....I en I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 181 scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 lQ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 ~ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 JièI glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] . II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: I a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 )(í i Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the i California Resources Agency, to non- , agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ßit agricultural use, or a Williamson Act i contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 Jii1 environment which, due to their location or , nature, could result in conversion of i Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] I , /4-58' I \ >.... C'" 0 C¡: _ c c C; -...... ns ca 0 ca ........ .... I .!2 CJ U .s:UoC°-r- .cuu u ISSUES: .....- ~ 1-~....1õo I- .- .. o .. c:= ""-'~ ",c. en ~ C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] C ) c: E en C ._ 1.0 '" c: E .§ Õ .2'- CD C'J ::= 0 C ).~- ...J'- ::æ: u D..C/ C/ c: ...JC/ III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air I pollution qmtrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 Œ; the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ß( , contribute substantially to an existing or I projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] I .~ I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 I increase of any criteria pollutant for which I the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] i d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ~ I I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] I ã I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 substantial number of people? [4,37,44] ! IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would " ! I the project: .' i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 æ:. I directly or through habitat modifications, on i any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the I California Department of Fish and Game or I US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] i I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 JJit I federally protected wetlands as defined by -~ Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal -- /4-6? i - i ».... 0 C¡: I _c c ¡: c +: -"'.... III '" 0 III III"'.... .... .!!! u u ..s:: u .-... ..c: <.> <.> <.> ISSUES: -¡¡:: ~ ~¡¡:£ß;o I-¡¡::'" o '" c ._ II) .- '3' C> Q. en'- Co zQ. [and Supporting Information Sources] (I) C E U') c .- "- II) C E E õ.~- Q)tÐ :::0 (1).2"- ....1.- ::¡; <.> D..I/) I/) C ....II/) pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 iZJ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 &1 I ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or I: ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 JQ Community Conservation Plan, or other , approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26.27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 .JZ( the significance of a historical resource as defined in §1S064.S? [5.13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ø. i the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 m ! paleontological resource or site or unique I geologic feature? [5,13,41] I d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 12, I I those interred outside of formal cemeteries? I [1,S] I I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the , I project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk I of loss, injury, or death involving: í I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 Ji1! I delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo i i Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the I L/~~() í c .... 0 ¡ ;>..... c.... I - t: t: ¡;; :¡:; ¡;; -OS"" œos O~ œ~... ... .!!! u u .s: u ..c .- '- J::uU U ISSUES: - ¡;:: Ë f-¡¡::_«i0 f- .- ca o .. c:: ._ "'_'3: ",c. cn~c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c:: E en c .-... III c:: E E õ.~- G,)tn :::0 Q) .~- , D..I/) ...J'- :E U ...JI/) 1 I/) c ! I State Geologist for the area or based on I other substantial evidence of a known fault? I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology I Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 18 [2,S,10,44] I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 181 ¡liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] r I iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 ~ I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 ~ ! loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 ¡g unstable, or that would become unstable as I a result of the project, and potentially result ·1· I in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, I subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] I i d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 .181 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,S, 1 0] e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 m supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems I where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] I . VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ~ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 g¡ 0 0 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 m hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile / Lf -0/ »... 0 c:ë _I: c:~ c:: -..- CIS.. 0.. ....- - .!! u u .cUoCo-I.. J::uU U ISSUES: -.- ~ 1-~:!::1ôO 1-;;::" o .. c~ ""-;;:e>c. cn"- ~ zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ., <:: E (1)1: -'- '" <:: E E Õ .gJ- (þC) ~o ., .~- ..J'- :¡¡CJ D..VI VI <:: ..JVI of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 );! list of hazàrdous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [] . f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 -~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 Jáf interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ~ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or I where residences are intermixed with I I wildlands?[1,2,44] I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY , -- Would the project: I a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 !l ¡ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ¡g I supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would I be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ¡lowering of the local groundwater table level I (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing I nearby wells would drop to a level I which would not support existing land uses I or planned uses for which permits have been ¡granted)? [20,36,42] Icj~0 ól , ;.,'" 0 r;;;'" -c: r;;; E ¡:;:¡:¡ c: -"'.... tIS '" 0 '" tIS"'.... .... .!!! u u s::. us::.'- .... ..c: u u u ISSUES: .....- 9 I-¡¡::...ñio 1-1;:'" o '" s:::~ II)'-'¡S 0'Ic. en'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] .. C E en C .-.... II) C E § õ.~- Q)C) ~o ...~- ...1'- :E U D..I/) I/) C ...II/) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 C1!f 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 of siltation on- or off-site? [14,20,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ~ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or , amount of surface runoff in a manner which I would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ~ would exceed the capacity of existing or I planned storm water drainage systems or I provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 f¡(" quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 þ¡! hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ~ I structures which would impede or redirect I i flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 I 0 J1( I risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, I including flooding as a result of the failure of I I a levee or dam? [2,36,38] I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 .Qi¡ I I mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would I the project: , ! a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ~ i I community? [7,12,22,41] i , oj , N i b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 I policy, or regulation of an agency with ¡Q-(03 I I ».... 0 C.... ¡ISSUES: - t: C E c;¡:; c -os.... œ os O!\! œ!\!... ... .!! (.) u .J: u .-.... ..c:uu u -¡¡:g I-t;:=ñjo t--¡¡::ca o co c: ._ CI)"-'- C)Q. en .- c. zc. I [and Supporting Information Sources] <I> c: E en s::::: ~.- ... UI c: E .ê õ.~- Q)t» :!::o <1>.21- ...J'- :æ; 0 I Q.en en c: ...Jen i jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 tfJ. I conservation plan or natural community I conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] IX. MINERAL RESOURCES .- Would the 1 project: . a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ~ mineral resource that would be of value to I the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] , b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ¡1( I locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, . I specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] I ! XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 ~ 0 0 noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 Eii1 excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 5:1 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I above levels existing without the project? [8,18] I d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 ~ 0 I increase in ambient noise levels in the I project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] I e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ~ I use plan or, where such a plan has not been , adopted, within two miles of a public airport I ! or public use airport, would the project I i expose people residing or working in the /4 -64 ».... ¡;;.... 0 ¡;;.... - t: t: r: .- r: -~.... œ ~ 0 ~ œ~... ... .!!! c,,) u ~U.c:+:"" ..c:uu u ISSUES: -"'9 ~¡¡::_caO 1-...'" o ~ <: .- (1)'-'3: OlD. «1)'- Co zD. [and Supporting Information Sources] ., <: E UI c .-.... (I) <: E E õ.~- C) t» ~ 0 .,.9'- ...J .- :¡¡; IJ i DoC/) C/) <: ...JC/) - I project area to excessive noise levels? I [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D l2t airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D ß area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ~ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D ~ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] . XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant I environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or i other performance objectives for any of the i I public services: I , ! Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D ~ Police protection? [33,44] D D D 8J I Schools? [29,30,44] D D D 18 Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D ðT D D Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D g XIV. RECREATION -- I a) Would the project increase the use of D D D J!l , existing neighborhood and regional parks or /4 -(íJe;' I ~... I: ... 0 1:'" \ ISSUES: -I: I: I: ;¡:¡ I: -01'" œ 01 0 \II œ\ll'" ... 01 U U ...I:: U .-... .<: U U U '"';;:: 9 1-r.¡:;R;O 1-;;::'" o '" I c ._ 1/)'-'- CIa. 1/)'_ a. za. I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E U) r::: ~ .- "- I/) C E .É õ.~- Q)tÐ ;::0 CD .!2'J- ..../.- :æ: (,) Q.I/ I/ C ..../I/ I other recreational facilities such that I substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 R facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] I. xv. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC-- Would the project: I a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 .ßJ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I result in a substantial increase in either the i number of vehicle trips, the volume to i capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I intersections)? [4,20,35,44] . b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 1& I a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for . designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 ..IQ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] i d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 pq I design feature (e.g., sharp curves or I dangerous intersections) or incompatible I uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ~ I I [2,19,32,33,44] I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 S. [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ~ programs supporting alternative I transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle I racks)? [4,34] I ! XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: 14 -ft;{p i c'" 0 I I ;.,'" c'" \ ISSUES: - I: I: c :¡:¡ I: - 1\\'" ~ 1\\ 0 ~ ~l1I'" ... .!! u (,) ..c u ,¡: .- "- .cuU 0 ....- ~ 1-¡¡::_1âO I- .- ca o .. c~ In'-'i ClC. fI) ~ Co zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q c E en C .- "- In C E E Õ .2'- Q CI :!::o Q ~- ...J'- :æ: 0 [l.!f !f C ...J!f a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 p( requirements of the applicable Regional I Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ¡>r.j new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 !J new storm water drainage facilities or I expansion of existing facilities, the I construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [S,22,28,36,44] I e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 ~ wastewater treatment provider which serves I or may serve the project that it has adequate I capacity to serve the project's projected I demand in addition to the provider's existing I commitments? [5,22.28,36,44] I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 fill I permitted capacity to accommodate the I project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ~ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] f4-(p 7 a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ 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? D b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 .i'J. I 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)? D c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 Zl effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. 1 () n Preparer's Signature ~ ~ Print Preparer's Name Coli", :::JÙY"Q , ¡Q-0'ð ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ¡Soils j! . Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology ¡ Water 0 Land Use ¡ Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources ¡g, Noise 0 Population ¡ Housing &. Public Services 0 Recreation ~ TransportationlTraffic 0 Utilities ¡ Service 0 Mandatory Findings of . Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: o The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. JIq, 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. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o 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. o 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. ERC Chairperson 1}IY_ Œ> Date q /1'-1 / Ùç Date /4 -fp 1 Environmental Analysis of Proposed Pruneridge Residential 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue Noise: Base on a noise report prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin for the project dated 8/8/05. Highway 280 now and in the future generates unacceptable noise levels at the nearest multiple-family residential buildings-84 dBA Ldn at 12 feet above grade level and 81 dBA Ldn at grade level measured 115 feet ftom the centerline of Interstate 280. A sound wall can be required to mitigate exterior noise to an acceptable level. In addition sound-rated construction techniques will be required to bring interior noise levels within State standards. Hazardous Materials: The property was formerly in orchard uses and there was an underground storage tank associated with a former industrial use. There is a potential for residual pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in the soil that would be exposed to project residents. There is also the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of some soil, even after previous soil analysis and closure of site by regulatory authorities. The applicant has already conducted a Phase II study involving borings and soil sampling and testing, but staff has not seen the report yet. Traffic: A traffic report was prepared by Fehr and Peers and dated August 2005. A 139-unit townhouse project was analyzed for traffic purposes and compared to the traffic generation of the existing two office buildings when occupied. The consultant concluded that daily vehicle trips would decrease by 769 trips on a net basis, and AM peak-hour trips decrease by 162 and PM peak-hour trips decline by 144 on a net basis. Intersection LOS analysis show no significant impact on studied intersections. Tree Removal: The applicant is proposing to remove at least 81+ trees from the property-all of them associated with the landscape improvements of the office project and include: Chinese Elms, Coast Redwoods, Monterey Pines, Flowering Pears and London Plane Trees. Trees along the Highway 280 and in the public park will be retained. Numerous other trees are proposed as part of the landscaping of the project. School Impacts: The development will generate children attending local Cupertino Schools-an estimated total of 50 in the elementary and middle school and 21 in the high school. There is sufficient capacity at the schools and the developer will pay school fees. 14~ 7D ~FACILICORP EXHIBIT A August 31. 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki Director. Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino. CA 95014 RE: Property located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Ave, Cupertino, CA. Dear Mr. Piasecki, FaciliCorp has been asked to provide a physical assessment of the two buildings located at 19319-19320 Prune ridge Ave. FaciliCorp is a full-service facilities management consulting firm offering a full spectrum of services; planning. site selection. lease negotiations. construction and relocation management. and ongoing facilities management. We work with corporate users ranging from start-ups to Fortune 500 companies to meet a wide variety of workplace needs. The property consists of two office buildings; a two-story 86.338 square foot building and smaller three-story 40.190 square foot building. built in 1974. The landlord has spent a significant amount of money to update the buildings. but unfortunately the cosmetic improvements have not been enough to offset the functional obsolescence and intrinsic inadequacies of the buildings. Enclosed is a comprehensive assessment of the two buildings. In addition to the assessment. I have also included a review of the site selection criteria most of our clients develop prior to beginning their search for a new facility. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 887-1956 if you have any questions. Sincerely. Richard L. Patten Vice President 1631 Willow Street, Suite 105. San Jose. California 95125 T 408.266.6525 F 408.266.6515 E www.facilicorp.com (4 - 71 BUILDING ASSESSMENT 19310-19320 Pruneridge Ave. - /.-~ // // - - I / L ~. :,:·.-.~.~~.~~~~~~S Prepared by: Rick Patten Vice President CtFACILlCORP 1631 Willow Street, Suite 105 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 266-6525 ext. 20 Mobile: (408) 887-1956 Rick@FaciliCorp.com /L{ - 7d-.. TYPICAL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA When companies make the decision to relocate their facilities, they are committing a significant capital investment. With the corporate demographic change as a result of globalization and Silicon Valley market transition to high end Class A office and office/R&D, companies maintain a consistent and list of site selection criteria and requirements. In addition to the operational requirements of the facility, most companies also strive to create a work environment that enhances their employee productivity . While not an all-inclusive list, below are the key elements included in the criteria for site selection high tech companies in Silicon Valley: · Operational Functionality - organizational fit, loading dock facilities, ceiling clear heights. server room infrastructure. · Utility Infrastructure - minimum PG&E electrical service to building, and capacity and age of cooling I heating systems. · Building / Site Integrity - structurallseismic conditions, age and condition of roof. · Location / Street Presence - signage, name visibility. · UPS / Emergency Generator - protection for server room and key IT systems. · Plug-N-Play Office Space - office furniture, systems furniture, conference rooms, cafeteria. · Network Infrastructure - network equipment, Cat 5e cabling at a minimum, fiber to the building, wireless networks. · Voice Infrastructure - either PBX or VOIP systems, voicemail, etc. · Natural Lighting - maximum amount of window lines and skylights. · Full Service Cafeteria · Meeting Facilities - conference center, multi-purpose room · Fitness Center- fitness equipment, locker room, shower facility, etc. · Outdoor Space - basketball, volleyball, walking trails, etc. · Transportation Alternatives - Cal Train, Light Rail, VTA, etc. The majority of the companies in the Bay Area today tend prefer an open office environment. The typical requirement is a mix of 15% hard wall offices and 85% open office space for cubicles (+1- 5%). The core infrastructure, conference rooms, and offices are usually preferred on the interior, with the open office on the perimeter of the building to maximize the natural light throughout the space. /4 - 73 BUILDING ASSESSMENT When touring the two buildings, it is obvious that the landlord has made a significant investment -to the site in an attempt to lease the space. The landscape and main entrances to the building are well maintained, and the lobbies have been updated with new glass storefronts, ceilings, indirect and recessed lighting. However, the functional layout and intrinsic design flaws of the buildings, coupled with the age and outdated and in many cases original internal infrastructure, have resulted in an archaic building that is functionally obsolete. Building Design Both of the buildings have extremely inefficient floor plans for today's office environment. Neither one of these office buildings offer a viable solution for neither today's work environment nor the office environment trends of the future. The three-story building has a small footprint (90' x 150', 13,500 square feet per floor) with a relatively large core, encompassing the entire center section of the building. When taking into account the 4' to 5' corridor, which would be required around the core, 21% of the floor space on the second and third floors are occupied by the core. This percentage is even higher on the first floor when you take into account the lobby and all of the recessed areas around each of the perimeter columns. The size and proximity of the core also eliminates the possibility building offices and/or conference rooms within the interior of the floor space. The result is any additional offices or conference rooms will need to be built on the perimeter of the building, thus blocking even more of the window line, which is already severely limited due to structurally low floor to ceiling heights. The two-story building has a large narrow footprint (120' x 365', 43,160 square feet per floor. Each floor has two core locations per floor, one at each end of the building. There is also a cafeteria on the first floor of this building. Floor to Ceiling Heights The floor to floor heights in both buildings are only 12' 6", resulting in extremely low floor to ceiling heights of only 8' 1 0". Ceilings for office buildings today are usually installed between 10' and 12' to create an open feeling in the open office area. Since the trend is to reduce the size of the individual work stations to maximize the number of occupants per building, there is emphasis on the common space and amenities being offered. Buildings today offer floor to floor heights in the range of 16' to 20' for the ground floor and 13' to 16' for the upper floors. N-74 The existing conditions are unusually low for an office environment. Having these reduced clearances on the ground floor simply eliminates the possibility of having any uses such as bio tech, R&D, manufacturing, warehousing, etc. The low ceiling height also precludes the possibility of any high-density storage systems. In the two-story building, there are also 16" soffits running between the column lines, which even further lowers the line of site throughout the open office space. Lighting I Day Lighting Natural light is a key component in today's office environment. Buildings are being designed with small floor plates and expansive window lines to maximize the amount of natural light penetrating into the open office space. Buildings like the new Sobrato Tower and the Palm building actually have floor to ceiling glass lines throughout the perimeter of the building. Developers today understand the importance of natural lighting, so they are designing buildings accordingly. The lobbies of these newer buildings are typically two story atriums creating an open and inviting environment for the employees and visitors entering the facility. These designs in conjunction with a building management system also result in reduced energy consumption. The interior lights are used to supplement the natural light to maintain a minimum level of light throughout the work environment. Here are several examples of buildings which were designed to enhance the natural light throughout the interior office space. Sobrato Development - Almaden Blvd., San Jose, CA 14-75 Ebay North - North First Street, San Jose, CA. Portal Software - South OeAnza Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 14--70 Palm, Inc. - West Maude Ave, Sunnyvale, CA. Liqhtinq: Lighting is an essential component to any interior office space. While some indirect lighting exists in the buildings, the height of the light fixtures reduces their efficiency. With the ceiling height at 8' 10" and the bottom of the light fixtures at end up at 7' 3", that only leaves 16" between the light fixture and the ceiling. Indirect light fixtures are usually hung 24" to 36" below the ceiling to allow the light to spread out before reflecting off of the ceiling down to the floor to create an even level of lighting throughout the space. The result of having the light fixtures so close to the ceiling is an uneven level of light in the open office space. Window Lines: The window line on the second floor of the two-story building and the third floor of the three-story building have windows, but they are relatively small compared to the typical office building. The height of the windows are only 54" high, with the window sill at 30" off of the floor for a total height of 84". When the open office space is filled with cubicles, which typically are 60" to 64" in height, only 20" to 24" of the windows will be visible over the cubes. The end result is having even less natural penetrating the office space. The first floor of the three-story building is even worse, because only the east and south side of the building has windows at all. The entire west side of the building lacks any fL{- 77 windows. The long narrow office space with the low ceilings, lack of natural light, soffits, and low light fixtures creates a very dark, dreary and cavernous environment. Interior office space - 15 floor of the Two-Story Building. Electrical I Mechanical Infrastructure The majority of the mechanical and electrical infrastructure is original to the building, which dates back to at least the 1970's. The base mechanical systems are located in enclosures behind the building. ADA Compliance In 1995 when the additional space was added to the two-story office building, there some ADA upgrades were completed at the same time. The rest rooms were brought up to compliance, as well as the handicap parking spaces and ramps were installed. However, there are still several items that are not in compliance. The elevators have very narrow sliding doors, which are not in compliance with today's regulations since there is not the required width or turning radius. The stairwells are also non-compliant since they do not have solid risers. Due to the size and location of the stairwells and the elevators, it would be very costly to retrofit these items. 14 ~ 7 '{ Loading Dock Facilities The two-story building has several man doors along the back of the building, but no real loading dock facilities. There is minimal space in the parking lot between the back of the building. and the residential complex to the west Even if a recessed dock were to be built, there is insufficient space for trucks to access and turn around in the limited amount of space. Also, given the limited floor to ceiling height inside warehousing, pallet racking and forklift operations are infeasible. IT I Computer Room The two-story building has a computer room with 18" raised floor, which is not seismically braced. With today's IT equipment, both the electrical and mechanical systems would need to be completely rebuilt to support the new and expected electrical and heat loads given the trends in technology advancement The current electrical distribution is outdated and was designed to accommodate (1) 20 Amp circuit per 24" equipment rack. Server Rooms built today are consistently designed with (5) 20 Amp circuits or higher per 24" equipment rack. The cable infrastructure is also completely obsolete. The building lacks cable infrastructure required by today's companies. The site also lacks any Fibre at all in the building and there are no connections to the street Cat 5e and Cat 6 cable infrastructure and Fibre are essential building infrastructure in today's office environment Summary The requirements for today's work environment have changed over the past thirty years when these two buildings were built While the landscaping, lobbies, and cafeteria are nice features of this site. Unfortunately, these three items do not have a significant impact when making the site selection for a new facility. Companies are concerned about operational fit and employee productivity and morale when making the final selection. Even if the lease rates are well below the market rates, the buildings' inefficient layout, cavernous nature due to extremely low floor to ceiling heights, outdated heating, electrical, plumbing systems, archaic cabling, communications and IT infrastructure and age of the buildings have resulted in functional obsolescence. / 4 -7'1 EY.'-'ib\t-: ß CBRE CB RICHARD ELLIS Thomas Taylor Senior Vice President Brokerage Services 225 W. Sonto Clara Street Suite 1050 Son Jose, CA 95113-1735 T 4084537417 F 408 437 3170 Thomas. T aylor@cbre.com www.cbre.com May 31, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki Director, Community DevelopDlent Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 EXHIBIT B Dear Mr. Piasecki: As a Senior Vice President of CB Richard Ellis in San Jose with over 20 years of commercial real estate experience, I have been asked to provide my assessment of the two-building campus owned by Sobrato Development at 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino. I have toured the buildings on numerous occasions with prospective tenants. The feedback that I have received both froDl my clients and others in the real estate brokerage community is that this is a dated, unattractive campus with little identity or image. The floor plates, core design and function, and clear heights are not functional for today's businesses. Tenants are looking for higher-end facilities with abundant glass lines, higher ceilings and more consistent neighborhoods. I have never had a client request a second tour or a leasing proposal on the properties. In my professional opinion, these buildings are functionally obsolete. Respectfully, Jk.- 6.0f- Thomas B. Taylor Senior Vice President IT:lg N: \Shared\ Do'\vntown\ Tom Taylor\20(6\ Proposals \ TTO~)310SSobT<lto Proposal.doc 14- óO commercial property services CORFAC INTERNATIONAL 47S EI Camino Real. Suite 100, Santa Clara, CA 95050, P (408) 81S-3400· F (408) 815-3444' www.cps·co.com June 2, 2005 Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Property at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA. Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am a commercial real estate agent for CPS and have been asked to provide you my opinion on the marketability of the property at 19310-19329 Pruneridge Avenue to office users. I have toured the buildings and I am very familiar with the office space opportunities, both in the area and in the greater Silicon Valley. I believe that the design and function of these buildings is outdated and they lack the necessary elements offered by newer office developments. While the buildings offer above-standard lobbies, nearly everything else about them is functionally obsolete: the ceiling heights are low, the building exteriors are plain and dated, there is no dock loading, and there is extremely limited identity. I believe these buildings will remain vacant due to the foregoing. There is very little about them that would make them attractive to potential tenants. Their inherent design flaws offer limited to no opportunity for renovation to meet the demands of today's office market. Feel free to contact me with questions. Sincerely, ~~ Gregory M. Davies (408) 615-3484' II ~~ DOMESTIC OFFICES; Anaheim, Arllng\Qn, Allanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, Buffalo, Burlington, Central Valley, Charlotte, Chatham, Chicago, Chula Vista, Cincinnati, Columbia, Dallas, Danbury, Denvar, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Franklin Lakes, Greensboro, Houston, Huntsville, Irvine, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Las Vagas, Leigh Valley, utUe Rock, Los Angeles, MlII11phls, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, NashvlUe, New Yor1c: City, Oakland, Or1andolMaltland, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Princeton, RIchmond, Rosevllie, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Seattle, Sl Louis, TomInce, Walnut Creek, Washington, D.C., White Plains, Wilmington INTERHAT10NAL OFFICES: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Gennany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Serbia & Montenegro, Spain, SwitZeriand, Wales I'--/- ff CORNISH & CAR E Y COMMERCIAL Coc ONCOR INTERNATIONAL TODD SHAFFER VICE PRESIDENT May 31, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki Director of CODlDlunity Development Community Developrrrent Departm.ent City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Dear Mr. Piasecki: I have been asked to provide you with my professional assessment of the office buildings located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue. I have been a cODlDlercial broker for nearly 20 years focused specifically on the Cupertino and 280-<:orridor markets. After touring these buildings, my assesSDlent is that these buildings do not rrreet the needs of potential business or corporate users. Several issues make the buildings unsuitable for businesses today. The buildings and the site lack any type of dock or grade loading or opportunities for warehousing. The structures have low floor-to-ceiling clear heights, making the larger building especially feel claustrophobic. While the property owner has made a significant effort to upgrade the facilities, the buildings continue to be elinrinated by rrry clients due to their dated look and feel. In my professional opinion, this property will continue to sit vacant, and is an ideal site for redevelopment given its adjacency to residential. Sincerely, CORNISH & CAREY COMMERCIAL jM~ Todd Shaffer Vice President TS:lli 5I)IJ()SI5lI'M'1316-SHAFdoe 2804 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD. SUITE 120, SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 - (40S) 727 9600 FAX (408) 988-6340 North AmerlcanOfflces: AtllØlf... Baltinwn, Bœlon, Chiœgo, DlllJa,. DmutT, HmøtDlI, lm"Jlgeb, NtwYorkGty, Phi1llt/elpJriø. Pllæmx, PtrtlsmJ,St.l.JmU Sa Diego, San Fl'Jlnrisco, Sez¡uk:, Toronto, Woshington D.C lfItcm¡dÎona] Offi~ Amslmlam, fkrijn, Brrest&. ~, l.uruhm, MIDIÎd!,. PnIgøt, Sb.*'wIIIf, Vimllll H - fa... ~. 450Wæ. SBlta CIa-a 9:reet S:n..bse,Caifornia 95113U9\ Tel: 400-282-3800 Fac.: 400-292-8100 www.coUia-::pa-riSl.rom May 25, 2005 Steve Pia.secki Director, Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am a Senior Vice President with Colliers International, one of the largest commercial real estate companies in Silicon Valley. I have been with Colliers International for 22 years. My area of expertise is the West Valley office and R&D market. I have leased / sold more space in that market than any other broker in Silicon Valley. I am writing to give you my professional assessment on the Sobrato property located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino. The property consists of two office buildings; a two-story 88,000 sq.ft. building and a 3-story 40,000 sq.ft. building. The 3-story is inefficient with large core areas and small floor plates. The elevator does not meet code, the ceilings are low, and the HV AC systems have reached the end of their useful life. The 2-story building has very low ceilings that make the office interiors unattractive to potential tenants. The long rectangular shape of the building with no windows along the rear are also unattractive. Tenants in today's competitive environment want high ceilings and an abundance of natural light. These buildings have neither of these two ÏD1portant features. The mechanical and electrical systems are outdated. There is no grade or dock loading for either building and no warehouse area. Even if part of the building is opened up for warehouse, the clear heights are too low and there is no ability to add dock loading due to the close proximity of the apartments next door to the building rear. These buildings have, in my opinion, reached the end of their useful life. The problems are far beyond cosmetic; they are structural and architectural. The floor plates, core design and function, and clear heights are not functional for today's businesses. I can /4-t3 , , . not envision, at any time in the near future, a tenant choosing to occupy either of these buildings. In can be of further assistance, feel tree to contact me directly at (408) 282-3855. Sincerely, ~~~ Bob Shephe;rd Senior Vice President /L{-fLf "-runT. AUSTIN B^-LTlMOU BIiTHESDA 1J;¡R.MJN{1H.~M BOSTON CH....R.LO'ITE CHICAGO C¡N"CTNNATI CRESA. PALO ALTO Cotpot4~ Rull!al4f' s.mc. Ák!a0l'l iCRESA PARTNEB.S 2483 _ Bayobae Rood, Suite 102 No Alto, a.Iifornia 94303 111/ 650.812.9800 ¡... 650.812.91133 WWW:~com C·R·E·S·A PARTNERS May 25, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 COLlTMiU$ Dw..., Dear Mr. Piasecki: RE: Sobrato Property at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino I am familiar with the Pruneridge A venue property and have long felt that it is functionally obsolete. Beyond the fact that the interiors are dated and the mechanical and electrical systems have reached the end of their useful lives, there are structural issues that cannot be corrected including insufficient clear height, lack of dock loading, inefficient floor plates, M",oa., limited window lines, poor identity, unattractive exterior architecture, and the residential MW41 easement that runs across the rear portion of the property. MtN/'laArOus/ST_ P Aut. DENVBII DETROIT HOIJS'rOH IN'þ!A}:APOLlS IJ.\o1m KANSAS CITY LONG l$LANl;) LosANG£LI!S MOIUUn'OWN NIIW ORLI:\ANS NBWYCkK PALOALTO P.uA),(US PHILADELI'HIJ. PHOENIX POkTJ..AN"D SAC'kAM!NTO SAN'DIE.GO SAN PJ,ANCl$CO S:AN'JO~£ SU'ITL1 ST_LOtJIS TOItON1'O T¥~ON::> Cm.NEt W ASHTNGTON D.C. This letter is in response to questions regarding the viability of the above-referenced Sobrato property. . Sobrato Development has been diligent in maintaining and investing in the property to make it more marketable, including a recent renovation of the lobbies and entrances that ran into the millions of dollars. However, based on the configuration of the buildings and their structural design, they do not meet the criteria to lease space used by businesses today. They are rarely included on property tours given these fundamental problems. Sincerely, .----;? --#/./ I~-' / I Mark Pearson Partner /tf- (5"' EXHIBIT C ~ Santa Clara County Dlllsing Action Coalitil The Santa Clara Cðunty Housing Action Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuals who have, as a common goal, the vision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located housing October 3, 2005 Members of the Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to express our support for Pruneridge Residential by the Morley Bros. located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue. By way of background, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC include the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association Tri- County Division, and the Affordable Housing Network. Silicon Valley and the region continue to see a dire need for housing, particularly within the rrrarket segn¡ent targeted for first-time homebuyers. In Cupertino, the need for entry-level housing is even more pronounced with the difference between a single family home and a townhome/condo at almost $400,000. In August, according to the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, only 21 townhomes/condos were listed for sale in Cupertino while the single family listings were closer to 60. Clearly, Cupertino has a need for exactly the type of homes being proposed by the Morley Bros. The Housing Action Coalition supports this proposal for 131 new homes. Our only wish is that the proposal would provide rrrore homes at higher densities. Given the need, it is very important to identify sites, such as this one, where increased density is appropriate-where the direct impact to immediate residential neighbors is minirrral. The Housing Action Coalition urges the City's approval of this development proposal. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, ~e-cJ~ Lee Wieder Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Access Land Development Tim ieuwsma Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Synergy Properties /4-õb "" SIUcon '\ ""Valley leadership GruUI ~ 224 Airport Parkway, Suite 620 San Jose, California 95110 (408)501-7864 Fax (408)5iJ1-7861 hffp.//www.sv/g.nel CARL GUARDINO President & CEO MRT J DE GEUS Immediate Past Chair, SVLG Synopsys Board Officers: WIlLIAM T. COLEMAN Itt Chair Cassatt Corporation MICHAEL CANNON Vice Chair Solectron Corporation ROBERT SHOFFNER SecretaryITreasurer Ciübank Board Members: JOHN ADAMS Wells Fargo Bank NED BARNHDl T Agilent Technologies CRAIG R BARRETT Intel Corporation RAY BINGHAM Cadence Design Systems, Inc. PETER CARTWRIGHT Calpine Corporation DENICE DENTON UnWefsity of CaUfomia, Santa Cruz RAQUEl GONZALEZ Bank of America BRIAN HALLA National $emconductor JEANETTE HDRAN IBM Corporation lEONARD KWIA TKOWSKl Lockheed Martin PAUlLOCA TEllI, S.J.. Santa Clara University JUN NARUSE Hitachi Global Storage Technologies LEN PERHAM Optimal KIM POlESE SpikeSource, Inc. BYRONSCORDElIS Greater Bay Bancorp DAVID J. SHIMMON Ce/erityGroup, Inc. MICHAEL SPLINTER Applied Materials LINDA SUlliVAN NBC 11 JOYCE M. TAYLOR SBC BDB WA YMAN Hawlett·Packard Company KENNETH WILCOX SiUcon Valley Bank DAVID WRIGHT EMC Corporation JOANN ZIMMERMAN Kaiser Permanente Working Council Chair NANCY NOE Alza Corporation Founded In 1977 by DAVID PACKARD October 4, 2005 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to express our support for a residential development proposal by the Morley Bros called Pruneridge Residential. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), formerly known as Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG), founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, represents 195 of the Silicon Valley's most respected employers. SVLG members collectively provide nearly 250,000 jobs, or one of every four private sector jobs in Silicon Valley. SVLG continues to hear directly from member company CEOs that housing remains a top impediment to recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce. As a result, we use a a set of criteria to evaluate residential development proposals_ This proposal clearly meets our criteria for endorsement. One of the biggest challenges to meeting that need is finding land suitable for additional homes. Fortunately, the site in question is ideal in that it is close to major bus routes and services. And, it will provide a new customer base to support the soon-to-be revitalized Val1co Mall. Gvien the need for housing and the scarcity of land, it is incredibly important that opportunities such as these be maximized. We strongly encourage your support of this development proposal for 130 homes. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, (Y~ø Carl Guardino President/CEO /4- 17 .' . 'i"; dds Wliffdess ~/ 1ieriz!!Pwire1ess June 29, 2005 J C I~/¡I-jw- s ~ LE $ II E II E S 'E N TAT I V E Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL DSWlrelau.lnc. 1D983 North Wolfe Aoad Cuper1lno,CA95014 p 409.717.1229 f 408.717.1217 ---------- _u____ __u u___u Dear Mr. Piasecki: I anI writing to express my support for the Pruneridge Avenue residential development proposal. - As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential since housing exists adjacent to the site. The project also will assist in tying existing residential areas together by providing a new public park on Pruneridge. There currently are a number of retail services in walking distance that would greatly benefit from additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. It provides much needed housing opportunities near jobs, provides a new park in the neighborhood, and additional residents to support our small businesses and ensure the economic vitality of the area. I respectfully request your support for the Pruneridge Avenue Residential project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mayor City Council /4- óf August 25, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing in support of residential development on Pruneridge Avenue. . As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential. Many of the retail services in walking distance would greatly benefit ftom additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. Thank you for your consideration of my support for more residential in our area. Sincerely, . þ¡"f(.,.~ ~ '].,.o]~ V/ð fOrr()'FtNo _, CM f(NC ð..ItJ.flI!.f ~ City Council . ,. /4-0{ August 25, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing in support of residential develoPIIlent on Pruneridge Avenue. As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential. Many of the retail services in walking distance would greatly benefit ITom additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. Thank you for your consideration of my support for more residential in our are3; Sincerely, ~7~' cc: Mayor City Council /4-90 I t ram Town .oM MY YI 10123 N. Wolfe Rd#2142 Cupertino, CA 9S014 (408) 296-2422 Vaiico Fashion Park (Between Macy's & J.C Penny) Over Cross Bridge Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director ofCorrrmunity Development Corrrmunity Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE A VENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I anI writing to express my support for the Pl1JI1eridge Avenue residential development proposal. As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential since housing exists adjacent to the site. The project also will assist in tying existing residential areas together by providing a new' public park on Pruneridge. There currently are a number of retail services in walking distance that would greatly benefit ITom additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our corrrmunity. It provides much needed housing opportunities near jobs, provides a new park in the neighborhood, and additional residents to support our small businesses and ensure the economic vitality 0 f the area. I respectfully request your support for the Pruneridge Avenue Residential project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, cc: Mayor City Council ~. b /4-?! EXHIBIT D .. Economic & Planning Systems RooJ Eslak! Econom~s RegiatwlEcQ/wmics PuOlicFil1ance Land Use Policy PRUNERIDGE RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMP ACT ANALYSIS CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Morley Bros., LLC Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. September 2005 EPS #15010 BERKELEY 2501 Ninth St., Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 www.epsys.çom Phone: SIO·841-9{90 Fax: 510-841-9208 -y SACRAMENTO Phone: 916-649-8010 Fax: 916-649-2070 DENVER Phone: 303-623-3557 Fax: 303-623-9049 í4-9a-. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...........................................................1 Summary of Key Findings .......................................................................................1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 5 III. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................................6 General Fund Revenues .......................... .... ....... ......................................... .............6 General Fund Expenditures..................................................................................... 9 ApPENDIX A: Fiscal Model /4 - C; 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Summary of Project Description .......................................................................2 Summary of Annual Fiscal Irrrpact Analysis....................................................3 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors.................................................7 ¡Cf- 94 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report describes the results of Economic & Planning System, Inc.' s, (EPS') fiscal analysis of Morley Bros., LLC's, proposed Pruneridge Residential Project (the Project) on an 8.5-acre site at 19310 -19320 Pruneridge in the City of Cupertino. This fiscal analysis uses an average cost approach to estimate the incremental General Fund costs to the City of providing services to the Project and standard estimating procedures to estimate new revenues. The average cost approach provides a conservative, planning-level estimate of the costs of providing public services to the Project.1 The sumrrrary of key findings is provided below. Chapter II provides a description of the Project and Chapter III provides a detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions. Appendix A provides the complete fiscal model run for the development scenario evaluated. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS This report evaluates a potential developrrrent scenario for the site, shown in Table 1. This scenario includes 130 units with a mix of smaller and larger unit sizes. A total of 15 percent of these units will be affordable units sold at below-rrrarket rates. The key findings of the fiscal impact analysis are described below and shown in Table 2. 1. The Project will generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs to the City of providing public services. The fiscal irrrpact of the Project on the City's General Fund at Project buildout will be positive under the proposed development scenario with the revenues generated by the Project estimated to be greater than the costs of providing additional public services. By buildout, the Project is expected to generate annual revenue of approximately $115,100, as shown in Table 2. General Fund costs will sum to $82,900 annually. The resulting net irrrpact on the General Fund will be an annual positive surplus of about $32,200, with General Fund revenues approximately 39 percent above General Fund costs. This buildout analysis derrronstrates that the Project will be able to cover its service costs and provide some surplus revenues to increase levels of service in other parts of the City. 2. General Fund revenues will come from a number of sources, though property tax and sales tax will make up the majority of the City's new revenues. Property tax is expected to generate approximately $32,300 each year at Project buildout. Sales tax will also make contributions to the new stream of General Fund revenues, approxirrrately $39,300 each year, based on the City of Cupertino's estimated capture of new residents' retail expenditures.' Motor vehicle license fees (VLF) of close to $19,500 are estimated based on the recent legislation that reduced the VLF along with I The average cost approach is conservative as it does not asswne any existing capacity in service provision. 2 The capture rate applied is based on estimates of the City's current capture and leakage rates. 1 P: \ 150005 \ 1501OCllpI!Ttino \ RoplJTt \ I501Orpt_5epI5.DOC 1L(-9~ Table 1 Summary of Project Description Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Projec~ EPS #15010 Personsl Item Size (SF) Household Units Residents (1) Market Rate Plan 1 1,338 2.25 32 70 Plan2 1,499 2.45 34 81 Plan 3 1,486 2.45 9 21 Plan 4 1.532 2.45 22 53 Plan 5 1680 2.45 13 ~ Total/Average 1.507 110 256 Below Market Rate Plan 1 1,338 2.55 8 20 Plan 2 1,499 2.75 6 16 Plan 3 1.486 2.75 2 5 Plan 4 1.532 2.75 2 5 Plan 5 1680 2.75 £ § TotaVAverage 1.507 20 52 Total DaveloDment Plan 1 1.338 40 90 Plan 2 1,499 40 97 Plan 3 1,486 11 27 Plan 4 1,532 24 58 Plan 5 1680 15 36 Total 1.507 130 308 Total DeveJoDment Market Rate 110 256 Below Market Rate 20 52 Total 130 308 (1) Based on an evaluation of Santa Clara County Census 2000 data and the current City average. It is expected that market-rate units between 1,200 and 1,400 square feet will include an average of 2.25 persons per household and units between 1,400 and 1,700 square feet will include an average of 2.45 persons per household; below-market-rate units are assumed to have 0.3 additional persons per household in each size ætegory. Source: Morley Bros., LLC; Cal ifomia Department of Finance; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economt: & P/annklg SyS'ems, Inc. 8IJ1..1005 2 P:\ 15000s\1501Q;uperti'lolModeA15010ma:1eL 8_ 31 ¡r-J~ 9rp Table 2 Summary of Annual Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Amount Total Proiect General Fund Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax Sales Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Subtotal Revenues $32,336 $5.094 $39,307 $4.926 $10,491 $19,459 $3,517 $115.129 Total Proiect General Fund EXDenditures General Government Community Development Recreation Services Law Enforcement Public Works Streets (1) Grounds (2) Other Subtotal Expenditures $9,045 $7,608 $6.608 $39,405 Net Fiscal Balance $6,348 $0 $13.870 $82,884 $32.245 Net Fiscal Balance as a Percent of Expe nditure 39% (1) Street maintenance costs are discounted to account for residents' use of privately maintained project roads. (2) The project will dedicate land and improve an approximately 1-acre public park. Ongoing maintenance wiil be funded through a Landscape and Lighting District (LLD) or other comparable financing mechanism and is not expected to impact the City's General Fund. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Plsnning Systems, Inc. 9/1912005 3 P:\15000S\15010CupertinolMode1\15010modet9_15 /4-97 Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis September 15, 2005 the expectation that the reduction in VLF revenues will be reirrrbursed by the State. The actual level of VLF revenues will depend on the rrranner in which those changes are irrrplemented. 3. Law ~nforcement (police services) is expected to be the highest General Fund service cost item associated with the Project, followed by public works, general government, community development, and recreation services.' ~ew public safety costs will make up about 40 percent of new General Fund costs at $39.400 each year at buildout, while public works costs are estimated at $20,200 each year. General governrrrent costs are expected to be approximately $9,000 per year. In addition, the Project is expected to generate comrrrunity development and recreation services costs of around $8,000 and $7,000, respectively. 3 Fire protection services are provided to Cupertino residents by the Central Santa Clara Fire Protection District. 4 P:\15000s \ ]501OCupertinø\Rqwrt\ J50]OrpCSepI5.DOC /tj-qr II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pruneridge Residential Project encompasses approximately 8.5 acres. Under the proposed development scenario, 130 units are planned, of which 110 units would be sold at market rate and the remaining 20 units below market rate. A public park of approximately one acre is also planned as part of the Project. All roads in the Project area will continue to be private and will be maintained privately. The Project is located within an existing, established mixed-use neighborhood that currently features various residential, retail, hotel and employment uses. Unit sizes are expected to range from 1.300 to 1.700 square feet. The average household size for these units is assumed to range from 2.25 to 2.75, depending on the unit sizes and whether a unit is market rate or below market rate.' At Project buildout, the developrrrent is expected to accommodate approxirrrately 308 new residents. Based on their review of real estate rrrarket data, Morley Bros. expects the market rate units to sell at a weighted average per-unit price of $797,000, while the below-market rate units are expected to sell for an average price of $246,000 (see Table 1). 4 The average household in the City of Cupertino currently includes 2.74 persons according to California Department of Finance data. The Pruneridge Residential Project will, on average, include lower numbers of persons per household due to the smaller size and different demographic appeal relative to the average City home. 5 P:\ISOQ)s \ ISOIOCupertino\ Rtpørt\ 1501OrpU>q1IS.OOC /4-99 III. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This chapter describes the methodology and key assumptions used in estimating the fiscal impacts of the Pruneridge Project. The analysis is based on a number .of sources including the City of Cupertino's 2004-2005 Adopted Budget; City, County, and State data sources; and EPs' experience in comparable jurisdictions. The analysis describes annual operating costs and revenue impacts on the City's General Fund. All revenue and expenditure forecasts are in constant dollars. For the purpose of evaluating the potential fiscal impact of the Project, this analysis considers impacts at buildout. Fiscal impacts prior to buildout will display similar results but at a smaller scale. Key assumptions and calculations are shown in Appendix A. GENERAL FUND REVENUES This section describes the rrrethodology and assumptions used for each General Fund revenue item. Table 3 provides a summary of the City's current General Fund revenues as estimated in the 2004-2005 Adopted Budget as well as impact estimating factors. Project-wide demographic assumptions and detailed estimating factors are presented in Tables A-I through A-4. A general description of the method used for this analysis is provided for each revenue item. Some items are not forecasted because they are not expected to be affected by the Project (e.g., transient occupancy tax). PROPERTY TAX For this estimate, it is assumed that new residential units sold achieve a weighted average per-unit sales price of $797,000 for market-rate units and $246,000 for below market-rate units. Annual property tax is 1 percent of assessed value, of which the City receives 4 percent; taxes are calculated based on the net increase in assessed value frorrr the existing assessed value of the proposed Project site. The annual property tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-5. TRANSFER TAX The City will receive property transfer tax for any units that are sold. The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of value. It is assumed that in any given year, an average of 10 percent of the residential units will be resold.' The annual property transfer tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-5. 5 Ten percent is a typical resale rate based on EPS experience with newer high density products. 6 P:\t5( ()()j\lSQIOCllpotirwIRtpØl't\ 1501DrpC~ 5.DOC /4- /00 Table 3 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 2004-2005 Percent Adopted Variable Item General Fund Costs (1) Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax (2) Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Rents and Concessions Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Grants Inter-governmental Revenue Permits and Licenses Fines. Forfeitures. and Penalties Service Fees Other Revenues (3) Total Revenues Expenditures General Government (4) Community Development Recreation Service Law Enforcement (5) Public Works Streets & Transportation Grounds! Park Maintenance (6) Other (7) Total Costs Allocation Factor $3,748,000 nla $8.400,000 $1.560,000 $2.740,000 $2.312,000 $407.000 $3,320,000 $50.000 $74,000 $1,600.000 $600.000 $492.000 $6.612,000 4% of assessed value $0.55 per $1,000 of valuation 1 % of estimated taxable sales - not estimated 2% of Utility Bill varies; see Table A-7 · not estimated $63 per capita · not estimated · not estimated - not estimated $11 per capita not estimated . not estimated $31,915,000 $6.173.000 $2,596.000 $2.255.000 $6.723.000 $2.166.000 $2,382.000 $4 733.000 $27.028,000 $29 per capita $25 per capita $21 per capita $90,851 per officer $41 per capita $15,775 per park acre $45 per capita 25% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 50% (1) Percentage of costs that increases with growth, as opposed to fixed costs. (2) The City's budget includes property transfer tax in the category of "Other Tax." Because property transfer taxes wili be directly affected by the addition of new homes. future transfer tax revenues resuiting from the project are estimated as a separate category. (3) Includes "other tax" (including property transfer tax), investment earnings. sale of property, park dedication tax. resource recovery, blackberry farm. recreation programs. Senior Centerl Sports Centerl LCI CIP revenues, and miscellaneous revenues. (4) Includes city council and commissions, manager, attorney, public information, and administrative services (including accounting, City Clerk, and human resources). (5) Police services only. Fire services are provided to Cupertino residents through the Central Santa Clara Fire District. (6) Park land maintenance cost per acre based on "Grounds" portion of Public Works budget. The City maintains approximately 151 acres of park land. (7) Includes Administration, Environmental Programs. Engineering Services. Service Center, Facilities, General Services. and Fixed Assets Acquisition. Source: City of Cupertino Adopted Budget 2004-2005: City Budget Office; Economic & Planning Systems, inc. Economic; &. Planning Systems, Inc. 911912005 7 P:\ 15OOOs\ 1501 OCupertino\Model\ 1501 OmodeL 9_15 (L.(-(Of Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis September 15, 2005 SALES TAX Although no retail establishments are included in the Prune ridge Residential Project concept, new households will purchase retail goods and services in the City. It is expected that each new household will spend, on average, 26 to 37 percent of its income on taxable goods, depending on income leve1.' At the current time, the City of Cupertino has a net retail expenditure leakage estimated at 50 percent, i.e., the City's retail sales are 50 percent of its residents' total retail expenditures. This analysis assurrres that this sarrre overall leakage rate continues and applies to the Project. The City receives a 1 percent sales tax on taxable retail expenditures in the City, and Table A-6 illustrates sales tax forecast at buildout. UTILITY USERS' TAX Utility users' tax is 2.4 percent of utility bills for all telephone, gas, and electric service (cable television is not subject to the tax). Assumptions regarding typical monthly utility bills per household are illustrated in Table A-2, and the annual utility user's tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-7. FRANCHISE FEES The City collects franchise fees for cable television service in the amount of 5 percent of gross receipts annually; fees for gas and electric are the equivalent of 2 percent of gross receipts annually. Additionally, franchise fees are collected for water at a rate of 2 percent of gross annual receipts, and for garbage at a rate of 12 percent of gross receipts. Assumptions regarding typical monthiy utility bills per household are illustrated in Table A-2, and the annual franchise fee forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-7. MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE IN-LIEU FEE The State is expected to offset a reduction in the motor vehicle license fees received by cities in 2004-2005 by reimbursing the difference to the City. This analysis assumes that the City will receive the reimbursement anticipated in the 2004-2005 budget and receives fees equivalent to $63 per capita.' These calculations and results are presented in Table A-4. 6 Based on Conswner Expenditure Survey published by the U.S. Department of Labor, 2002. Lower income households generally spend a higher proportion of their incomes on retail expenditures. , Actual increases to the City's VLF through the property tax exchange will depend on growth in City assessed value and the maMer in which the reimbursement is implemented. 8 P:\ 150005\ JSOJOCupn-lilto\Rept>I't\ JSOJOI'pC$q>IS.DOC /4 - foa...- Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis September 15, 2005 FINES, FORFEITURES, AND PENALTIES The 2004-2005 adopted City budget indicates that the City will receive approximately $600,000, or roughly $11 per capita, in revenue from fines and fees. It is expected that the City will continue to collect fines and fees at this per capita rate.(see Table A-4). GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES This section describes the methodology and asswnptions used for the General Fund expenditure items. Table 3 provides a summary of the City's current General Fund expenditures as estimated in the 2004-2005 Adopted Budget as well as impact estirrrating factors. A general description of the method used for this analysis is provided for each item. GENERAL GOVERNMENT According to the City's adopted budget, the City spends $117 per capita to provide general governrrrent services, which specifically include the city council and commissions, city manager, attorney, public information division, and administrative services (including accounting, City Oerk, and human resources). This analysis assurrres that 25 percent of General Governrrrent costs are variable and likely to increase with the addition of new population. Therefore costs resulting from the Pruneridge Project are estimated at 25 percent of current per capita expenditure, or $29 per person (see Table A-4). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This category includes various development related services, such as community planning. It is assumed that 50 percent of the department's costs will be affected by the Project and that the rerrraining 50 percent are fixed costs that will not be affected. Therefore an estimating factor of 50 percent of the current per capita expenditure (or $25 per capita) is used to forecast future spending (see Table A-4). RECREATION SERVICES The core service provided by this department is management of the City's recreation and community centers, including the Quinlan Community Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Sports Center, and Senior Center. It is assumed that 50 percent of Recreation Services costs are fixed, resulting in a per capita cost of $21 (see Table A-4). 9 P: \ 151JOOs \ J501OCllpØ"tilW \ RepPl"t \ J50JOrpl_Sfp15.DOC 14 -/0 :5 Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis September 15, 2005 PUBLIC WORKS This department provides various road maintenance-related services, grounds and park maintenance, and other services such as facility maintenance, engineering, and environmental programs. All new roads included in the Project will be maintained privately and therefore will not generate costs for the City's Public Works Department. Project residents will also use the existing public roads and will add some additional cost to the variable portion of existing road maintenance costs. The additional public maintenance costs to the City are estimated at 50 percent of the current citywide per- capita cost, as shown in Table A-9. The net road maintenance costs generated by the Project are expected to be approximately $6,400 per year. The Public Works department is responsible for all grounds rrraintenance, including maintenance of the City's 151 acres of park land. The Project will include an approxirrrately I-acre public park. Ongoing maintenance of this park will be funded through a Landscape and Lighting District or other comparable financing mechanism and will not generate General Fund costs.' The remainder of Public Works General Fund expenditures (including Administration, Engineering Services, General Services, and other costs) are assumed to be 50 percent fixed, resulting in "Other" Public Works per-capita expenditures of $45. Estimated annual costs are shown in Table A-4. LAW ENFORCEMENT Law enforcement in Cupertino is provided through a contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. As the Project is developed, public safety officers will need to be added to serve the increase in population. It is assumed that the current service level of 1.41 public service officers per 1,000 population would be maintained and applied to the Project, resulting in a need for 0.42 new officers. An estirrrated annual average cost of $91,000 per officer (including costs associated with other personnel and materials) is applied to the projected number of new public safety officers that would be required by the Project's new population at buildout. Forecasted law enforcement expenditures are illustrated in Table A-9. Cupertino is part of the Santa Clara Central Fire District, which collects a portion of property taxes from residents of the District. The City therefore does not experience costs associated with fire protection and prevention. 8 The public parkland provided by the Project exceeds the acreage required by the Project's ,population. based on a typical standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population. 10 P:\lS()()Qs \150IOCIlpa'tino\Rtport\ I50IOrpU>epIS.DOC rt.f -foe{ II Economic & Planning Systems Real Estate EcolWmics Regit)l aJ EcolWmics Public Finance Lan.dUsePolicy ApPENDIX A: FISCAL MODEL /1-/0Ç' Table of Contents Appendix Table Number, Name & Description Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Table # Name Proiect DescriDtion Table A-1 Detailed Project Description & Assumptions Table A-2 Description of Typical New Household Citywide DemoaraDhic Data Table A-3 Citywide Demographic Data ImDact Estimatina Methodoloav Table A-4 General Fund 2004/05 and Estimating Factors Revenues Table A-5 Table A-6 Table A-7 Property Tax Calculation Sales Tax Calculation Utility Tax Calculation EXDenditures Table A-8 Table A-9 Road Maintenance Expenditures Law Enforcement Expenditures Net Table A-10 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis Economic &. Planning Systems. Inc. 9/1912005 P:\15000s\1501OCupertinoWodef\15010modet9_15 (L( -(O(¡l Table A-1 Detailed Project Description & Assumptions Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #150113 New Population Number of Households (3) Personsl Household (2) Unit Size (SF) Total 70 81 21 53 31 256 31 33 9 21 1-ª 07 2.25 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 $23.390,000 $26.380.000 $7,580.000 $18,832.000 $11 544 000 $87.706.000 $730.938 $775.882 $840,000 $8S6,OOO S888 000 $797.327 1.338 1.499 1.486 1.532 1,680 32 units 34 units 9 units 22 units ~units 110 units Item Development Market Rate Pian 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Total/Average 20 16 5 5 ª 52 8 6 2 2 l 19 2.55 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 $1.908.000 $1,370,000 $544.000 $544.000 $544 000 $4.910,000 $238.500 $228.333 $272.000 $272.000 S272 000 $245,500 1.293 1.541 1.486 1.532 1.680 8 units 6 units 2 units 2 units g units 20 units Below Market Rate Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Total/Average 90 97 27 58 36 308 39 39 11 23 15 27 - $25.298.000 $27,750.000 $8.104.000 $19.376.000 $12088.000 $92.616,000 - 1.329 1,505 1.486 1.532 1.680 40 units 40 units 11 units 24 units 1..§. units 30 units Total D~~loDment Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Total 256 52 308 07 19 127 $87.706.000 $4.910000 $92.616.000 $797,327 $245.500 10 units 20 units 30 units Total DeveloDment Market Rate Below Market Total Rate completion. acre Pricing estimates from Morley Bros., lLC, based on real estate market data. Based on data from California Department of Finance, 2004, and adjusted by EPS for unit sizes. Vacancy rate of 2.5% is assumed based on data from California Department of Finance. 2004. The project will ¡ndude an approximately 1-acre turnkey public park, to be dedicated to the City and maintained by the City upon Information Systems; California Department of Finance; Economic & Planning Systems, Public Park Land (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) P:\15000s\1501OCuperono\Model\ 15010modeL B_' Inc. llC; DataQuick Economic & Planning Systems, Inc_ 8131/2005 Source: Morley Bros. .......... ~ () .....\ Table A-2 Description of Typical New Household Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Estimating Factors tion/Source Based on the Sales Price of the New Homes. and typical income to home price ratio See Table A-6. Descr; $148,339 Item Average New Household Income ($2004) EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. $30 per $40 per $60 per $35 per lli per $205 $2,460 per month per year (1 Typical Utility Bil Water Telephone bill Electricity Bill Gas bill Cable bill (2) Total Utility Bi Total Utility Bi EPS mo. $20.00 per Garbage Bi Intrastate service only. Assumes unit receives (1) (2) P:\15000s\1S01OCuperlinoIModel\1S010modeLB_31 cable service. Source: Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8/3112005 - f - CJ ~ Table A-3 Citywide Demographic Data Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Amount Sources Households (2004) Single Family Housing Units Multi Family Housing Units Population (2004) Persons per Household 19,520 14,004 7,197 52,628 2.741 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 Source: California Department of Finance: Economic and Planning Systems. Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8/3112005 P:\15000.s\15010Cupertino\ModeI\15010modetB_31 (if - (Ocr Table A-4 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors Fiscal Impact Analysis of prunerldge Residential Project, EPS #1501 0 2004-2005 Percent Table Adopted Variable Allocation Item Ref. General Fund Costs Ii} Factor Revenues Property Tax T able A~5 $3,748,000 4.0% of assessed value Property Transfer r"ax (2) Table A-5 01. $0.55 per $1,000 of valuation Sales Tax Table A-6 $8,400,000 1 % of estimated taxable sales Transient Occupancy Tax $1,560,000 - not estimated Utility Users Tax Table A-7 $2,740,000 2% of UtJlityBiII Franchise Fees Table A-7 $2,312,000 varies; see Table A-7 Rents and Concessions $407,000 not estimated Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu $3,320,000 $63 per capita Grants $50,000 not estimated Other Inter.governmental Revenue $74,000 not estimated Permits and Licenses $1,600,000 not estimated Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $600,000 $11 per capita Service Fees $492,000 not estlmated Other Revenues (3) S6 612 000 . not estimated Subtotal Revenues $31,915,000 Expenditures General Government (4) $6,173,000 25% $29 per capita Community Developm8f1t $2,598,000 50% $25 per capita Recreation Services $2,255,000 50% $21 per capita Law Enforcement Table A-9 $6,723,000 100% $90,851 per officer Public Works Streets & Transportation (5) $2,166,000 100% $41 per capita Grounds! Park. Maintenance (6) $2,382.000 100% $15,775 per park acre Other (7) S4 73:'\ 000 50% $45 per capita Subtotal Expenditures $27,028,000 Total Net (8) Project Total $32,336 $5,094 $39,307 $4,926 $10,491 $19,459 $3,517 $115,129 $9,045 $7,608 $6,608 $39.405 $6,348 $0 = $82,884 $32,245 (1) Percentage of costs that increases with growth, as opposed to fixed costs. (2) The City's budget Includes property transfer tax In the category of "Other Tax." Because property transfer taxes will be directly affected by the addition of new homes, future transfer tax revenues resulting from the project are estimated as a separate category. (3) Includes "other taxM (Including property transfer tax, business license fees, property transfer tax, construction tax, and housing mitigation fees), Investment earnings, sale of property, park dedication tax, resource recovery, Blackberry Farm, recreation programs, Senior Centerl Sports Centerl LCI CIP revenues, and miscellaneous revenues. With the exception of property transfer tax, these revenues are not expected to be signflcantly Impacted by the project. Property transfer tax Is estimated separately. (4) Includes city council and commissions, manager, attorney, public information, and administrative services (including accounting, City Clerk, and human resources. (5) Street maintenance costs are discounted to account for residents' use of privately maintained project roads. (6) Park land maintenance cost per acre based on MGrounds" portion of Public Works budget. The project will dedicate an approximately 1-acr& public park. Ongoing maintenance will be covered through a Landscape and Lighting District (LLD) or other comparable financing mechanism and Is not expected to Impact the City's General Fund. (7) Includes Administration, Environmental Programs, Engineering Services, Service Center, Facilities, General Services, and Fixed Assets Acquisition. (8) Does nol Include $623,000 State Revenue Raid or $4,864,000 in "Operating Transfers Out." Source: City of Cupertino Adopted Budget 2004-2005; City Budget OffIce; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Econom;;&PlaminQSyØmi.InçIV1W2005 P:\15OIX)I\150IQCupowIiIIøIMødel\150 /modeI"_g_11j , ¡L-f-/ro Table A-5 Property Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Assumptions Project Total Total Assessed Value (1) See Table A-1 $92,616.000 Existing Assessed Value (2) $11,776.870 Assessed Value. Net Increase $80.839,130 Net Property Tax Total 1% ofAV $808.391 City Prop. Tax Share 4.0% of Property Tax $32,336 $5,094 Property Transfer Tax (3) $0.55 per $1.000 of AV 10% turnover (1) Takes assumed market values shown on Table 2 and applies them to the number of total units. (2) Santa Clara County Assesso~s Office data for APNs 316-06-051 and 316-06-050 (3) Transfer tax is charged at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Assumes a turnover rate of 10 percent. Le., property changes hands approximately once every ten years. Based on EPS experience, this is a typical turnover rate for newer high-density products Source: City of Cupertino; County of Santa Clara: Economic & Planning Systems, inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8131/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 1501 OCupertino\Modefl 1501 OmodeL 8_ 31 rL-{-(r I Table A-6 Sales Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Assumptions Number SALES TAX GENERATED FROM NEW HOUSEHOLDS Income AssumDtions Average unit selling price Mortgage % (1) Total mortgage amount Annual mortgage payment (2) Housing cosUhousehold income Required household income/unit Below Market RatE $245,500 90% $220,950 $16,920 35% $48,342 Market Rate $797,327 90% $717,595 $54.952 33% $166.520 Averaae HH Taxable Retail EXD. (3) % of Income Total 37% $18,097 26% $43,951 Total EXD. CaDtured bv CUDertino Expenditures per New Household 50% of taxable expo (4) $9.049 $21,975 Total New Retail Sales New Households 127 $1.146,443 $2,784,229 Total New Sales Taxes New Households 1 % of taxable sales $11 ,464 $27,842 $39,307 Total Sales Tax Generated From the Project (5) (1) Assumes 10 percent down payment. (2) Assumes 6.5 percent interest rate and 30 year mortgage period. (3) Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (2001-2002). (4) Assumes 50 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City. This estimate is based on taxable retail sales per capita as reported by the Board of Equalization for the City of Cupertino and average per capita spending on retail based on consumer spending patterns as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (5) Represents combined new City sales taxes from the households in below market rate and market rate units. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 813112005 P:\15000s\15010Cupetfino\Mcxie^15010modeLB_31 tL(-{{é1.. Table A-7 Utility Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Project Total Utility Tax: 2.4% Annual Utility Bill Per Home (1) Tax per Home Total Utility Taxes $1,620 $39 $4,926 Franchise Fees: (2) Cable Annual Cable Bill Per Home Franchise Fee per Home Total Cable 5% $480 $24 $3,041 Gas & Electric Annual Gas & Electric Bill Per Home Franchise Fee per Home Total Gas & Electric 2% $1,140 $23 $2,889 Water Annual Water Bill Per Home Franchise Fes per Home Total Water 2% $360 $7 $912 Total Franchise Fees 12% $240 $29 $3,649 $10,491 Garbaae Annual Garbage Bill Per Home Franchise Fees per Harne Total Garbage (1) Includes eiectricity, gas, and phone bills. Excludes cable service. because cable is not subject to utility users tax. (2) Calcuiated on cable. gas. electric. water. and garbage services. Source: City of Cupertino: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8/31/2005 P:\1.5000S\15010Cupertino'IModeA15010modeL8_31 rL-/-II~ Table A-S Road Maintenance Expenditures Fiscal Impact Analysis of Prunerldge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Formula Amount Project Streets & Transp. Cost (2) f= d' e $2,166,000 52,628 $41 $21 308 $6,348 04-05 Streets & T.ransportation Budget Total Cupertino Population Existing Streets & Transp. Cost per Capita Project-Related Streets & Transp. Cost per Capita (1) Project Population a b c= al b d = c . 50% e (1) The Project will not add any additional publicly maintained roads. New roads associated with the project will be privately maintained. Project residents will use public roads and may add to the cost of maintaining these roads. As a result, it is assumed that the additional per capita cost is at 50 percent of the existing City average. Sources: City of Cupertino 04-05 Budget; City of Cupertino Traffic and Engineering Dept.: Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. 9/1912005 P:\15000s\1501OCupertino\Model\ 1501OmodeLS_15 14-/(4 Table A-9 Law Enforcement Expenditures Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Existing Officers 2004 (1) Officers per 1000 Population 74 1.41 Cumulative Project Population 308 Total New Officers Required 0.43 Annual General Fund Expenditure Expenditure per Officer $6.723,000 $90,851 $39,405 Total Cost (1) Law Enforcement services are provided under contract with the Santa Clara County sheriffs office. 74 officers are assigned to the City of Cupertino. Source: Santa Clara City Sheriffs Office: City of Cupertino: Economic & Planning Systems. inc. Economic & PlanninQ Systems. Inc. 9/1912005 P:\15000s\1501OCuperlinoWodeM501omodeL9_1S ILl-IlL) Table A-10 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis of Pruneridge Residential Project, EPS #15010 Item Total Proiect General Fund Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax Sales Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu Fines. Forfeitures, and Penalties Subtotal Revenues $32,336 $5,094 $39.307 $4.926 $10,491 $19,459 $3.517 $115,129 Total Project General Fund EXDenditures General Government Community Development Recreation Service Public Safety Public Works Streets and Traffic Management Groundsl Park Maintenance Other Subtotal Expenditures $9,045 $7,608 $6,608 $39,405 $6,348 $0 $13.870 $82.884 Net Fiscal Balance $32,245 Net Fiscal Balance as a Percent of Expenditure 39% Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/1912005 P:\15000s\15010CupertinolModel\15010modeL9_'5 /4 -//0 EXHIBIT E THE LETITIA BUILDING 70 S FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-2406 MAlLING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1469 SAN JOSE. CA 95109-1469 e HOPKINS&CARLEY (408)286-9800 FACSIMILE: (408)998.4790 www.hopkinscarlcy.com A LAW CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Morley, Morley Bros., LLC FROM: Joan R. Gallo DATE: August 22,2005 RE: Cupertino Initiatives There are three separate initiatives currently on the ballot which, if they are enacted by the voters and survive any possible legal challenge, impose restricted development standards in the City of Cupertino. You have asked me whether the Morley Bros., LLC project located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe Road, Homestead Avenue, Highway 280 and Tantau Road will meet the requirements of these initiatives should they become in force and effect. All three initiatives contain an exception in the area designated as Vall co Park Planning District as defined in the initiative as "the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard if they meet certain standards." The Pruneridge project is located within the Vallco Park Planning Area as defined in the initiatives. The initiative entitled "Amendment of the General Plan Concerning Housing Density" applies the Vallco Park exemption to residential properties with a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre". The Pruneridge project has a density of approximately 17 dwelling units per net acre. Therefore, the Pruneridge project meets the requirements of the initiative related to density. 437666.2 If..( - 1/7 The initiative entitled "Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Building Height" exception applies to residences in the Vallco Park Planning District if building heights do not to exceed 45 feet. The height is measured from grade level to the highest point of the building structure. The maximum building height of the proposed project is approximately 38 feet. Therefore, the project meets the requirements of the initiative related to density. The initiative entitled "Amendment to General Plan Concerning Setbacks" applies the exemption if buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with 1 to 1 slope line ratios measured from the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s). The maximum building height of buildings along Pruneridge Avenue is 38 feet. The maximum building height for buildings along the Hwy 280 off ramp at Wolfe Road is approximately 38 feet. The building setbacks from the property line range from 65-85 feet depending on location. The nearest curb line (s) of the public street extend the setback further. Therefore, the project meets the requirements of the initiative in terms of setbacks. Therefore, by their own terms, none of these initiatives are applicable to the project. 2 437666.2 IL( -(I '( - ~ EXHIBIT F LmlNE\'ASSOCIATES £nvÎrOl1menlol/Geolednfcoll Englneerl1\9 Services Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino, California This report has been prepared for: Morley Bros. 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 720, San Jose, California 95113-2233 ~~::?"<A Principal Environmental Engineer Mountain View Fairfield May 17, 2005 Project No. 1047-49A Ron L. Helm, C.E.G., R.E.A. II Senior Principal Geologist Quality Assurance Reviewer Fullerton Oakland Sacramento San Ramon Las Vegas 405 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043-2209 Tel: 650.967.2365 Fax: 650.967.2785 A TIIC Company P.O. Box 13B8 Mountain View, CA 94042-1388 E-mail: mall@lowney.com htto·/Iwww.lownev com /4 -(Ie¡ Morley 8ros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. .1 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............. ............. ......... .......... .................... ............ .......... 1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Location and Ownership....................................................................2 Table 1. Site Information......... ........... ....... ................... .............. ..... ....... 2 Topographic Features and Hydrogeology.................................................... 2 Site Visit ....... .... ............... ... ......... ....... ........ .................................. ........ 2 29310 Pruneridge Avenue ....................................................................2 29320 Pruneridge Avenue ....................................................................3 Exterior Areas.................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Additional Readily Observable Site Features ..................................4 Site Vicinity Drive-By Survey ...................................................................5 Table 3. Adjacent Properties ...................................................................5 2.5 Environmental Questionnaire .... .............. ................................................. 5 HISTORICAL REVIEW.............. ............. ................... .......................................... 6 3.1 Photograph and Map Review ....................................................................6 3.1.1 Site................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................ 6 3.2 City Directories ........................................................................... ........... 7 3.3 Summary of Previous Environmental Reports ............................................. 7 3.3.1 March 31,1993 Report ........................................................................8 3.3.2 June 8,1993 Report............................................................................ 8 3.3.3 August 12,1993 Letter........................................................................9 3.3.4 September 13,1995 Report .................................................................9 3.3.5 January 12,1996 Report Addendum ......................................................9 REGULATORY RECORDS.................................................................................. 10 4.1 City and County Agencies File Review...................................................... 10 4.2 Regulatory Agency Database Report ....................................................... 10 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 11 5.1 Historical Summary ..............................................................................11 5.2 Agricultural Use ...................................................................................11 5.3 Chemical Storage and Use..................................................................... 11 5.4 Former UST. ................................................ ........................................ 12 5.6 Lead-Based Paint ................................................................................. 12 5.7 Transformers....................................................................................... 12 5.8 Elevators............................................................................................ 13 5.9 Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program ..............................................13 5.10 Potential Environmental Concerns Within the Site Vicinity .......................13 6.0 LIMITATIONS ............ ..... ................... .......... ..................................................13 7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN APPENDIX A - TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPENDIX B - HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS APPENDIX C - CITY DIRECTORIES REPORT APPENDIX D - PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS APPENDIX E - REGULATORY AGENCY DATABASE REPORT 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 1.0 2.0 2.4 4.0 5.0 LOWNEYASS<X:IATES el1¥tro~"'.nlo!/GeolechmcoI/Eng¡fI"'ing 5.,,,lc., Page I l047-49A /4 - (;;20 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 19310 AND 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This Phase I environmental site assessment was performed for Morley Bros., who we understand is considering the purchase and redevelopment of the site located at 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino, California, shown on Figures 1 and 2. The planned development includes three-story multi-family residential units. The purpose of this study was to strive to document recognized environmental conditions at the site related to current and historic use of hazardous substances and petroleum products. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate a significant release or significant threat of a release into the ground, ground water, or surface water. 1.2 Scope of Work As requested, the scope of work for this study was performed in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-00 as outlined in our agreement dated January 20, 2005. The scope of work included the following tasks. · Reconnaissance of the site and limited drive-by survey of adjacent properties for readily observable indications of current or historic activities that have impacted or could significantly impact the site. · Review of readily available topographic maps and reportS to evaluate local hydrogeologic conditions including anticipated ground water depth and flow direction. · Review of readily available documents, maps, and aerial photographs, and interviews with knowledgeable persons to evaluate past land uses. · Acquisition and review of a regulatory agency database report to evaluate potential impacts to the site from reported contamination incidents at nearby facilities. · Review of available regulatory agency files to obtain information about the use and storage of hazardous materials at the site. Our scope of services did not include sampling or analysis of on-site building materials, air, soil, or ground water. The limitations of this Phase I environmental site assessment are presented in Section 6.0; the terms and conditions of our agreement are presented in Appendix A. LOWNEYASSOCIATES Ellvlron",e"IQI/Gt!IotechAicoI/EngiMo,ing s..,,¡c,,", Page 1 1047-49A /4 - /éJ..{ Morley Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I 2.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 2.1 Site Location and Ownership The site is located at 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino California, in a residential and high-tech area. It is bounded by Pruneridge Avenue and a high-tech building to the north, Interstate 280 and the Wolfe Road off-ramp from Interstate 280 to the south, a multi-family residential development to the west, and Ridgeview Court and high-tech buildings to the east. Site location and ownership information is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Site Information Site Address APN Approximate Site Owner Sq. Footage of Acreage Building (5) 19310 Pruneridge Not Available 8.5 50brato Interests 64,111 Avenue III 19320 Pruneridge 40,562 Avenue 2.2 Topographic Features and Hydrogeology Based on U.s. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the site's elevation is approximately 170 feet above mean sea level. Topography in the vicinity of the site slopes gently to the northeast toward the San Francisco Bay. Based on reports previously prepared for the site, the shallow water-bearing zone likely is encountered at depths of approximately 40 to 75 feet; ground water beneath the site likely flows to the northeast (Lowney Associates 1993). 2.3 Site Visit To observe current site conditions, our representative, environmental engineer Belinda Blackie, visited the site on March 4, 2005 and was unaccompanied. At the time of our site visit, the subject property was developed with one two-story office building and one three-story office building, and associated parking areas, driveways, and landscaping. Both buildings were vacant at the time of our reconnaissance. 2.3.1 29310 Pruneridge Avenue The first floor of the 29310 Pruneridge Avenue building consisted of the reception area, a large cafeteria and kitchen, a large open area appearing to previously have contained cubicles, offices, a computer server room, and a shipping and receiving area. The cafeteria area included a large seating area, serving counters, a salad bar, a grill, two walk-in freezers, a deep fryer, dish washing room, and a kitchen. One floor drain was observed in the kitchen. The computer server room had an elevated floor and numerous electrical panels. One transformer, T -PC8, was observed in the server room. One electrical closet observed on the first floor housed two three-phase transformers (T-DM-l and T-RlD) and one approximately 1 liter spray bottle of a LO\'INEYA.SSOC:IATES En...lrOllmenlgl/ GeQfed\nlcol/ EngJneðring 5.''0'1<:., Page 2 l047-49A 14 -!;:;);;¿ Morley Bros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I household cleaning solution. One transformer (T-RIA) also was observed in the telephone closet. A janitor's closet was observed to house a sink and water heater. Approximately five I-gallon cans of paint were observed in a storage closet; other closets observed on the first floor were empty. The elevator control room was observed on the first floor of the building as well. The elevator was serviced by Millar Elevator Service Company, but was not operable at the time of our reconnaissance. It appeared that the roof was leaking into the elevator control room, and onto the floor and the elevator unit at the time of our reconnaissance; moderate staining and a white crust was observed on the concrete floor as a result. The second floor of the 29310 Pruneridge Avenue building consisted primarily of open areas previously containing cubicles, with offices also present. One 25-pound bag of Vi- Tex patching compound was observed on the carpet in the cubicle area. One transformer (T-R2A) was observed in a second floor electrical room, a second transformer (T -R2G) was observed in a second electrical closet, and a third transformer (T-R2C) was observe in a third electrical closet. A janitorial closet with a floor sink was also observed on the second floor. 2.3.2 29320 Pruneridge Avenue The first floor of the 19320 Pruneridge Avenue building was observed to consist primarily of offices and open cubicle areas. A janitorial closet was observed; one automotive battery was observed on the concrete floor of the closet, as was 1 gallon of cleaning solution and a box containing several I-quart containers of other cleaning chemicals. The building roof appeared to be leaking into the janitorial closet. A first floor electrical room housed one transformer (T-3CIR). The second and third floors of the building appeared generally similar to the first floor. The electrical room on the second floor was locked and was not accessible; one transformer (T-3C3RB) was observed in the third floor electrical closet. Storage closets were observed to be empty. The elevator in the 29320 Pruneridge Drive building was operable at the time of our reconnaissance. An elevator control room was not observed. 2.3.3 Exterior Areas The exterior portion of the site consisted primarily of asphalt-paved parking areas and driveways, landscaping, outdoor lunch areas, and fenced storage and equipment areas. Immediately adjacent to the north and west of the exterior of the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building was a wooden-fenced mechanical equipment enclosure housing a chilled and condensed water supply system, two compressors, an HVAC unit, a General Electric transformer, and what appeared to be a cooling tower. The enclosure was observed from the second story window of the building; access to the interior of the enclosure was not available. The enclosure was constructed on a dirt and gravel surface. The two compressors were present on a concrete pad with minor staining present; the HVAC unit and the transformer were both situated on wooden skids. LO\'INEYASSCX::IAfES ElI'f'lronm."lo\lGeotedIlMcoI/El1g'IIit6ring Sewlces Page 3 1047-49A 14-/:;(5 Morley Bros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I Adjacent to the mechanical equipment enclosure, within a landscaped area, was one PG&E capacitor (T-C3888). A PG&E transformer was observed near the southwestern corner of the building (T-3889). Evidence of the former UST (see Section 3.3 below) was not visible in the asphalt-paved area west of the 19301 Pruneridge Drive building. The southern-most portion of the parking lot at the site was fenced off from the remainder of the lot and appeared to be used as a storage area for Draeger Construction. Steel storage containers and general construction-related equipment and materials were observed within the fenced enclosure, which was accessed through the adjacent condominium complex. Additional observed site features are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Additional Readily Observable Site Features Site Features Comments HeatingjVentilation/ Air I:8J Natural Gas and/or Electrical Conditionina Svstem 0 Fuel Oil Patable Water Suoolv I:8J Municioal I IOn-Site Well Sewaae Disoosal Svst. I:8J POTW 0 On-Site Seotic Transformers I:8J Present 0 Not Observed One PG&E transfarmer I:8J PG&E I:8J Privately . and one capacitor Owned observed adjacent to exterior of 19310 Pruneridge Drive building; numerous private transformers observed within both buildings and in fenced mechanical equipment enclosure (see Section 2.3 above)'. Other Features g Aboveground Storage Tanks o Agricultural Wells o Air Emission Control Systems 0 Auto Servicing Areas 0 Boilers 0 Burning Areas 0 Chemicai Mixing Areas 0 Chemical Storage Areas 0 Clea n Rooms 0 Drainage ditches I:8J Elevators One in each building; 0 Emergency Generators see Sections 2.3.1 and 0 Equipment Maintenance Areas 2.3.2 above. 0 Garbage Disposal Areas 0 HazMat Storage Areas 0 High Power Transmission Lines 0 Hoods and Ducting 0 Hydraulic Lifts 0 Petroleum Pipelines o Petroleum Wells Fï Ponds or Streams LO\YNEVASS<XlATES Envlt(lnmel!loI/GeolecnnicoI/Eng nef ring S.,vrcos Page 4 l047-49A /4- /;;¿4 Morley Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I o Railroad Lines o Row crops or orchards o Stockpiles of soil or debris o Sumps or clarifiers o Underground Storage Tanks o Vehicle Maintenance Areas o Vehicie Wash Areas o Waste Water Neutralization n Systems Wells Note: An unchecked box does not warrant that these features are not present on-site; it only states that these features were not readily observed during our site visit. 2.4 Site Vicinity Drive-By Survey To evaluate adjacent land use, we performed a limited drive-by survey. Our observations are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Adjacent Properties Business Name Direction from Site Observations and Address Hewlett-Packard North High-tech building 19483 Pruneridoe Avenue Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road South off-ramn from Interstate 280 The Hamptons at Cupertino West Multi-family residential complex 19500 Pruneridne Avenue Hewlett-Packard East High-tech buildings. Building Buildings CAC-06 and CAC -10 CAC-06 had a hazardous 10555 Ridgeview Court materials placard for diesel fuel visible on an exterior storage area. 2.5 Environmental Questionnaire An environmental questionnaire was sent to a representative of the property owner, Mr. John Michael Sobrato of Sobrato Interests III. The information presented on the questionnaire is used to obtain general information regarding past and current Site usage. Mr. Sobrato stated that the questionnaire would not be completed and that site information was provided in the reports previously prepared for the site (see Section 3.3 below). LO\fNEYASSCXIATES Eo...ftc:m....øtClIlGeotec:lllucolll:nglneering s. ...k:os Page 5 l047-49A 14- r;Xc:) Morley Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I 3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW 3.1 Photograph and Map Review To evaluate the site history, we reviewed the following. · Aerial photographs (dated 1939, 1948. 1956, 1965, 1982, 1993, 1998) from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) in South port, Connecticut and GlobeXplorer (2002). · USGS IS-minute and 7.5-minute topographic maps (dated 1902, 1920, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1973, 1980, and 1991). · Historic Sanborn fire insurance maps were requested from EDR. However, no Sanborn maps were available. The above maps and photographs commonly provide historical information regarding a site including land uses and changes in development over time. Copies of these maps and photographs are presented in Appendix B. The following is a summary of our observations for the site and site vicinity. 3.1.1 Site 1902 and 1920: No development was depicted on-site on the 1902 and 1920 topographic maps. 1939 through 1965: The 1939 through 1965 aerial photographs and 1953 and 1968 topographic maps showed the site planted with orchards. 1982 through 2002: The 1982 through 2002 aerial photographs and 1973 through 1991 topographic maps showed the site developed with the two current on-site buildings. The parking lot south and southeast of the buildings was an undeveloped lot on the 1982 photograph, but the parking lot was present by 1993 and by 2005 that portion of the parking lot was a light tan color, differing from the black color on the other parking lot areas. On the 1982 and 1993 photos, numerous trees were present surrounding the buildings and in the parking areas, some of the trees had been removed by 1998, at which time all the current parking areas appeared present. Trees appeared to have been planted in the southwest parking lot by 2005. 3.1.2 Site Vicinity 1902 and 1920: Early topographic maps of the site vicinity do not show agricultural development. Numerous small structures and roads were depicted in the site vicinity. 1939: The 1939 aerial photograph showed the site vicinity nearly completely planted with orchards. Several small buildings, residential and/or agricultural in nature, were present to the northeast. Two buildings connected by what may have been conveyor units were present to the west of the site. These buildings may have been a fruit packing plant. Interstate 280 was not present. LOWNEYA5SCCIATES Eflvl,onmenl(Jl/ G.i:>le'ChnJcoll Eflgineoring 50."lce, Page 6 l047-49A / '-f -/d.{¡:; Morlev Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I 1948 and 1956: The vicinity remained nearly completely planted with orchards, with small areas cultivated with row crops to the outer western and southwestern vicinity. What appeared to be a residence was present to the northeast, across where Pruneridge Avenue would be located. The two-building complex present adjacent west on the 1939 photograph had significantly increased in size, and what appeared to be a circular aboveground storage tank (AsT) and numerous other smaller structures were present. The AST observed was labeied as a water tank on the 1953 topographic map. 1961 through 1973: The site vicinity on these aerial photographs and topographic maps was primarily planted with orchards. Residential and agricultural buildings appeared present to the northwest. The same commercial/light industrial building complex was present to the west. Interstate 280 and the Wolfe Road off-ramp were present in their current locations; Pruneridge Avenue and Ridgeview Court were not present. 1982: On the 1982 aerial photograph, the same building complex appeared present to the west and numerous commercial/high-tech buildings were present to the north. A commercial/high-tech building appeared to be nearing completion on the property adjacent east. Undeveloped parcels were present to the southwest. The Wolfe Road off-ramp from Interstate 280 was present to the southwest; Pruneridge Avenue and Ridgeview Court were present. 1993 through 2002: Site vicinity development appeared similar to the 1982 photograph with respect to properties to the north and southwest. The two current high-tech buildings were present east of the site, replacing the single commercial building present in that general location on the 1982 photograph. The building complex west of the site also was no longer present, and the adjacent property to the west was undeveloped. By 1998, the current multi-family residential development was present to the west and northwest. 3.2 City Directories Our review of available city directories obtained from EDR revealed no listings for the site or the entire 19100 to 19500 blocks of Pruneridge Avenue from 1970 through 2004. The EDR report is presented in Appendix C. 3.3 Summary of Previous Environmental Reports To further evaluate the site history, we reviewed and relied upon the information presented in the following reports that were obtained from you and present in our files. Foundation Investigation for Multi-Tenant Complex, Val/co Park, Cupertino, California, Lowney-Kaldveer Associates, July 28, 1971. Subsurface Investigation Report, 19310 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California, AIIWest Environmental, Inc., March 31, 1993. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Reconnaissance for Pruneridge Office Buildings, Cupertino, California, Lowney Associates, June 8, 1993. LO\YNEYASSOCIATES Envlrollrqnlø1lGeorechn¡caIlEnginee,ing S.""!c., Page 7 l047-49A / q- (d 7 Morley Bros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino - Permit for Removal of Underground Storage Tank, Letter from Wells Fargo Bank to Central Fire Department, August 12, 1993. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California, E,C, Inc., September 13, 1995. Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California, E,C, Inc., January 12, 1996. A summary of the pertinent information obtained in the documents is presented below; no information applicable to the current project was found in the Foundation Investigation report. Copies of key documents are presented in Appendix D. 3.3.1 March 31, 1993 Report This report summarized the subsurface investigation performed at the location of a previous on-site underground storage tank (UST). Free product reportedly was encountered in the piping trench at the time of the UST removal. Laboratory analysis of six soil samples revealed total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) in two of the six samples. In the two samples collected from the former product line trench excavation, TPHg at up to 2.2 parts per million (ppm), benzene at up to 0.023 ppm, toluene at up to 0.04 ppm, ethylbenzene at up to 0.17 ppm and xylenes at up to 0.98 ppm were reported. The report concluded that all but a minor amount of impacted soil had been removed from the site and that ground water had not been impacted. The report recommended site closure from the appropriate regulatory agencies. 3.3.2 June 8, 1993 Report The on-site buildings were constructed in 1973; prior to that time the site was agriculturally cultivated with orchards. The buildings were vacant in 1993, and Hewlett-Packard was understood to have been the most recent tenant. The report stated that a potential environmental concern was the possible presence of residual pesticides present in the on-site soil from historical agricultural use. Reportedly, only small quantities of hazardous materials associated with building maintenance were previously used in the on-site buildings, including solvents and paints. During the site reconnaissance for the 1993 report, hazardous materials observed in the vacant buildings included insecticide, cleaning solution, concrete patch, wood cleaner, paint, roofing patch, engine degreaser, wall covering adhesive, industrial heavy duty degreaser, microbiocide, spray adhesive, and stainless steel cleaner, generally in one to five containers each in sizes from 1 to S gallons. Fire department files reviewed indicated that a spray paint booth was installed at the site (19301 Pruneridge Avenue building) in 1974, a 1,SOO-gallon nitrogen tank was installed in February 1975, and a 40-ton backup chill water unit was installed in 1985. One 4,000-gallon gasoline UsT reportedly was installed west of the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building in January 1978 and a gasoline pump was also present. The UST reportedly was removed in August 1988 as discussed in the March 31, 1993 report. LOWNEYASSOCIATES El1Ylronmenlalf G.oteclHtic:ol/ E"g1....e-(t';ng 5..,,1,o, Page 8 lQ47-49A ¡4-{ d,?{ Morlev Bros 19310 8t 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I No tank closure or analytical data was available at the time the previous report was prepared. Eight types of asbestos containing material (ACM) were found within the on-site buildings, including sheet vinyl flooring and several types of vinyl floor tile and mastic in the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building and vinyl tile mastic, vinyl floor tile, and vinyl sheet within the 19320 Pruneridge Avenue building. The report recommended that these materials be managed in place. The report stated that contamination from up-gradient hazardous materials spill/release facilities appeared unlikely to impact the project site. 3.3.3 August 12, 1993 Letter Wells Fargo Bank was the reported owner of the site at the time of the 1993 letter; Hewlett-Packard was the reported current tenant. The letter was a request for the Central Fire Department to confirm that the former UST had been removed in accordance with their requirements and that no further action was required. At the bottom right corner of the letter, a Central Fire Department representative signed that this was the case. 3.3.4 September 13, 1995 Report Information presented in the 1995 report was similar to that contained in the 1993 environmental site assessment report. The 1995 report concluded that there did not appear to be any significant on-site environmental impairments. Hewlett-Packard was listed as the most current tenant of the two buildings, and they reportedly occupied the buildings from approximately 1973 until 1992. The 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building reportedly was used for marketing and telemarketing purposes; shipping and receiving may have also been performed. The 19320 Pruneridge Avenue building reportedly was used for administrative, conferencing, and training programs. 3.3.5 January 12, 1996 Report Addendum The report addendum had been prepared to answer further questions posed by Union Bank regarding information presented in the 1995 environmental site assessment report. The addendum summarized data from the original UST removal report. When the UST was removed in August 1988, five soil samples were collected from beneath the UST and associated piping. TPHg was not detected above laboratory detection limits in four of the five samples, although some staining was observed in the piping trench. The fifth sample, collected from the piping trench, demonstrated 7 ppm TPHg. The original UST removal report (October 1988), included as an attachment to the 1996 report, stated that the obviously stained soil from the pipe trench was excavated prior to backfilling. Building department documents reviewed included letters regarding sanitary sewer discharge, proposed on-site waste treatment, a proposed deionization water system, and the proposed installation of a spray booth. The report stated that evidence of the actual installation or operation of these systems was not encountered in the building department files. The report further stated that it appeared that a "very minor I.O\'INEYASSOCIATES eflv¡ronme"lol/ Geol.duù(:ol/ Engioeering SltfvlCe1 Page g l047-49A /4-1d-C¡ Morley Br05 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I degree" of spray painting may have been performed in the preparation of marketing materials. 4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS 4.1 City and County Agencies File Review To obtain information on hazardous materials usage and storage, we requested readily available information at the Cupertino Building Department (CBD), Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), and Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department (SCCEHD) pertaining to site addresses 19310 a.nd 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino, California. A response from the CBD had not been received at the time this report was issued. According to a representative of the SCCEHD, no file information was available. File information available at the sCCFD was limited to fire sprinkler information; a representative of the SCCFD stated that hazardous materials files reviewed for previous reports likely were lost when computer archiving was performed. Some tenant history information was available from the fire sprinkler files, including listing of Hewlett-Packard as site tenant from October 1996 through November 1999 in the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building and from November 1998 through November 1999 in the 19320 Pruneridge Avenue building. Both buildings were listed as "spec space" from November 2004 through February 2005. Review of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) website did not reveal any documents regarding the site. 4.2 Regulatory Agency Database Report During this study, a regulatory agency database report was obtained and reviewed to help establish whether contamination incidents have been reported in the site vicinity. A list of the database sources reviewed, a detailed description of the sources, and a radius map indicating the location of the reported facilities relative to the project site are presented in Appendix E. The project site was listed under site name Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site and Hewlett-Packard Company Computers at 19310 Pruneridge Avenue on the haznet, historical UST, and California FrD UST databases (site IDs: AI, A2, and A3). The haznet listing was for disposal of lab waste chemicals; no further information was available. The historical UST listing was for one 4,000-gallon unleaded gasoline UST installed in 1980. The California FID UsT listing stated the site was an inactive UST location. The Siemens facility located at 10950 North Tantau Avenue (site ID 145) was listed potentially as a solvent release facility on the California SLIC database. No further information was provided. Additionally, the SCR-Intersil facility at 10900 North Tantau Avenue (Site ID 144) was listed on the Cortese and California Bond Expenditure Plan databases, potentially for a UST release. No further information for this site was available. LO\YNEYASSCX::IA1ES Ellviron ""flðloll Geoledll\Jcal/ E "9jn"';n9 SIU'.lces Page 10 1047·49A 1L(-/30 Morley Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I There were no other reported nearby hazardous materials spills or releases with a potential to significantly impact the site. The potential for site impact was evaluated based on information in the database records regarding the type of release, current case status, and distance and direction from the site. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Historical summary The site appeared to have been planted with orchards as early as 1939, and to remain an orchard until construction of the two current on-site buildings in 1973. Topographic maps from 1902 and 1920 did not show development present on-site during that time period. Hewlett-Packard reportedly was the tenant of the buildings from 1973 until sometime between 1992 and 1999, using the buildings for marketing and telemarketing purposes, shipping and receiving, administrative purposes, conferencing, and training programs. Hewlett-Packard may have vacated the buildings in 1992 and remained on the lease until 1999. Once Hewlett-Packard vacated the buildings, they appear to have remained vacant to the present time. 5.2 Agricultural Use The site was used for agricultural purposes for several decades. During the course of agricultural use, pesticides such as DDT and lead arsenate may have been applied to crops in the normal course of farming operations. Although pesticide concentrations likely were reduced by mixing of the topsoil during initial site development with the current on-site buildings, because redevelopment of the site for residential use is planned, soil sampling and analyses should be performed to evaluate the residual pesticide concentrations, if any, and potential health risks to future residents. 5.3 Chemical Storage and Use No information was found indicating that significant quantities of hazardous materials· historically have been used or stored at the site. During a 1993 site inspection by others, small quantities of insecticide, cleaning solution, concrete patch, wood cleaner, paint, roofing patch, engine degreaser, wall covering adhesive, industrial heavy duty degreaser, microbiocide, spray adhesive, and stainless steel cleaner, generally in one to five containers each in sizes from 1 to 5 gallons were observed on- site. A paint spray booth for preparation of market materials also reportedly was present in the 19130 Pruneridge Avenue building. With the exception of 5 gallons of paint, 25 pounds of patching compound, and 1 gallon plus several quarts of cleaning solution, hazardous materials were not observed on-site at the time of our reconnaissance. The small quantities of hazardous materials observed should be removed prior to the property transaction. Although no detailed information on Hewlett-Packard's operations was available, the probability of a significant on-site release appears low. LOWNEYASSOCIATES EJlvll'Qrlmen gll Geo:ec:1!mcoll E IIg!neo.ing S..vlc., Page 11 l047-49A {L.{-/3( Morley Bras 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I 5.4 Former UST One 4,000-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the west side of the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building in 1988. Low levels of TPHg and BTEX were documented to remain in on-site soil as a result of leaking, primarily from the tank piping. The SCCFD signed off on a letter stating that no further action was required. The site did not appear to have been opened as a fuel release by the SCVWD. No further work with regards to the previous UST appears required. However, pockets of impacted soil in the vicinity of the former tank may be encountered during site redevelopment activities, and, if encountered, such soil must be segregated and characterized for appropriate disposal. The SCVWD should be contacted to determine if a change in site use from commercial to residential could be cause to re-open the case. 5.5 Asbestos Performance of an asbestos survey of the on-site buildings in 1993 revealed the presence of eight types of ACM, including sheet vinyl flooring and several types of vinyl floor tile and mastic in the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building and vinyl tile mastic, vinyl floor tile, and vinyl sheet within the 19320 Pruneridge Avenue building. Maintenance personnel or other individuals that may disturb the suspect ACM should be notified of the locations of these materials. Since demolition of the buildings is under consideration, the suspect ACM must be sampled as required by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines. In addition, NESHAP guidelines require that all potentially friable ACM be removed prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the ACM. 5.6 Lead-Based Paint In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead as an additive in paint. Currently, the u.s. EPA and u.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are proposing additional lead-based paint regulations. Based on the age of the building, lead-based paint may be present. If lead-based paint is still bonded to the building materials, its removal is not required prior to demolition. It will be necessary, however, to follow the requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1532.1 during demolition activities; these requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead based paint is peeling, flaking or blistered, it should be removed prior to demolition. It is assumed that such paint will become separated from the building components during demolition activities; thus, it must be managed and disposed as a separate waste steam. Any debris or soil containing lead paint or coating must be disposed at landfills that are permitted to accept the waste being disposed. 5.7 Transformers Multiple transformers were observed in electrical closets and telephone rooms throughout both on-site buildings. These transformers appeared to be dry-type transformers, indicating they would not contain cooling oil. One General Electric transformer was observed in the fenced mechanical equipment enclosure. One PG&E LO\YNEYASSCX:::iATES ellvlro"",...lal/Geol9c:hn;call Engl"'tMr;ng Se,,,!cO$ Page 12 1047-49A I L{ -I 3:;!., Morley Bros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I capacitor and one PG&E transformer were observed outside the 19310 Pruneridge Avenue building. These transformers may contain transformer oil. The transformers appeared to be in good condition and no oil leaks were observed. If the transformers are to be removed, General Electric and PG&E should be contacted to ascertain whether they may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 5.8 Elevators The buildings contained elevators that use hydraulic fluid, which may contain PCBs. The hydraulic elevator unit should be periodically inspected for leakage and, if a leaking unit is identified, it should be repaired and any fluid or fluid-impacted waste disposed in accordance with applicable regulations. No indication of leakage was observed in the area of elevator operating equipment. 5.9 Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program The Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, also called the Non-Point Source Program, was developed in accordance with the requirements of the 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan to reduce water pollution associated with urban storm water runoff. This program was also designed to fulfill the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, which mandated that the EPA develop National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDEs) Permit application requirements for various storm water discharges, including those from municipal storm drain systems and construction sites. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of 1 acre or more, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale, must obtain a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. A Notice of Intent (NO!) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. 5.10 Potential Environmental Concerns Within the Site Vicinity Two facilities, Siemens at 10950 North Tantau Avenue and SCR-Intersil at 10900 North Tantau Avenue, were listed as having releases of some type from their facilities. No information on the type of material released, the date of release, or remedial measures taken was provided in the regulatory agency database report. Depending on the material released and the effectiveness and timeliness of remedial measures implemented, these facilities could potentially impact the project site. For a further degree of comfort, files for these facilities could be reviewed at the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6.0 LIMITATIONS As with all site assessments, the extent of information obtained is a function of client demands, time limitations, and budgetary constraints. Our conclusions and recommendations regarding the site are based on readily observable site conditions, review of readily available documents, maps, aerial photographs, and data collected and/or reported by others. Due to poor or inadequate address information, the regulatory agency database report listed several sites that may be inaccurately mapped or could not be mapped; leaks or spills from these or other facilities, if LO\YNEYASS<XIATES eovlro,u"'I'I QI/~te(h(l!ctlI/En9¡neor¡ng SltiviceJ Page 13 1047-49A (i.{ -/5? Morlev 8ros 19310 & 19320 Pruneridge Avenue Phase I nearby, could impact the site. As directed by you, we are relying on information presented in reports provided to us by you or your representative. We are not responsibie for the accuracy of information or data presented by others. Because publicly available information often cannot affirm the presence of recognized environmental conditions, there is the possibility that such conditions exist. Our conclusions and recommendations in this site assessment are qualified in that no soil, ground water, air, or building material analyses were performed. Sampling and analysis lead to a more reliable assessment of environmental conditions, conditions that often cannot be noted from typical Phase I activities. Should you desire a greater degree of confidence, these samples should be obtained and analyzed to further evaluate environmental conditions. This report was prepared for the sole use of Morley Bros. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services have been performed in accordance with environmental principles generally accepted at this time and location. 7.0 REFERENCES Lowney Associates. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Reconnaissance for Pruneridge Office Buildings, Cupertino, California. June 8, 1993. * * * * * * * * * * * * LO\YNEYASSCX:::lATES ef1"h~"menloI/Geo~;¡rtlcoI/Eng)"'Ðer¡~g S""iC:ÐS Page 14 1047-49A 14 -r3t.f N À 02004 ThOlllOs Bras. Naps -~ VICINITY MAP 19310 & 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE Cupertino, California LO\'INEYASSOCV\TES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services FIGURE 1 1047-49A (L{ -(-3'S Hewlett Packard 19483 Pruneridge Ave. Parking The Hamptons at Cupertino 19500 Pruneridge Ave. go :g If! 19320 PrunerJdge Ave. Former UST location f .. ~~ &.g -.. " f HIGHWAY 280 ~ SITE PLAN 19310 & 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE Cupertino, California LOWNEYASSOClt\TES Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services +~ :D ë G> m < ~ Hewlett-Packard 10SS5 Ridgeview Ct. Buildings CAG-06 & CAG-10 o o c :!¡ NTS FIGURE 2 1047-49A /4-/50 LOWNE\"ASSCX:::IATES Envlronmenlal/ Geolechnicol/ Engin.....ring Service$ APPENDIX A TERMS AND CONDITIONS l047-49A fL{-/ð7 APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE REPORT TITLE: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FOR 19310 AND 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE PROJECT NUMBER: 1047-49A To: Lowney' Associates 405 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California 94043 From (Applicant): (Please clearly identify name and address of person/entity applying for permission to use or copy this document) Ladies and Gentlemen: Applicant hereby applies for permission to rely upon Lowney Associates work product, as described above, for the purpose of: (state here the purpose for which you wish to rely upon the work product) Applicant only can accept and rely upon Lowney Associates' work product under the strict understanding that Applicant is bound by all provisions in the Terms and Conditions attached to the report. Every report, recommendation, finding, or conclusion issued by Lowney Associates shall be subject to the limitations stated in the Agreement between Lowney and our Client and in the subject report(s). If this is agreeable, please sign below and return one copy of this letter to us along with the applicable fees. Upon receipt and if acceptable, our signed letter will be returned. Lowney Associates may withhold permission at its sole discretion or require additional re-use fees or terms. FEES: A $200 coordination fee, payable in advance, will apply. If desired, for an additional $150 report reproduction fee, we will reissue the report in the name of the Applicant; the report date, however, will remain the same. All checks will be returned if the request is not approved. REQUESTED BY APPROVED BY Lowney Associates Applicant Company Print Name and Title Print Name and Title Signature and Date Signature and Date LOWNEYASSOCIATES l047-49A Environmental/ Gaolednlcoll Engin....ring Services 14-( 3 8' n .S AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT 1.0 AGREEMENr 1.1 Lowney's services are defined by ônd limited \:.0 (1) \:.Ì".ose services (the IIWOI'kW) described in the. ~tt:ac.he.d proposal, 'l- hkh is it\t.Cf\10rate.d b\ this re.fe.re.r\c.e., at\d (2) these Terms and Conditions of Agreement CTerms and Conditlons~). Together, the proposal and Terms and Conditions form our Agreement. This Agreement represents the parties' entire agreement and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. The Agreement can only be amended by a written instrument signed by both the Client and Lowney. Failure to immediately enforce any provIsion in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce that provision or any other provision. 2.0 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 2.1 Expenses and other similar project-related costs are billed at cost plus eighteen and one-half (18'h) percent. Reproduction charges wi!1 be billed at twenty-five cents ($O.25) per page plus the technical assistant's time blUed at their hourly rate. Fixed fee services will be performed for the agreed fixed fee sum. 3.0 TERMS OF PAYMENT 3.1 The Client's obligation to pay for the Work is in no way dependent upon the Client's ability to obtain financing or dependent upon the Client's successful completion of the project. Payment for Work and expenses shall be due and payable upon receipt of Lowney's statement. To be recognized, any dispute over charges must be claimed in writing within thirty (30) days of the billing date. Disputes or questions about a statement shall not be cause for withholding payment for remaining portions due. Amounts unpaid thirty (30) days after the issue date of Lowney's statement shall be assessed a service charge of one (1) percent per month on balances outstanding to compensate Lowney for the cost and burden of administering the account and collecting fees owed. Should any legal proceeding be commenced between the parties to this Agreement seeking to enforce any of its provisions, induding, but not limited to, fee provisions, the prevailing party in such a proceeding shall be entitled to, in addition to such other reHef as may be granted, a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and other costs. For purposes of this provision, "prevailing party" shall include a party which dismisses an action for recovery hereunder In exchange for payment of the sum allegedly due, performance of covenants allegedly breached, or consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action or proceeding. 3.2 Lowney may at its option withhold delivery of documents and other data pending receipt of payment for all Work rendered and shall have no liability to the Client for delay or damage caused because of such withholding. 3.3 Lowney reserves the right to suspend services should payment not be received within 60 days of the date of the invoice following performance of services described in this Agreement and on Invoice. 3.4 No deduction shall be made from Lowney's, its consultants' or Its subcontractors' compensation due to penalty, liquidated damages, or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or due to the cost of changes in the Work other than those for which Lowney or its consultants has been adjudged to be liable. 4.0 INSURANCE 4.1 Lowney, its officers, employees, and agents (hereafter referred to as Lowney) are protected by Worker's Compensation Insurance (and/or Employer's Liability Insurance), by Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage, and by Professional Liability Insurance (induding Contractor's Pollution LiabiJity Insurance), and will furnish certificates thereof upon request. Client specifically agrees that Lowney will not be responsible for property damage from any cause, including fire and explosIon, beyond the amounts actually paid by Lowney's insurance carriers under Lowney's available insurance. 5.0 UMITATIONS 5.1 Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with construction activities, geotechnical Investigations, environmental Investigations, and assessments. Client also recognizes that actual conditions at the site may vary from those observed by Lowney when performing the Work. Client specifically acknowledges and agrees that the interpretations and recommendations of Lowney are based on information actually reviewed and conditions actually observed by Lowney. Lowney shall not be responsible for the validIty or accuracy of data collected by others or interpretations made by others. 5.2 The Client agrees to defend and indemnIfy Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors from any and all claims, damages, costs, and losses (Included attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of or In any way related to the Work or the performance or non-performance of obligations under this Agreement except when the Claim arises from the established sole negligence of Lowney and Its employees, consultants and subcontractors or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney and Its employees, consultants and subcontractors. 5.3 In performing its professIonal services, Lowney will strive to use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exerc!sed, under similar circumstances, by members of its profession practicing in the same or similar locality and under the same standard of care. Lowney's good faith reliance on representations of bUilding, planning, regulatory or other public officials shall satisfy and fall within the standard of care. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended by Lowney by the proposal for consulting services, the contract between Lowney and Client, or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made to the Client or any other person. 5.4 This paragraph limits Lowney's liab1l1ty-READ IT CAREFULLY. The Cl1ent understands and acknowledges that the Work poses certain rIsks to both Lowney and the Client. Client further acknowledges and agrees that the amount of risk that Lowney accepts by this Agreement is commensurate with the amount of compensation received under this Agreement for the Work. Lowney's fee for the Work is based on and reflects Client's agreement to limit Lowney's liability as described below. Client specifically acknowledges and agrees that but for this promise to limit Lowney's liability, Lowney's fee would be significantly higher to accommodate Lowney for the risks posed by the Work and entering this Agreement. Client acknowledges its right to discuss this provision with legal counsel and negotiate with Lowney regarding this provision and the proposed fee. In reliance on the foregoing and In consideration for the fee proposed, C!ient specifically aCknowledges and agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Lowney's total liability for any and aU injuries, claims, liab1Utles, losses, costs, expenses, or damages whatsoever induding, without limitatIon, attorneys' fees and legal costs (hereInafter nClalms") to Client and any third party arising out of or in any way related to the Work or this Agreement from any cause or causes including, but not limited to, Lowney's negligence, errors, omissIons, or breach of contract or any duty, is limited to and shall not exceed $50,000 or the amount of Lowney's fee, whichever is greater (OptIon 1) except when the ClaIm arises from the sole negligence of Lowney or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney. In consideration of an addItional fee of four (4) percent of Lowney's total Work fee or $400, whichever is greater, Lowney will raise the limitation of liability up to the amount actually paid by Lowney's Insurance carriers for the Claims under Lowney's available insurance coverage (LImitation Increase) if and only If Client makes its written request for the LImitation Increase before the commencement of the Work and Client and Lowney each initial and date this paragraph 5.4 below (Option 2) except when the Claim arises from the sole negligence of Lowney or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney. UMITATION INCREASE: AGREED THAT UMITATION OF UABIUTY INCREASED TO ACTUAL AMOUNT Of PROCEEDS PAlO BY LOWNEY'S INSURANCE CARRIERS IN EXCHANGE FOR ADDmONAL FEE OF FOUR (4) PERCENT OF TOTAL SERVICE CHARGE OR $400, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. Date Client Initial Date Lowney Initial 5.5 Client agrees on its behalf and on behalf of Client's officers, directors, partners, principals, agents, employees, successors, representatives, and assignees (collectively referred to as "Client Group") that in no event shall any action or proceeding be brought against Lowney by Client or Client Group for any claim or cause of actIon arising from or in any way related to the Work or this agreement unless such action or proceeding Is commenced within three (3) years from the Date of Completion of Work provided by Lowney under thIs Agreement. Client and Client Group agree and acknowledge that the limitations perIod set forth herein supersedes, replaces, and supplants any and all limitatIon periods which would otherwise apply Including, but not limited to, those appearing in the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Date of Completion shall be the date of the final invoice for the Work performed under this Agreement. 5.6 If Client requests that Lowney's work product be relied upon by a third party, including, but not limited to, a lender, Client specifically agrees to provide the third party with a copy of these terms and conditions and Client agrees to require said third party to agree to limit Lowney's total liability to Client and any third party as described in paragraph 5.4 above, and Client agrees to defend and indemnIfy Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors from any and all thIrd party claIms, damages, costs, and losses arising out of or in any way related to the Work or the performance or non-performance of obligations under this Agreement except when the Claim arises from the sole negligence of Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney. Any third party which accepts Lowney's work product does so under the strict understanding that the third party Is bound by all provisions in these Terms and Conditions induding, but not limited to, the provisIons of paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5, above, and this paragraph 5.6. Every report, recommendation, finding, or conclusion Issued by Lowney shall be subject to the limitatIons stated thereIn. 5.7 Lowney and Client waive consequential damages for claims, dIsputes, or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutua! waiver is applicable, without limitations, to all consequentIal damages due to either party's termination. 6.0 SCOPE AND EXECUTION OF SERVICES 6.1 Lowney witl serve the Client by providing professional counsel and technIcal advice based on information furnished by the Client. The Client will make available to Lowney all known information regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site, indudlng the location of all underground utilities and installations, and w1!l immediately transmit any new information that becomes available or any change In plans. When hazardous materIals are known, assumed or suspected to exist at a site, Lowney may be required by law to take appropriate precautions to protect the health and safety of its personnel. Client hereby warrants that If It knows or has any reason to assume or suspect that hazardous materials may exist at the project site, Client will immediately inform Lowney and warrants that Client has done its best to inform Lowney of the known or suspected hazardous materials' type, quantity, and location. Client and Lowney agree that Lowney (4 -(3<1 shall not be responsible for any claims, damages, costs, or losses arising from or in any way related to conditions not actually encountered during the course of Lowney's work and Lowney shall not have any liabi\\ty or responsibility for losses resulting from inaccurate or incomplete information supplIed by Client, and Client agrees to defend and indemnify Lowney against claims, damõlges, costs, or losses arising there from. Lowney shall not be liable for failing to discover any condition the discovery of which would reasonably require the performance of services not authorized by Client. 6.2 Lowney will diligently proceed with its services and win submit its report in a timely manner, but it is expressly agreed and understood by Client that Lowney shall not be held responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond Its control, nor by factors which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the execution of the Agreement between the parties. Lowney will not be responsible for any damages, consequential or otherwise, caused by delays in the completion of the Work. Lowney makes no warranties regarding time of completion of the Work. In the event that the Work is interrupted or delayed due to causes beyond Lowney's control (including, but not limited to, acts of God, war, riot, insurrection, inclement weather, fire acts of third parties or governmental bodies, or matters within the control of Client), Lowney sha1l be paid compensation for labor, equipment, and other costs Lowney incurs in order to perform the Work for the Client's benefit during the interruption or delay. 6.3 The individual or Individuals who contract with Lowney on behalf of the Client warrant that they are duly authorized agents of the Client and are empowered to so contract. 6.4 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the Client shall be entitled to two copies of each report prepared by Lowney. 6.5 In the event that Lowney submits a proposal including these Terms and Conditions of Agreement, to provide professional services and the Client authorizes the Work by means of a purchase order or other writing ("Confirmation~), it is expressly agreed that these Terms and Conditions shall apply, and any terms, condition, or provisions appearing in the Confirmation are void and inappiicable except to the extent the Confirmation authorizes the Work and binds Client to this Agreement. 6.6 If Lowney is authorized to commence and or continue providing its services on the Work either orally or in writing, prior to full execution of a written contract, such authorization shall be deemed an acceptance of this proposal, and all such services shaH be provided and compensated for in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Agreement contained herein as though this proposal were fully executed by Client. 6.7 Lowney will mutually coordinate Its Work with the work to be undertaken by Client's Contractor and Consultants. Lowney shall not be responsible for the technical adequacy or accuracy of the professional services rendered by Client's consultants or the services provided by CHent's contractors. 7.0 SITE SAFETY 7.1 Lowney shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs In connection with the job or the work of any contractor, subcontractor, or their agents or employees, or any other person performing work or services on the job or at the site. 8.0 TERMINA nON 8.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party seven (7) days' written notice. Notice shall be effective as of the date of deposit in the U.s. Mail of the written notice, properly addressed to the person to be notified. In the event that the Client requests termination of the services prior to completion of Work, Lowney reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place its files in order and, where considered necessary to protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on the services performed to date. A termination charge of 10 percent of the total contract amount in addition to aU costs incurred to the date of Work stoppage may be made at the discretion of Lowney, 9.0 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 9.1 All reports, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, and other documents including those in electronic form prepared by Lowney, as instruments of Work, shall remain the property of Lowney whether the work for which they are made is executed or not, Client agrees that·all documents and other services furnished to the Client or its agents, which are not paid for, will be Immediately returned upon demand and will not be used by the Client or any other person, legal entity or professional on other projects or extensIons to this work except by agreement in writing and with approprJate compensation to Lowney. Any unauthorized use of the documents shall be at the Client's own risk and without liability to Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors. 9.2 Client warrants that Lowney, in order to perform Its Work under this Agreement, has the unrestricted license and right to use any information provided to Lowney by the Client or others. Lowney is not responsib!e for the accuracy of information or data presented by others, 10.0 RIGHT OF ENTRY 10.1 The Client will provIde for right of entry of Lowney personnel and all necessary equipment, in order to complete the Work. While Lowney will take all reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the property including underground utilities, it is acknowledged and agreed by Client that in the normal course of the Work some damage may occur, the correction of which is not part of this Agreement. AccordIngly, Client shall waive any claIm against Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors and agree to defend and indemnify Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors from any claims arising from entering or working on the site whIch is the subject of the Work except only losses caused by the sole negligence or wHlful misconduct of Lowney and its employees, consultants and subcontractors. 11.0 MONITORING OF CONSTRUCTION 11.1 The Client hereby acknowledges and understands that unanticipated or changed condItions may be encountered during construction. Further, there is a substantial risk to both the Client and to Lowney if Lowney Is not engaged to provide complete services, including but not limited to, constructIon observation services. Such risks include the Increased likelihood of misinterpretation of Lowney's findings and conclusions, and error in implementing recommendations by Lowney. Therefore, if the Client fails to retain Lowney to provide complete services, the Client agrees to defend and indemnify Lowney against any and all claims, damages, costs, and losses arising out of or in any way related to the Work or arising out of implementing or interpreting Lowney's work product except when the Claim arises from the sole negligence of Lowney or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney. 11.2 Lowney shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on·site observations to check the quality or quantity of the Work and shall not be responsIble for any contractor's failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents. 11.3 Lowney shaH not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor or subcontractor or any of the contractors' or subcontractors' agents or employees or any other persons performing any work on the project. 11.4 The CHent shall provide prompt notice to Lowney If the Client becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or Development, including any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies In Lowney's Work or contract documents. 12.0 DISCOVERY OF UNANTICIPATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 12,1 Hazardous materials or other toxic substances may exist at a site where there is no reason known to Client to believe they could or should be present. Lowney and Client agree that the discovery of unanticipated potentially hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating a renegotiation of the scope of Work or termination of Work, Lowney and ClIent also agree that the discovery of unanticipated potentially hazardous materials may make It necessary for Lowney to take immediate measures to protect public health, safety, and the environment. Lowney agrees to notify Client as soon as practically possible should unanticipated hazardous materials be encountered. Client encourages Lowney to take any or all measures that In Lowney's professional opinion are justIfied to preserve and protect the health and safety of Lowney's personnel, the public, and the environment, and Client agrees to compensate Lowney for the cost of such services. Further, the Client agrees to defend and indemnify Lowney from any and all claims, damages, costs, and losses arising out of or in any way related to subsurface sampling, including, but not limited to, claims, damages, costs, and losses arising from cross·contamination except when the Claim arises from the sole negligence of Lowney or where the Claim arises from the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of Lowney. 13.0 CONTAMINATION OF A WATER-BEARING ZONE 13.1 Subsurface sampling may result in unavoidable contamInation of certain subsurface areas, as when a probe or boring is advanced or drilled through a contaminated area, Into a clean soil or a water-bearing zone, Because of the risks posed by such Work, and because subsurface sampling is often a necessary part of Lowney's Work, the Client hereby agrees to waive all claims against Lowney that in any way arise out of subsurface sampling, including claims relating to cross-contamination. 14.0 DISPOSAL OF SAMPLES AND DRILL CUTTINGS 14.1 Lowney shall hold samples collected during the performance of its Work no longer than 45 calendar days after issuance of any document that includes data obtained from them unless Client advises in writing otherwise; drill cuttings will be left on-site. In the event that soil, rock, water, or drill cuttings, and/or other samples or material are contaminated or are suspected to contain hazardous materials or other toxic substances hazardous or detrimental to public health, safety, or the environment as defined by federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances, Lowney will, after completion of testing, notify the Client of same In order for the Client to arrange for the disposal of samples and materials, The Client recognizes and agrees that Lowney at no time assumes title to said samples and/or matericlls, The Client, not Lowney, remains ultimately responsible for selecting the disposal or treatment facility to which such samples and/or materials are to be delivered, The Client agrees to pay all costs associated with any storage, transport, and disposal of samples and materials, and to defend and indemnify Lowney from any and aU claims arising out of or In any way related to the storage, transport, and disposal of asbestos, hazardous or toxic substances, or pollutants, including but not limited to, any samples and/or materials. P:\Standards\Proposal Attachments\Word documents of rate sheets and tenTIs\proposal Tenns & Conditions June 2004.DOC -2- /4-/4D 15.0 15.1 PREVAIUNG WAGE OBUGATrONS Client shall notify Lowney in writing if the Work subject to this Agreement constitutes a "public work" under any and all Federal, state, and/or local prevailing wage laws, and/or livIng wage Jaws and/or ordinances, including, but not limited to, the Davis-Bacon Act and the provisions of California labor Code §§ 1720, et seq. In addition, Client shaH notify Lowney jf Lowney is obligated by statute, any public contractIng authority, and/or a developer to pay prevailing wages and benefits and/or any other predetermined wages or benefits (collectively, ~prevailing wage obligations"). In the event that Lowney must adhere to federal, state, and/or local prevaiUng wage obligatIons for Work performed, Client shall provide Lowney with any and all prevailing wage determinations applicable to the Work to be performed by Lowney. Client understands and agrees that Lowney's fee for Work performed under this Agreement will be calculated, in part, on the basis of representations by Client regarding the existence and amount of any and all prevailing wage obligations and that, if such obligations exist, Lowney's fee might be different. Client further understands and agrees that Lowney will rely on the representations made by Client with regard to prevailing wage obligations and Client agrees to indemnify Lowney against any and all claims, liabilities, suits, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including, but not fimited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and all legal expenses and fees, arising from Lowney's reliance upon Client's representations regarding prevailing wage obligations. Client agrees that in the event of any such claims, suits, and/or demands, Lowney shall have the right to select counsel of its choosing. CERTIFICATE OF MERIT The client shall make no claim for professional negligence unless the Client has first provided Lowney with a written certification executed under penalty of perjury by an independent consultant currently practicing in the same discipline and geographic area as Lowney and licensed as a professional engineer or registered geologist in the State of California. This certification shall: a) contain the name and license number of the certifier; b) specify with particularity the acts or omissions that the certifier contends are not In conformance with the standard of care for a consultant performing professional services under similar circumstances; c) state the time spent by certifier in rendering this opinion; and d) state in detail the basis for the certifier's opinion that such acts or omissions do not conform to the standard of care including references to literature, treatises or textbooks to support the certifier's conclusions. This certificate shall be provided to Lowney no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the presentation of any claim or the institution of any mediatIon, arbitratIon or judicia! proceeding. At least fifteen (15) days before providing the certificate to Lowney, Client shall ensure that the proposed certifier notify Lowney in writing of the certifier's intended certification and the content thereof, and Client shall arrange for Lowney to discuss the matter with the certifier in an attempt to correct any misinformation in the intended certification and/or to resolve the matter. If Client fails to comply wIth the Certificate Of Merit process contained In this section 16, then (1) Client waives and foregoes any claim or entitlement to recovery of attorneys' fees and litigation costs otherwise recoverable under this contract, and (2) Client is estopped and precluded from pursuing any method of mediation, arbitration and litigation against Lowney until such time as Client does comply herewith (the "Claim Preclusion"). In agreeing to the Ciaim Preclusion, Client agrees that compliance with the Certificate Of Merit process is jurisdictional. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS The term "indemnify" shall mean indemnify, defend, and hold harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suIts, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and all legal expenses and fees incurred on appeal, and all interest thereon ("claimsU), accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or any other legal entities, on account of any damages or losses to property or persons, including death, or economic losses, arising out of the item, matter, action, or inaction specified In the specific provision. This Agreement shall be governed by CalifornIa law. The venue for any legal action brought pursuant to this Agreement shaH be located within the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Nothing contained in this Agreement shat1 create a contractual relatIonship with or cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Client or lowney. The Client and Lowney, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assIgns, and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assIgns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to alt covenants of this Agreement. Client shalt not assign this Agreement or any right or cause of action hereunder without the written consent of Lowney. Lowney and Client agree to disfavor litigation and to use mediation to resolve disputes. If initial discussions between Lowney and Client fait to settle a dispute or claim relating to this Agreement or breach thereof the parties agree to submit such dispute to non-binding mediation to effect a resolution to such dispute or ctaim. Construction Industry Mediation Rules of American Arbitration Association shall apply. Demand for mediation shalt be made in writIng with the other party to this Agreement within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in questions has arisen, if prior discussions have not led to a settlement. Unless specified otherwise by Lowney, this quotation shat1 not remaIn In effect after thirty (30) days of the proposal date. Lowney maintains a General Engineering A license (No. 682286) and Hazardous Substances Removal and Remedial Actions Certification with the State of California, which are regulated by the Contractors State Ucense Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State Ucense Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826. Client agrees that Lowney may use and publish Client's name and a general description of Lowney's services with respect to the project in describing Lowney's experience and qualification to other clients or prospectIve clients. This Agreement shall not create any rights or benefits to parties other than Client or lowney. No third-party shalt have the rIght to rely on Lowney's opinions rendered in connection with Lowney's services without Lowney's written consent and the third-party's agreement to be bound to the same terms and conditions as Client. Client acknowledges and agrees that it has received and reviewed these Terms and Conditions and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply to the Interpretation of this Agreement. 16.0 16.1 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 P:\Standards\Proposal Attachments\Word documents of rate sheets and terms\Proposal Terms & Conditions June 2004.DOC -3- 14 -Iefl APPENDIX B HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS LO\YNE\¥ASSCXIATES Environmentol/Gl:lolecbnic:ol/Engineering Se("içe~ 1047-49A /4 -/4 õ( ·,·.r....L'I' ...,." . 'I !'-Ut.l~ Q~á¡ú;j R,2 W. ?;,\;.'$f¿" - . ';:": :".\\~~(tfu~ "> '. )....l. ,,<., ,:X.l '..' , , \." ~ ~j~(;i;~,',' '. "'~,~J~i:'iJ'~~~~+l"}8(A, ;r;>r~: "'r..~~~~~ ;/ ,,-( ') ./ ,~.r(:-'.\·' ,,/:i,;';·";"~r~-;::;':;</\j.;,.<,,;~.i.~~,¡;~r5' ........-.....' , ~~ ,.."'~ (~ (z, 'j;.¿~~ _> \~.f'-,-'i'.' ~j r 1'1; . ··~-.¡':;;....(r~/".-/ lA r,~: '~ '.~.~.:' ~IQV~I"à,''I<Pff~~': - r,'iA1;jt 'ltJ!1 ,~»¡'b,Q.Ö \.~:. I ¡ '\' fjj· "(' ~ ...¡." - - ~.)1\ .....<'...¡;. <I. h ¡ . ·.lli,Æ··- " \. í:'- , ' ..". ":~ ' ) II 'f.;~t)¡;-.....· i.." ~:P:~~.~~~' -,.: . ,~~W"\ iF",. t T ;,~~./~r;.- ? '/~.' "5;. 1 ," :PI;""""'" '\~~, ' .'_' "~f:.(~~:-)'~h:i;; ,¡,tl' " .'; ,f: I ''', d.(" ~¡ ~'jö.;A~'._ ~E;,,';..: , d/~:~~;f.\;..tll;:~ ~; J ,'.. ~. J 'f,=' I' '"' i'>,Ç - ,,~-:t;~',- .....'~ ,¡! 'f-/~..¡¡:. ~,.~ ' , , '1 '" \] \ . -" ~ Ii . . 1 ..:.õl1!'~ ~ 1;' '.. ~ , """, .. t . , . ~', '; "í ;'in,. J.f ~'~' ~ ._ ._~ "I::'l"X~':!II: ,;. /"1-"\ ..~ ~- V,,~.....! .. ¡ '¡¡ 'j'-\I' [f., - 1~4_ '}"n~f¡'~~ar.(~.~'>t' { ':¡' '~"I '~ J' ' ", . :;-- '·í,'''~·\~'~f, ·-"",f '.:.it:~""'';''~':\C'!' . j,$;j;.y," ,"" .:\ "'~'-'l --j,.J- .' \-... '"" .~ .~~,.:! ~,- '.J ' .' ;:~ ~ -'~"Ji~", ',', ',~ / . ~ ' ./ . -" II. '~"'f ~,...' f.\'·;"C' -' ..~....,....~ ~ ;~~,f('~¡:~' , lì:<;;~;~~~;~~ ~':~4" I· ", . " ..../; ," !, '1'f~".(~\'{*' ;",..;.n. -',,~' '''~¡fJ¡¡'Iio~'~:\.''r~,·tC.}-.;:--...(.I, "'I"-¡ ., '\, .'. ,._,,,,J '"'~~'" ."".'f, .__'..,." ·,.·H:"Nf.",~,.AJ"'"' '~. .' '~~ "-t.. /~ \ "-_:"~r"", _ >. ! 'f ," .'" ,,;f ~_iW:I~j.lro!.~~ríl(,., I,~~~." ." (; ¡f .' ~! "-~._-. -: ~ .,'1 :\1:1\'1:> 11\ 1 / I' /. ~~. ~ X'~';;:;;''''-.:''' t:''''''\ . 1 'L: ¡"""" . "' tu . "'/' I I' --¡' " ,,<:;1.,.. ,<. ,I , , '(~'~;".!J.., /1",øI;:-:Ji..:ro;'\ 'o!'.tt' "r.;. . J \ l"~~~.,....~,·," '."1 > :I,· .tol'"HI,,"\ "- ~ .-' " ~..._...:.i:-<!!~ . r'¡ . ',1 '-,f..... \ "':', .! ...L,~~ , I --..L..._~.~~" I: !:' ~'.' ,.' '; . ~. ').--:: l,' '.'\to ",~. ,!,~,' I:..,: ~ ---'I '-" .' ' ''';f ,;- . "ki~' ¿¡",. "'.,u.....Ú,¡:n"''C0/'-' I , \.'!"....>l1;, l..... ~ A' ,,; ," ldþtl':...s..t.fì ,'r. >^. A. .'W" ..~ ¡ 1t r'x:..: 1 ; {' , 1 ~;~\ '\ J .... ..j;j~ '. ' . / '. l. ,;, "~ 1/ / "í.' I' .J ~ '~~'Y/:.)(~... " -",.: -- -~~'·"'~JL~.I.:r~:1' "',' . ;;.~,, A~~ :~: ....~.~...~ -' 't,.... 1 ~'f~.. ¡t .', ff'.rfj);~~/·_i.\J~~l'¿ri'~I~\' ~. ~:~. 'v, ~('...: /, ¡Þ~i (í~I:'iSi1Q¡ '-lj " .. - ""~ ,....~,.. l ""'I~" :$.7:'\" ,,,;rf.:J,,.. " '~" '_l~ ' I,', " ..i-Z· '-~..;, ,/"~ '" uit1rAJ )1!_J..'C<·~\I)['IIr:<b"\" ~ ~I., ':':,\:,,'~:iIJf," '~r >7' ~~'.", r 351 ¡"~). . . ¡'''tri'' ·-1 '.f: . \T~' ,. l·.:: ·t{f,~?Ø}¡,)0"';.!. ~;"~:;"" '\" "~ì ';I 'filJ '~~J,~ J_~..:f ŒlCt 011 :V~.r )'~IV"':t;:"'~/""·X~ff.; V\;.~'~~', .\,~, ~ . ~", .-r' t,J' ,~.,' '..9; ../.~" 1'8'[:; ~/ ,ìh.'J :\,~::,....'f'; .;.Z('V'-~' L:"t . t 4t:i' J' ." '~', -j'~ (, . I ¡....., ~ ,,' '... ~ \~:;j"-.:' .,r (1-",'. ",l:.~~ 1. :0'1 " .r.... ¡ ~. ~~ j ,J-<.:~. . I f· :/j"'~ Y¿. -~';~\~f<~'''':-'''f~ '¡ .~....\~'.~ ;1_~'.·'" "~'1 /..,.;,~,_' 't '"/-~ J' ·'·--.Y¡"..' '..... }~), . -,"c. ':.;.,""~.i!o',-..I.-~. \~~. ~""'., ).~~ -". 1· :) , ::'I·-""'t '.-'''' .~ ' ~ . ":, ;I'\'~:" ",;:;"Þ¡..,. )' c~' .~J;\ ,'<'$\ \,...., ,\, ~'l". T ! . J ~, " ;. 0<;- -, ::--(. ,;~... /' l.U.l1.1'Q.)\jI. ~l.. .....rS\lIHWl:"hJ·, ·1 I,=, 'j .~. 1...;' '. "J . o~ "'~ '( /. "......,. "'....... !'...~. . _ .r .~-.~ ",--. I j.. ~'-Itb.f;.:""{~.f r. ."I~·) .~~_,¡:,1~.J "1'¡;/'''-_~ --; 4:...\ )¡'("H'tKl-:-,I,\',;,..\ _~ _.r-.-,_:~. 'I ~\~,.~ ,1 ! '1M;~i~1\'::;¡~ II ~ ".~, \ ~..~ ~, '-"-.,/ h<t' ,'" I, 1 , .' -. ¡ ~\'< \ ~ \ ...' t.·. /. ¡, 1 ] , '. ',~ -"'~~~:)lì .;.....~\;.~ \ - ~!,,~} /),,\ :t i 1. ,- '-1ì'''' ..';~~..j ~ j:;-;'~\' / .'~: ¡'j..., .... . ,;...~ ';b~t· ~>' . ~"i',.. t;!' r, ,':n·s.f~l'CII).N: ., '-:.:...... ' ;' f' - "~"'" ¡,' -~ 1'''-1' ...r.. ¡ ¡ '- . '\..v~r "p"; .......'--'_, "... ~ ~ :'.... ~/... J \< ":" . '~"''''.~ ¡ ~-. f ,.......,... ,'!Ì " ,I,~'(.; f; '.: _ . ~" :..f.ß\'l""^F.'1'31.f', ~':.- -~¡,..."'. ~/.,.," ":,í_~ .:/fi' jiç;-è~'·""'~I.~·t_·~~ JJ___,.._ ¡.\__,......_-~1," :~~í~{'!:.'... 't..q>~~v " ~.¡_~:.. ... .. ---;- ,-- ::'>;.~,! . '. J) ~ .,(':'f," ~\' _" -~:-.ti.. .~-_ _ ,~.': . ."!, , .' I ',: r,z:ì . ..1' ,..... ~/,: 0-, '- . '- ~'J--\¡¡ ~., ;r.:~'~'-'<; "'I '" -;" f ¡ '~'r -,",. . I,: ( ·r .It}:; -, r \ ~..y~. ~{~l"'t\·\h....·~-Þ..l'~~lt-<;'\\I(HU~;J'> '~~,~~~~,:::",.... ~.A,;~__ .~. , "~ ~ ,_L~{. ~ ~ ;,,,\1,.. j,!f"'J"""¡'---- ,.,~. ^ ',."'-i....~"!-.. ~·:~ð"~'· ¡ , ;.·0.r-Z....·;:o- '.""\ r" "(. ::~,"': ~f i A ! ,~, }'. .' . l ,...;;.... ~~,L . .".~,.~,¡\:, " -1-".: >: -:,:;;" - ·',r._> ,~, / ..;::/ :. î ' 3- '~'0.~-'·,' ',., t""\"""~V'\:'f,.·."'----·"-:''':'"r--." -, 1+" ·~,:t (.-, .'\:·:r.... -.............''It.".;;.....,}g, "1>;"-',' I --, ~. ...;'( ~'¡'~ ,;:~... \...:.._ J:~_. '.....:~. ',:1- .~\ '... . ,I}. .' '\1 '1 :.:--.... 'I..t" ~ ,:." . ~... ., '~":,¡!f,-:' t ~)\,:~r·;--<·,,·}..¡~ }';'~:!f' ,·t·,~ 'I"~ --;'--'~ 1¡;.\(J ~__r'_ ':::::t -!:::.:. -< :'ñ:.- .-~.!. .:¡.J;''''~¡' \....'..4;..·~.:~.~t~.·.,'...\L..~1,-1:..i~~ -+¡....."~d."...::-1'-'-~·.-;;::..-· -;;,---').1,;'-. ·F .!(- -, ~ :·~:':k:i¿¡'>.'-J.}i;;~Iö~fltijf,\.~.j.;-~~., ''1>. r;>,,"~ . - '.;r.."" 1':'. ~'-J ¿-' .~*", é)' r :~\" " " '- . " ~.~~..."",--,¡t,.!....."-.; '~I"" ':(';'J(I-''i~.c\1 \ ,~"...,-, j~"-..-'''''''", ....-~' '.'1~'·¡ \'I".~'ft-lf·~' '" ~~-~ l ~ \'¡, . , ~I '-.·t.- >~. -"'> . ,oj;. :!;, ~-. .. , ¡:\'.¡J-'..",j-;>~ I.' / :.,¡ \. "" --~... -r- ",~. :"'~"¡ ~f~ :.' '" ~X"r'-' It;~::-:~'r~, ¡'i. '1 ".~-:·:·\l·_~ ¡'r;,:-';.~-,._r·, ,"f,,,,j '~... ..,' ,', ~'oJ·,···L,I,i!,,~__;,-·.·· ~. .... . '~!~':~1,'~' "¡ Jt:1;, I'· I',t·;.... _ 1·':.~··..r.=:6'\~~.\'..)'\ '\':;:;:'Mh'I.I~A.iñ""'¡~~"S"W7'~" ,;u~"ri~:.~·'· ' 'h'['!'(!{'JJJ,~.,,~ "-".".~~,,_._,,-{¡,, '.' ,':', '<~"i!iT-,·y,.....i'r, ~~'-'- '1';:P¡~f.",' " 1 -: ':;;:,Jr ~-'" \..,~ ·-"'~.:'I ·'t·_ ", " '';;'~'''\SI;'/'~_~~~ ''', '1-u... r-........:---',~·~,J{. -"""T) .' ;.- '., , '^' \u ., ~ _." . ., " ~,.. _.... _, ....~ __. , ',~ '.6,;j' "" .. ' r ,:,¡..~, !~.. ) ~. ~'ß ." -'\ ~"1.' ','. h.,' 'l-"'~.' ~', \ ..~-. "/.'. = \' t. ~~ ....-l ~\'l '....I:rs/II''-:lj~l~:ï5nfJt\'--..>.¡'···,.. 'r'\', IJ).' , :' <o('';~':''$"':' ''':'~'~''~-'~·J.~;,·'r· '~.. 1 ;¡",, .' ~<>~,..; '>~';;, :~:: : ::;':~'Ç!;":¡f:';: :\J". .,\;.~" -':,.~ ",-~ f. I " '- ~~ 'I,~: :.~, -;,;:,.; '.':' ,.~; 'i, : ,1, -,i -..,_~.~' )...'\..:~>:;!' . +.~t''Ç,?__, j~'T.;::;.-:~' i·';'''''''~7.'JJ:',,'.~'<~ ::-~~. ", .~~\.~~~,,:, r-'~<Þ';';'~',~_._.......t.~;....·~:-,- ::" '~--"~': > ~J'~~ 'I\"'~""'~'" '..,' "~,\f' ( J. t,,~ 11 I >' ,( f·..... r ~ '.(, I~~"~"") ,-~\ -' ~ .. -:- -, 1 ~., '.-,;,"-t.. " ", -'111' c' '- ,.' " " ''''. ", '..' ¡(,",t~ "-, 'v·1 \ é" i'<":-" ..,,;c'.~:' "t' ".,,", " ':1: ' ~ 0 _\~"" --.~ ~';". .- ? ,_:7 :. / ,\I.' - T.,' j -:.;.'1:, ,!' ~ { 1'... ~, ~f;' '~'I:.. ~,~...... ~ -......\' " ',1"" '':.'(,~" "1, ,'JI~ ',", _ ",,.. I~~i ~'l\ ..~\,.\,I .. ':,,( t¡.>-:.;......-.' ,,' !(~"! --?~~"'Q '11l~~' I'~ _:J._ {;.~. ; \ð I'·,~·. ~ :"\, 0," --?'r~.....:!-"lr.' i" 'I- ~.. ,I¡ " í./j" ;,.;' , ' . '-. ¡', ,.":(\'.:: ; -,,' ,C (,if '",. t, I~" I " -, .. :,; ,,""~'> '):';'.: j L,·_ ,.' !iY" ,,' !Ì,]{i~¡ir\!I};~D;f . >Jj~"j\~>! !.+i:~~~~~~ì;1J:\4\:::l " .'¡'-' ~i~:"-ri ;/~/'. :/¡"" .' .~ . ';'-." ,k,I,..!i;i','....>. S'·· '. .. ill ~;,,,,,,,,,,.,, ~u ':'. .",. ~~... ." \ ..: ,.. .~"":i~~'f''':'' '~j ,~". -' .. .\.: ~'\: .1" ~Jil~~' :~.~ ·.l.;';,·~~:j:'~·~:t,·~ '/ I'.,~,+(~~~..".,....: .~..'.: ..:,~...~::.\~~ .~-~~",' -~~ ; .~¡/, . ::~ t:¡.~~..,~:. l \,.;-,:( , . ~ ¡; >+\ .,.'. ~_~A.~'J...O.¡\f4·~~i··~:3ìJrH,g.> ~ ,.' 'J. .. J \ !!' :","':' i.i. "i\" '\:(wt~;J:\;'[~:>' ¡i~~ ..:\~q~~~J.~,!i.!,,~\' '~ ·¡,¡yl ~(;B,~¡~~~;,f~'£!'" é!f5:~ .. ;0 Co' '-'; N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: SANTACRUZ YEAR: 1902 Series: 30' Scale: 1 :125.000 14--(4~ ",?'j c./ /-·'t\ ,,: II~'\' ..~.! ¡ ..--...... ~ "r-"-7 ~^' 1 :I' ¡ \ < '.~ :fj·O . "rb;, l. '. ."__~ I :þi;'\ 'i[~" "-.' . (vlLlýl .:.:/. r:A..t!. ..(TI1!r ~:\,#{ ., 1~"':4.~ A ,J*' ~ ~;;,'~ HE/: AM, j f¡f, ;:1"~< ¡. ~;<; ". .7 "'j/:j( .'1 ~inl\ tn~f . ..\\." .t::'-/ "'";".....4 ,<r;.~: ','" "'---=. ;--. '-";'-..-'1 .1 '/ ../. ." 1< ' .'. ",. l' \J; . (~, I...... '?--. ;'¡~l¡,~ L it / . ~ "")- ",/:' ......., , ~ ".\, þ;' ~"_JI Uf'S ' ..¡,." -,'I',. .', ..' ''''''/'' ..' '" . í \~" ~.. J......'~r·'·:.,JJ~',..J': .Jl1" ff)-~.... ''''~I' . ,,' 1- ..... ..::: .., ...~: -..../. ::1.:\ I.: r . "0. ,.~-....... -, ~ ,'- \ "1 " . 1 ~ \ ,..,,~ .~~~: .~- --::r-:.-!,.¡, '" .""... ,) . ,'. I) \fti ...". ~-"-... ":"7', ~ I '.< ...., ~,~, . J.... '.", 'Y'>'~ "" ~ ?""/\ )'~~ .....,. }'-', i.. T :,. ..-o:,,";.r "', t' ':'. t "'>-./\ ) ..,."....1 .' '-.-'.. ¡ >\..,' l' 'i . 'J;) \ , ()' f it- ~" \~. '" L~1 nluLJJ11J\'il~\\;'~",', ~I}-~ .r'':-t,w"",._,-t;. :.{trA\ , ,:.~rx~'~ i ...,/,:f. t ':j ", ./ '" J ì----........ .. :., MH'-ph\' [, .'1:~-; :1;1' '¡~, \}' "F.. ,,' ..~1' "1 .: ~ t -f._ .wl .. ' f I,' 1 ~ .', 'I' ./ ~I >:' - ,"".,' ". :.-~- ~ -" ~: ! ~ i {">." -l '....y~ ·~'-"I . '. fh:'~.-, J \. f- -_;: _~ I _(:", ". ~,,~., - J ", j ~"'~""'''-'' ,~..J'::: "'f" ....~Q 'J ."' . l '" ''';1 i ' ".; ------',1. i '.' ""'01, ' ):N(¡1'¡:'] t ¡()&,.~.\ \ ~". .' "', '''~,: I ; -; ,/ i ."',-:;<. i \ i.... -~...¡, \~ , C.,) -x.' ,,~,.: > ¡ ~_h_. 1" ·'f--· \ . )' ,.~.~ ; \ t . ..:....,-·~·rQ ")' (,.,,:, 'i!;.) ,...-::. ¡ . <;:''::.., r... (" t .~. -" .', H~· I·' ' '. ' : '-.J .'1~) J'~ ......... " " ~ '-. .'/ t~.... ..! :: I·, .- -"'t"'" '" . I ¡'~. '>.'.., ( .. .¡ " ']~_.'" ,', "~r¥" ....1 , ¿:r:"-'¡2" '-'J) .! . .1' 1 ·"t· ~. . 1., '<, '-. Ir'l~ '...:" ..~'. ~ ¡í~ ~~ ~i' '/~~'~ " ~.' <' ''".'' , ,:" ~ ,. ,I"'"f, j" ,'. ,.. , '. ~ '1, , J /. ·4 . ~ , , j ...,,~ " ) <1:,..';-/./ " ~ ...' :~J:-r'¡ :-v.:.t- ._~I.r " . '1 '.::., 'J .... "~. ,......~~"....~ ., O~- ';..,0(' ,( f .-. V ~.- - :', -." "., - ._L¡ ... '--'1 . ..'~ ~- . .-..- - ---r'" .-- .. "-~ ,~L_ -~tt ~ ¿.~~ ~;'.1 :)/ .y..~"~_~h.:/.' \ ¡;"",_.,-.~"'''''~~ ._~.--. "..""'" '---", .1 '. "'.' \1 .' ''', .. '.0: ,." ; . ~':jo<"~'~~...¡'-:'~~ '-.~ '~-"'';I-'''' \ :">'''~\ r ,.~.--! !'.. :;1"'~~-~":. I ,. r·. ~ ¡:¡;'>(. ",'" >:'1·"'.f ,- _I>, I; : "-~'¡' "'~' ': ,,;. '" I I' ,.;, "1' I ' .. ¡, I I ,; ',,' .-" "': ~ '~"<- :iå;~!: ¡,,>~V'>" (') "~ï···::'A· _..~.~,..JL'µt- ...c.....L¡+;"~.J;..;....l·',._",,-j..~'· Jtt....¡~¡ T." ."' -~,.. r if '\ 'fr.· ..,'ff·: ,d\ ·Jr-··r ,"" I .~ . '.! .. ....,-+.-::.., -...-U; .¿~ III "'J..... // "': ~~ ~ . .I~-.~ t. .. I ~),..~:.,/( :.J'. . tr f .:....- U _,/.:, .....:1. f '- i "J . L 1: " 1 . .", , ~ ~N-' .~~,..,....... -(. Li' c~ /., 'P;r{" ·'r··, ¡,J;' ~'l' f ¡ ~,....,---\ j ,,,;S,,"f'''>';::::'::''\~:\ 1ii"-Ci,¡',,{i) <>..l/"~ --1" ; ·r"·'<,"T+:i::'':."f'--j( J .~;~~ç¿Jl·~c;,'S::~);,Jl ¡\J":!f,,,i ·'-1",;,1,)..:-4 ~ ..".....-',~~~..,~.;.- I'';'' ::'."'''''''' JJ! " ' "''', t J .. .. . t. .,~...!, - ..""t··"\.-i ·':::'i:':~';""df..,;,,,,:,~~~:'<';':.~::-0:~''f./~~'''.·~·~--'~;.-.....;-/;~._.',. \.':'\ ì ".', " 1 ',:.~, ;~; _, /1'- '~~"L"'J:ë{j.~,:,'¡..:..-:::~~r':'!;'~',:'\~:;:''11·-~':ì:;')_:¡~,' "j;~' 1:.."-; r.....· "ff/ .J' . ~~\{ $-...~-.,..;.I ...T...,_..; -¡;;::....~.. =..~,.; '~r ....¡).J,.) /-"'., .....'.." ..., . :~~~~:"1\fJ;'::~'!~~~"3-~~~=?~~-~·: ~,~<,., '.I /~"l'~ \<, \ ""< J '. ~ .:f t i..:." \:':! ~ _:~t~,~;,~¡.~::>lo\~";'~-~ .~\.. ~(.~.~: ,t:'.)1 \~' '1 "',~ ~ \ ~/~~'--I-'-^-¡ f ~~ \:-''''.:.~:'::''":.):~~:',:;-:f:::S~_~~!:~: - ,~, '1 ::~ l ~"';;:-; -'}1. ': .~ ~~ \ ¡ ._-. 1 ., . - J '¡': _,",. ':1 t i.. ,('." '.1- .- ", ~. .,,'.~- "(';¡" 'y") '_~ i '1" -) '.. !'{'",~ - ........... ,~~.} -\;.....:'1 ',.';" '(,<..<.....~L...],.,;¡ '-",~I"" ,j~-~'~> l"_:.'...._~ r;."~·¡¡¡¡¡;¡ "'~ ... .---' ¡, ..... ~ .-- 'r'.l~ , '~-' ¡ ,-;¡, ^ '. ¡ - ;.'" ".SI S,~.' 'J . r - .. /::.-"-ll'rli', .'j.'~""''''- ¡,,.,?..- i'i·/~I" ,-.... ~J.", \1 ~"'. ~ ' ,'ì~,t~ ", .,.,," 'i··r!!!!! \., :}...;, ~..'..~,. '{...l'~·";>" ·'í.i~I; .'''/ t, .,)'.;1-' ,-;. . ~ J '.} '~;; :.,'.;j ;, I ~ \ ..' ~' .= ~_. ~';~.. :-\.\-3 ~~~~~.;,: \~t '}\ \:':t;.,,...;;i/, -- _ . ..' ';.~ \ : \ I 1; ~')'.¡' :i ¡ \;~ ' . 11 ¡ . '>m'"'~' ' -~,~ ..\ ",. 'i 1/. ,. , ...." 1\ --, . ¡... .- "1'· -m J-I;:t-?.,"" ft; -. 4-,& ..~t-- 'ï); .~ ..", '- "", r" .\ ; " ",' 'i!J> ,¡"" . .: -": ' ".." ".),-- ,: ,<,,,:,, ".,,:. ,: '.' .' -- ..> ~ . .......'i;/.... , - ,'< '{ . ,,':\ ".......' , .¡.' .... { , '"." 1- ~---,.,""\v'<$. ...:-t2.)J/~{. I; "'.::K} I '-.--', ~ ,K..,} ;.r~' :£:.; : .,~ I· ."., ~ iì'>¡;Ç'~.1.jl1· .\""i ...,.,:",; "J,¡:!,~,<.i\..i, ~·'¡··'ì. "\' ; ,"'" """1'.-,;' ~\~~:: )~. <"::"':,,~~~\ ~ ..........)r"';".:~~' ~ ... ' Æ?l ~ (, i \ ~. .. .,' ,} / J-.J. -, .:,!. . == , ~&"? V.r."\,·,X,.·..,'.;.»X- '¡.!,.¡)..;;""..1-''''''''~'1'I ", ,',,- .,..... ',-._~ ":"!r)" ,"-I "'·""1= '... ' ''-'lfi''''':::J,. \,0_>(""""" ~ \, (f,,,-.,,>:,,,,,.'~..I:J' "" .. ......, . '. ;:~ ()}\''''''I:i.-~~(r-'J'>'',c,-¡"p''~æ\'''' , " ~~>:¡ ~~,~''''>. :/. ,'~,-"", ¡ v,",' ',.1, r--".~ . ~f I;;;:; 1,,, '1' If'k.. -,::,\'@""'~,""';;:;:";\b';¡ì Î-:'!.I~'¡I·\~;'''<J~.,,:.··~· ..;....:,~/"'.;;_', ...10,;;'·· .'\.. --.'..y c. 0' '. '_ I ~ ~~'._-.~'\~" )2k~"":~~'\~: '~.. _~5~ ~:," .P;t·>ì "·~l(."rr.~·;) '. .,.) \ ·r \!-, '.. I· ...' '.. ......._.~:::: ~. ",,:g.,..... '·11\~·_~\'fZ::!'.'\'·"~'~'"' ~~ .""'(..!J.I,. } I .~'J '),[ J.}'~~ ·t'· ¡.... ,', ('- ~,''''..'"f':1::;1':-<4.'c~:r.:~\''''''-'j~ _-Jo:..:. ~~",)' -~""-:""~"~J:: I ,{..;" .:{. -(M~:¡j,~''';1t;'. ". " ~ t :'1 ,.== \¿\ 'tc"'~,'" '. ..·H -:Ap'':':<~;:;-~'.'\'''''it''¡:'\'<)::···$:''o"i;'... . .!' ~'I.. .' '¡¡;~~ " ...~.,. '..... , \~.. "'I'" _J~' ,'e :~l~~,~¡:':,Pf,~"1 1k'; ~\:" .:.....;......::.~\\..<;:::>l..~~~ ...~., ~-" ~ J:' ,_,L ~I} 0....... ..-.\:, ~;' ¡' ':--, \'.1 .1,= ~"~'~'.'''-~'~'~i('''' ;\/~ø;¡<~\:~\" ....\':Ç..1A~r)).,..t ~1M': ...\.'t-'JfljIi'~'.1?!j. l;~'-:~L""h"'''''i \" <'.f'j- "r.,. ~~-.'M:Jf, ~',,,! ..;;"~.~t _~"~)rJ\"~·~""'''. .-','" l)f1~j;¡} '¡.' ' " .~" ....·jt'S!æ ~~~~"L~.(~~'_q--r,t" ~ör<-"J'J"''I'' ~ ", -·,··,'~.rt·,~·...l\~" ""(0 ,1 t'~ ~~_., 1 \:.' .... \1' l i"~ ~j. .....::'-).:h"TJ) 1':~,~, ,_:\i/~:,,\Jl~\ ~ ,_....,~~<~.<t~. .~~ii idr; ~-=}.'),..,,~~~(,(¡li n!-:¡ø-")ì ¡·'#:Z;;)\1~1':_1£"·" ~\'~~:'f';' i. j~.. ;t:-~:)' - ~ l~':) a: ~R '~1~'''ë~~I.··· ',,:~)..?1:} \\~l....,~" ,.\~'t::. ..\ ¡'~i1r .',>f\,·.t,\·!t~~/""·"'~:'~'7-.:<... ~ß~' ~ , '. ::1'¡¡'-#~J.q= ~\tu~'\~~~t";';:'-' ::--~",'l.- ~~.-., . t~·:'tl'\;'''''~1''\~\ t~" -::'",\ ~~ I t:'::-"';\,t~-..",N·: ','. ! d·'~ \""''''~'"~''\'' ,. ~,.." ,.{.,,-, ,''''.",. "..J ).fi? '.')"'/." .,. " ',= , ·~'~.t"C"'·,~\ .\ <,- ';.,'-'\.Jo ~, ,'....'''\\.\'...\'1 ',\.....'-~....' M'\\.?:) .Jt..~ I í,/ --" t' != ~i> ~\'''':.t.":Y';j"~$\>'''~~.' (~> (:\;:'~ \' "'\-1'i-.,;:\';'\~;>'..~.~~.'." .'-,j~ -I ....;r/-(.:: ·--.:;~"'J'¡l"·).} - 1,1 'j ,= ':~J~' .,J.~ ~.~\\~ ):':-~'~ "I ~'~:"(:_" }":~{.-'~,' ~}:~~:' \1:.../.;' "~-'<~''.:)i;U::;'/:(':'';·:':'·'_"..j:: >1; ,1t7' -:-," '1 1 ", "" íi'", , '" :-;, - ,,' .,;1' ~" ~,... '''S\ ~! ~...:;"þ~ ~ ;, ...r,.' F I' 'jl{' . \.. ' .¡: "",~~;,\, .:'--:--,,~' ;/':' ,:~..,·JtJ:"·"·íí,·-:· '~;~\'!>::I,-"'~'"~,,\!J -~P¡.:;.;..·-;:"})" T~:~ II f'~') ~ / ,~- ~",,<~ ,- :', '\' ¡L ,·t~!(~'t-·:'<·"<' -,11' '.~\\1 j\.'.,<\.:'ff:-')//b.!. _~J ,_f.... . --::' '. ) .~' ~'''.lf!.,." ,.,',' \ ':'~"'~)I, .,\\,. f ,\,'¡ l··~..,<,·.t~1J.¡'·-I..~..,........¡-·.J/>·'J " ..~,~~. ",-:::;¡~" \ ' .:. ~'~2~' ,,- ~\, ~ {,:. ~ _ ";·:;;y~::·. .I",~~,... ,.: ~:" ~:},.....:.) q~~:k:\ <~:-:' ~... 'j' i' ' .' ,,; " U' ,',- ' ;,,,, ,~~~: ~ _'.~ ,'y:,;, --;'?.,¥J~;~~'?i~. .. - '/I-::'~ ': ,,~ 5'..~ .~/{ -.:", '. 1'/ ._~~ : J"" ~ T- "'~~*\~::', '¡.: ~ " yr, . .~.:\~.. .-.. \",..... -~ .....,:..., ~~,~"Il:-;t~.: .',':,::- , -'ii \,~:, - ~'jff;;:},:'¡;1.'_:., ..::.:~~ ,.:;1:;, £: '_>Þ~' /.¿.;;¡ ~' ..' :....:_1. \;~',.",:, ·~_",.,::..:::_,~>;.~~-'¡;\\ì'~\...-=7^ ~:=.../·:'~¡:'--"!,:'~{',i'/~·~- .\ ': ~~~.t',,>-.-·'''-''¡.;(i'Í-;''/1 I j ,.\ k '>t'i'''~ ~./. :;: t.:..~~'- ,-~-;:~~~ j~fi.?1:-~;~~·~,t~"~~~M""~·ì.:::·;\\'¡·"'~ À\:¡,::~..'\..LA"-;J:.,-:.~¡~ -4.1 "'c!. r~;' "': '/-' \.~ ,,, '^ .",.¿.1._;}- ~-:;"t\:-<I. ~ ~;;i:7.~..:.-;r.:::P':&.f ~:;-"-'~ì\l-" ~" M -;¡) ")J~-' A: ,,: " .1' 1(;'·,'-' -, ·'\~I'//!f,">!~:""",;~''.·':;:::~r1...'¿, /- :.:-:~ç'..r;ip..y,.~.;,\t~\\~"- ~ ,. -;: .',1 ,.<J'Xf.;:;:~ : .~ '/. " ~ 1,,) I,~' " .'"""-'~ ... - ~.- ,,.,-<;'1" ":1 ~t<t - -..<¡ ~ fW' 1...<1' , './..,: v / '([('e~)~' ,IL....,':-';..·, ~:;.:·~r.~·":-.::1i;~~~:~'I, J/T, t;III:)) ~") ~~ '..{;'~""Ã<i'''''''~' .,': 1_, ~¡-¡ ''x.' ..,,,,....~.I'M,......,...'·"· " ''''X .~~ .,I~.., J'/'",. ~"·~,~.þ'ft'f. ." ;; 'l;~J'" \1....'\~if~þill~:;~?:~·~l;¡¡~~~Þ:r~·-4~./(r«(:t.!, 4':·¡~/?tl:..~~¿' f ,¡\:·tr~!7~¡ll¡\,~ J ..; . .\ ,I .\\ fr...>.\.~ I,,:,_.~ ,'<0 \.."1·' \'" (~.... ....' ...; ~,..., ,'~~" r ''''''!YÄ) )'J -.',' ~ ~c....., '. .... 1'( --. "'¡jfs.:;.."i "\.' ~"'$.. ,.,. ~-.~. '\.'1.' .., -," ·l'!iof'~ ...'tl(¡ ..:r,;:--.:"··f " -';\1..::::--::1. ......,(_'-'-·!J'~~;~,,\:i: /.-.::::;;·<..,;' .¡-,',.\.....:. ",';"" ;..,~\\.~.,. .,;,\ ,3//·.__ "./....... ,.'", . . .. .-........ " - ;'..: ," .. .~ . : r"- ~,<·1 '. . 1/·: ,~ ¡1 ~ '. \ \ . e,,,", ~,I \,.' ' ',: .,',' ,J ; ~ .\ \' ~ "'\.oj . . \.,. , . ..,. ~ ....., J '..'£ J ~'.. .~ '" ~w, ,~. ....... ..., _ ',' v~ ''1:;'' " "..! N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: PALOAL TO YEAR: 1920 Series: 15' Scale: 1:62,500 /L/-14q . ~l: "> !:/,:§¡~:. J'" :L_'-:;:; ! :: . '," ..t.'I, :. I "- fl'" ". ,,, , ,/. . ~~:,.t L ;)3::/__ :'.;/~; :f~';~~ --.~"" ,i. 1··..f..~, ctr ¢JJ!:!::....;~ I' .,'~~::"1~::~"it:'.\"!.:\r,:·: .. ··"'~l~t - J ¿1~' ;~'\:"'K .J.~:'~: ···;jL':fJ;:~tf(j¡{.j- ~. ~.' :..... " >,H'e: ". c.·. :f ""1" .::......::::,r} ). or"<'-t:ìt ,ff?';' .¡~ . "I.J .:(. .': . Oil .. -;.". ...., ,... ...t't.\. ( \ (" .~I . .'.;. ..-:~' ,..;.,. '" ~)~' ,.r'fi;.~?f.:,' ì.,i::':~~· ~~, I" "?'. ·~k. ð 1\ ,r¡j¡lt "'1"1' , ,.IC,'"~~t''' ¡,'J.'. ,'" :,. , ø:t~ . . 1, ",,~~~ '~Ii' " ''¡,;'V, ·I:~. . ::~ 1\','", ',,'" ...n. ~ '.' r ~ . . ". t-~ '.,J,.,,~I.' J;'!J.~;;.... ':'~.t~~ . . ,,...j ~". . ",.c~. ~ J'~' "', "",,"' . .' . ~~...~,. . .~ "" "'"1''''''' .. ". h.? ...... "":'.' "'. ~< ",1\:&:\J ¡ 19':~ 1", .~:;.:: '. 20 'f ,.....:-.... ~ì> j~l '·",~".<'f~{~~·" ',"J.-'!{;r.:/;'::' . ..,';¡ "¡'-", ~. ,~~\~; :~\:\'\ ' '~3,:. :, "T ,J, . /~ lo:\¡,,,:a 'j.:. '::'." .", :C::'.;' " \rf.t,\ì·~·,,, '.' '.... c.···· '":''''''' ':,.._·í::~~~"'~;~¡'\·¡;\:·'~~~~ ~'.,. :'_/(J¿~:'~~~':::£~!~..... ,:' x~.;,'~· :"\11 'V, ' / .f.~!"~' l;j~:.:,::~~~~f;'¡·. . ::'i;. i(:~' ::;: :Y':' .,..,.: ~~é·:;).Er;.·'<>,·:./'i !\~"\·."'/'I:·,..I~;¡f}, r.~ !' "'.'.:',: ,-' ~', ;.;:.:·.'~~.;~:2fì .:.~__ ~. t - . ''1....; . :-'::;-f ·f· ;:/., -':~":':'.'~'" .~.. ...t '. :.~ . "'" -..- :,f}' ...... :',.":,, '¡ "i~.,,:,.;?çf'~\:" ,'oj· _ _ _ ...__ _-:(,"?' __ "i ~~ '_, c~ '~,... ':-J:~~' '.' .~, " .f.· .~. 2, ..,'''''' .,1'7:' 1'.','. .... "\\:~ :.Æ~~ :Y¡'M':'~--''"_~'',:~l]:'''' "-';1'> :" - ".' '.,'.'-:" 1b" . .......¡.--...~-~......,...--~I;i' .' ...~i}.·.:l,::,~¡.._:.~.:.;..~.:...:.'.:.~~;~.'.~;":""~_?...,...., '.: ."." ",' ,:.; ~~~~~š;i;¡",¡~~' . ~ ~L": ~',~:. '.- i:' -:'n ì, ¡.. ,. 23'. . . '~ . :.. ~{-' .:~,::,~. :' ':.'";.-:,'. ',~. :'2'~', .J,.,.......... ,:~... \ ~"!?~:i;i, ;'i, l.,.J..'t" ..,,), . ., ,..., .0:'. ..,.,::;:... '. ~.~;~~. i. '-~:'.;:.- ... :13.1; 34· .?,:-'; .. .. , :;;, , , .,'J:;';.' ...r ··r·.. .. . . "J: :!. -.-<'. ¡~;'!' ,.:- ./;. , .. .j. '. 1'" f~B i ~ :'; Ii' I ·i. I ... ., " , , .... .~ -.,7t.7·;:·-\~-:,,,, "j .1;. .~;. ~I. .',', ;. -'~ :11 ,.'i¡ ',¡,' ..~: .~;':I..~:. '_(,f., " ",~ ';. .1 . ,.:'.-1.. !lJi,:¡:.. '-¡r· ,-..,/:~._-. .. .-~..- e. '., ~..., " ". ,¡... ,:"f::·~~i' / '~"'~' ..}:. .....i.: J:-" ,. ·:·1 "'j' " ,. _, ,'~.1 ..' .. . .. '.:; .. 'I: ... .. ..... ':\':; " .. .' ""';-1.,.-( .I,', ..I. t \ \ \ ... .,' .' ,; !~, . .:1'\ '~'. :¡,;,.."...." ;', \'.. ..';. ;2:1 .\..: :: ~.' --"". ~". .'" . , ~-.;l·~~·;·"f ';';~'~ê.."' l!"';t:"rl~'¡T ~? ~ . .. ',;,'215-" .. '., ::;~\ '. ,"1,:", .:.."........ .,.... .;:,{;'.::"...:' .¡.., "r' 4'-) '\ ...,: 7l:- '.:',J:" , .. ::':,;--'~: , .' .. :,'31; .. .;3l! .. "1' ., ". , .. , " " ., , .;)" .:'. ;·..·1. I ~ '. ., . '~-"...(-:_'.",~" ,c .....'....;. ....~ ....:/ _ . :,;.,,::;~::.; " '~~'" ,"/'\.;:í:<.,:" ' ~ ~ ~:; ¡ ~ ., ):j.'. ~... ....' ,':" . # ~". ~ ·~·~':i " ~SEt1·a .~IV:( ".;.~'~'\ ;. ;};'.j. .i ~i~'":·-~·/~·· ,'n .1 ..... );. .' '3". ":'4. .".' ì ~,: ,'. ..,' .. .~ "'" .,' N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: PALOALTO YEAR: 1948 Series: 15' Scale: 1 :62.500 '/\.'. ." ~..I-'-.· f.. .. " ,. '-;. .,.. 1 . . :3 ., '.'''p " ¡..... /, / '.';;( Y,' ;.' ., /4-/9'0 .,2¿ï f5¡¡!7:; Ij":.--.-:;I i .~:,::.~j"f:iF;:jL,. ... '" .:,' t, ~,., ",,·t'!..,,··.. .. ~¡:S'1' ~". f!~~-.1:~"fl . .'!. ,.: ",\,".·~..;,."::~..'w..· . ,:*;V'~:r;·:;'l.~\,\'.,.:'[.l '.; '~l:!~ - i. ..j1~~.;:.,.~. :;'}" . ~~<:.!: '," '¡"''', ,,·':tb '. r. , ." ~ .>:'{:'. >r'~:;~' . -t.. :' "~.~~.. H')' -~ i: "I..~.1. ..r.t....._-.:_~~ ':(~r!···:1 ~ ::~}é'", ~ . ,~.. .1~1.;:i· ~~1 \ -'1' . . ,.. ,I ':~!l /. ¡ ~; ~:'~ :~ :~ "~"'!?: .~~:. ~·;.·.·.!l.·.~.;:.:·: :',...;.; ,.:. .':'~: ". ... . .c~~}·.. ~:' ;~"_:!'Y l ..... '. i::'~',::-~~:,;;?·:::/.} .Ù·/·-t,.'t: ;./ ""'Q' .,¡.." ". it'fr< ""'7¡J;~.",~,,, l..~,:'J,~" .' "., " i!,P-- "~"" . .: o I . I E'!'I ,/ ..rs.'''~':¡¡.t~ - ~,..:~ . . .,' ~ ;; -:1:1 . . '~ 'j "~?JØ:>'I' ,. ....... .. ~/., .,', ',,~~:ar' l¡ I,'~'" ""'." 'J,' ·t' o' ~ ~~ ~~<;~~G)~ 0-7¡-:Z:&.:" ",: ~<.. . 3.:, ~.: '\¡""':' 'I;'". .!", '...."' . '. ;.,)\ ¡" ;.~ .~" I }.¡ 19::~ ,. ·~.r~: " 20 (">..' ;.' l': .'Io:I!o'i f''''~)''' . '1·\1':"1;.::' . . i .~.., "kR~,'1,,\ ' ,.","'. .', '). :'.' ø~~:~J",'\\.:, ':{;, '.' ','". 'I:~·..;:. "-\J}4:XÎ"'(," '...1\... ,........,......, ,: .~,_.~ ,:.~t~' .~>,~;;\:..(~~;~ ~'.: : ./(: ¿~:' ~~:·;:·.:i~!~:,.. . ,·..it $ìV. ~1 .".30 'r'" ..... , ".',': .',' ..,~.:' '4:~~I~~;/~::,';\·:~;:';j. ::;:~:~9:,.~·~ :.:.''': \ '?ì: \......./rl:=·;.~·~' ~}~~, \, ..," <.:': ,:, ,: ~, -~. . i. .,\. .~.. """ ".,," ]3.!,;; .If¡,:·.·· ., ';r.f~:,.~CIi~¡""J~~lI~t j:<'.... '_'," ,:~lf~~;'¡~Ç,;",·r~~~~,~:: "j~c,ct'~;'k'$" ':.:; f. ''\ IJ~¡~.'...,'.'...;:,.~..:.¡.'."..·~~.·.,.h:;.·,.....'....~.;.':'~f,p-.;.~.'.'~.:..:,::.:\:".'.'~"·"":'-'·"".lr,,:.·.:.....:.:;.,}"";......:........~.:.-c,~......:_.,'...:.::~...',:...:~:):,:.. . ~r:'~-'" ...t:';'i:~_.:-;~. .' _ _ ~ ""~.' I ~.·'..5.·.:..i"..:,.'.~!.....:.·:~:.·..:.:.~.:~...·.:,.~i.:~.~.'::..¡_1...~.<.',.:.,.:¡... ..,.,..,~.,,'.~..¡'... ........'õ.:.... .;;J,... .....¡'~}....,[;í~.,'. ...:..::.........'.:."...........~.':.:.,.i:'.·,.~.:.:...·~:.:..i~.:;.·..·.,.·.·...;,:'..~.':'.·.;...~:·.·.·.·.·.,.r{ ........~ ø'-: - ->-" ~ "C" " ,-' " "~ii¡.;~.'_,,: - "" .: ,,- "- . . ;~, ,: .t' 1,:.... < I.; ..- ...,...,.,.... ~"": ,:'. ." . ..:..,,:,.~i;{:,::::!~ i-;:.:J!lt'.... ,.-" :;i: '!c'"'" - .: . ~.~ . .' .. (~? I,"" , 'i.:. , . ~~ 01," ...,. . ~. ". -...-........ , ;~;~...,.:.:.:::.:.::.;.~:' ,(~) - ," ..,.~ '?;'.; '. ..... ...' '.' ." .,' .':; ,¡:~- ~ "i::,;~;i.: " , };:·,¡i:' "'i: ·;_ó'... .. . '"..,' ... '.. 1"'. u· !:~ ~i I"'··' .... I" ,,~, ... .,.... J' ~2:1 .... .. . ., ¡ I ·~..~·.,fr:<:.7·;:~:;~,r:-· .'( . '.' [I ..' "';1.. m¡f. !,~ ". . '''[;~}~~;';-':k~'/ '. : r '{.., ~':,' .( " ':" ·'·1 .' .~. ,',.. . '->: ~. . .' .·~:1 " . .-., ,.' '. ,,,.' , ,'. ..... ~~. . ..' '. .I: :/\ "'.:'.. .'. '''. '!,;-. ~~~~~. ·.:2:.~ ~ ":. .~ \" . ;~:l ,Y.:·::,,;' .. . , , .:: '"'~--\"'f :~:. , _', . . :~H ~' r':;!:.;;.;'..~ ,~t:¿'~k . '.. ,!NJ:"'(~'¡!" :t:.7- \. \ \ :1. .f',r."",' .-.. .'-, ., ";'~ .' ~ ~''''''' '~". ',,,,t6-" ." '. ...~ .~. .,,' -"1'f" ,;;':-'-.;'. )~~~~{.~~~:'" "..:..:'1,'''''' '.~' . .~: ~:."'" ". ... .. .. ~ ..". '. .. .' :\ ~ , . ,.~:: ,.'~ '.' < .. ",.. .. ::;3 j) . . ~-! -'1' ·3r.1 :.% .. '.¡" ·ji .:5.' :·'1. . ,.. ~ '. -?: ..'. r-,_;.......~~.. .. "...". . . .. .. ':/' '" );'L..':" ./.. ~.··.·.·?::::~~.~,,';i:.·.·.,· .:.·~~~i",~ "i(\ .-:; 'f. .~~i. ....' . (~<¡:;'a I''':''(- ,~ (..1.""; ,,".¿. ~~':' ,~. "<;" . " .... . '''. ~ ..'I_...·...·J· ~ ...'" . .' ~x'.",-Þ"¿::.. .. -j .... '-3" .,4 ',,' " '. . . .,. ,,~' .. N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: PALOALTO YEAR: 1948 Series: 15' Scale: 1:62,500 1 ............ ~: .. ;~~ . ': .., . -'. :.'::( ',: .'." . . ';-'1 .... < ¡..... /<:. .. / ';1'" y. . " j','-';' r4-15{ ._-~~ " " " 2':. . ,.....,,¡,_.. . . \ "!:". .... ..- ~'... . , T"<;::' :'. . ., ..... :'-- ."':'_.-":_~'.::::~. . ,I. ·.r···· ~'---' ;,.: .'~ . ;1/; .,¡. .,.. :Ii" '.' "I: '·1··.· . ~JJ.k¡i;!!:!!l~,w., 'r! '., .,. " .!¡ .~. " - 'j", . '::'. :~'-'''T, .: ~~.J;~;!l_:: . ~ '&.~¡.,". ' " -~~ ,". .. . , ~ 'I.IL 14 .. . ---._-- -,-""",,"" ~1.~, ,. ,Srf"i:.N....- ;::·)~o~ta V VJ\*,. ' , J,' \' ., ,.j,,' 'I ~J." \ .~~, . 'j. \ \ ,. .. " I t:'., '1.)1 I. "\- ..,.. I. '.' " ';~ . .'-- .- i:w'''¡" ·:It -. \ I I , I !: 2)- \,,:..:: ) ""J. I. \. \, ." L. ',t,i_'. \ \ W .' . N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371367.13 TARGET QUAD: CUPERTINO YEAR: 1953 Series: 7.5' Scale: 1:24,000 . ~i!--'------~ T, 6 : ;/ ¡1.7 !\ : l ·:1: :'ii: ..:' '" ..... h,.,..I' :.:~.:.¡:.Þ~:: ) íì;li~ : ,; ..r .. '~ ~ .. li··,·_1 I. -- :'fi!: :If lfit\N'I~_- II ¡ .,__. 111:11.\·'·" _....~~""._"~.:<: .: ". :i·:·I,; ¡,,¡ ·l !Il ·'II'!r····:,,'I·:.).·.-.... ': . :~:¡ ¡Ii' :il: ,.,'--i:' I,'.: .111 I','! .,'. ;¡¡¡!:¡¡!!¡'I "':"~"f.~,:~ < ¿. Ii ", " Ilil 'i i II .! ",il :...... 'I I' ,. :~i I . I ~,;¡. J.. !¡ . j... 1 '1 " .~ . ! r, :; ~;~. '-;~i~ - ,'. i' ~_. . . !.!' .....____._11. ~.~ .' ;... , I (il~~'!;'.i. ~ ~'<i\ :: . ; . 'f : : 6 '" . '..:'(. .: '.", " 'I~:'''' :!~~ . \ ;~ s .'. ,. ;'. ! :G ·-·i1Ã~~·l;:· ~ I J ¡ 1'· .- .. ,:ò, j' '. \. __.i.." ::;·~:·'1";:<<;;~1 .'--"::'-~ ¡1 . I' . \.1. . '..; ,i' : I :>--. 0;' .' Jt;' ~6. -....F'rell1.~.';,lJn¡.;~í;:;~5~~;)r" . . ""··,HiIFb Srh :!':" ,'. ,I·". '" .... 1> 'I' ..- 3, :!... .;:f'· :,p' ~if è" '0:' il _:~..:..' - --"~~,,,i"'-!'~II::':;;:~: i,:_......., '"""'b.O;- .' )l. Ii: :1: ~: .:: 1:': . '" ~ ~I' '1"11" '(':1' . ".,....:!: i ¡¡¡,i ¡il:ii'l! ::. :;:"., ¡:: ii¡: :¡. 'I~ :1. ." ",' ~!: :;;=111: ¡Ii ~ ¡ 1ili '. I . ~!: ::~.:J:_:. _:ir: ;,;: . ~ .\'; . .....' 1 ;''1;' +..,: ",.' '," ....~. .. II " ,oil ;\:..¡ > .\, . ~. ì:'¡ : '\~> ,. t L~.. .., + H ",'. . .~._:: _~. > : t2' ~. DAD .. .;. _. ._..._..__ _._ :~_."'_ iL. .;"-=':11 . '. "",'.' .....,..¡ . "I .~, ' "'<'4.,,' :> _. ."1; '""" ',<1 :.... ~, . ~ > ";1,> ,. ,', ~1,' .'. ..:. . ::::,., ,.0' .~, """'>' '(-1~"ì~ .~, . n !:¡ " }:~t&f., . ." . ~Î: :!:¡ ~:¡ .....:.:Ir-:~'Ï"-:·,<·,-:,~ ..,-~ +_;+,1' ,._. ,.-Î _ n. ,:)1. , '. .' .. ...1.. "'.' .1, . "r¡~,,(,,_. .~.,,_.,\.,;.;~â..;..... !L.J~-1·:" ,,·l.:;" ~. {.:RI:.E.t\ ,":.' ¡¡¡¡-. . . 2'~3. ¥.. ....-1:';;:; \ .'. :,.:;.;-,:1<;..::'* . ,'~ . . . ':'('" '. i,'··...·..··..~f,,I;I·· c.upert.Ino ·1' I.::~~;:::.:::::¡';r: w',,"', \:. h' bo.': . .! ~. ._0<'4' 7'-...,-. .~ ¡:111';::-:1'''; '" '. . ,..,.... I' ¡. 'rj}::i.!':::::,~:..... i ;:1' ,.\. .1'·. .""".. II. .W·.!.....:" I'{ Ii! n . '" ~'::", , :::!.: : .,.~ ! G~ . 1 ·.f·.· .':.,' <..;' I ·ï· ;¡ .' :1 ."'i 'i :: ; 5 ¡~, ,- :; it .,. . i.l; ~'~ : ,:';~! :~ ~ :~ '.. .\ :;::r.··. ,,! . ;,. ." .\~::~"~. ..._·:.·.oøa:·.....TaL:~- . «(~~ " ., "r ¡ ¡ "-,.' ":~í,· r·~· j.. '" .\ 1 j I' ""' , ..~. i ~'{ .' .. , - , .. ~! ,;-, 1 ¡iF r.- :.~ ,.,..- '.{l,tli ",,;. ~ ~ ,., :t"·ii;;···!i·~::/' i .i' I: .,¡ 'I ¡' '1 'i I. '[I" ,. " "I: .;: '!i"- L I :,.., 'r····· ... . . \ '.'.. .1.:. .: I 1-') . '-~I I " ~J F-< ., ~:,-,'."r:) r ò..;\;: I I ./.,. r . ...... /4-156 ,_. ,. <': .à,i·~~ .,~: . ... , ::':J;:'."";',:;,~:,",: . 1;-;" / 1It.\:tI . .:¡,; 0';: :.j" ;' :~;~,~ N{; r...·:'1 f ~þ ..¿ .;.. 'V ";,_,:.-:.,-c;' <'j ,,"'-::.i~·~' ~ 1ftl S. 0.: "'....;' "7";,,4 ::~~,~~'~:~~ ·¡;:,·lt~~'-"f.·,: t~?j:",;}~~{~'~../L, , I ''i'''''''.¡',?~ . ". ~'f!,.. 'r:;t/'~". 1: .it;~~Z'~;~: ! ,7 ·.r.!t,:h~' . .~~ ':it¿!: t~:,', ''!{ . :~ .I . .,~' ~~':~~':~rl ~:':."/ .~.." \ ",1' 1,_.'. '~¥~""Þ')'i.:t,'·<2 ,. ,/'",#" . I'~" ,~...: Ii, 'l;t1,'~L. ' :~,':;:;, .r.<"d.I~~ ,qt1,t~, \" 1,.....,. }",.;;+:,¡;;:.:'~;' k/. lAlli"." .-':,,">,:, .~.': ,J,' ", : :":-,:' '~'~,~;,:,:t . '; ~ . : ~ 'J!: :~ "i,':;4 i', ".. '..:, '.':' ~ .-. . :; .~~~ :'kT ''',''¡ .." r,- ,',.' I {I')', . ~ ~~ ~~~ -. :~,/':. .~:: o.i, " , ~,.. . ~i "' :;'>~~':'4' " ." ",.T, ,:~ ", : ~i ( ..;-~, ,~<.! ""':',: ".11(-. '" . ~.: '. 4"'<~ .- ,. ; )<, " ',' ',,'..,,,' ,,~.,,\~. ,~,,~~.:'~"'." -*:\0 '\'" , .ill! I - ,;~:;..., Jr.';" ", -, ... , :~ '. - , .. , 1.;1. ::' "-.J:. ~ J;. -\'<:O~"" ...,,-' '..:...: - .1. ~\ ~, -.:.o:._,z,' . .1.·' ,.,\. "~;:;~;2t% '. , ,e:\ Ó' ,,' c' (; +~ :';;Ij::~; It:::i·. ·,w;,.~. /' J' :). I' 11) i.). ··,·~,~~l~r~' . l' .~. ~I·.'. " .,'-- ;'''''''1:''. ·,l,· Mf,.' .'.' '"..'.., ;1J." ...."., ,'!, .,: ,. ,~ <,; (' :::' i.::.! , ,. , \9 ¡O ,:1 '. ~. ~; - :~~:~f~~,:.:};:.~Ê:'~~l··¡ .. ¡' ..~ ,. ".11.',_" I· :.: :..:."" ,:0 '~'~'( '('~ o " '~: , , ".' ~J~I.' !~j:~~:..,..,. .'": ï;(:,~ , ~I.:.,{ '.' . ',"- I I i I ,·f..,.·, : .' ,,~. ':~};~~~:~.\. ;~, : \~~.....~- .~-~~".~.;¡L',. .~C'" : ~ . :~~..::{~~\ , If" .'! ~ ,,~',~f: ~;'J ' "T\':""~m.':J.¡¡." S:r1l~,<: .' <.p"'N;r':" ':if' "'. ! ' .".l, <. " "'f~·;:,. ? "_.- ,..~. , Ai. ,; '. "ó¡\-·<;"'~k."., '," ,R< ' "'1' ....:r...;.:.. '. ; ;.'''. .' ~. .;~ ''''.. ',. '.'; . , ,A:f ~ " ~.'. I . ~.¡¡(": .'..' iO ·~9·' . ,,'8 /'! .'i'(·"·_;I-,.,,·¿· f{,..,·¡-.·..:· '::1(. -,I,' .. t-'l',,: .¿- ,~" ''¡,.". /\.,u" "é'/:"lo .' /:.". " :~'-:: :,:-':.' ". 'V 'J'-'.?:... . ':-~ ,. 3/ .n ~" A ., ''<-1 "-, .:~ ,< ',;' /k L_...s:- ... - ~'I " ' , \1 t> t~~·,~¿\:t.~ ~;~,~:~. 0$', I. 'H .,f. /" '-~ .......,:'\-- .... ....:., ¡~.,~ :::f ...... :~ ;: ~:' \::( .i.' . "., .:", .,~. .-.Y' ......,. .." .,:/J';.'. '.:' .:; .,;:' '.';' .)', " .-.,,- ~ '. . .' .! '.'~ >.' ':;':./.:: .' : ""1 ,I '..,,:: I I \......} > N ^ EDR INOUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGETOUAD: PALOALTO YEAR: 1961 Series: 15' Scale: 1:62,500 fLI-(55 1 ¡ ," , ~ . ::.". < .j ; ~i1:) i , . :.;.~ J ".q.,;' ~ .,ó:¡t. ''':';;[...1,; '!~n~!'i~trl~~~lit, " .,..", "'iJ}'!'I,",~", :~:.';:~: ;(.j,,;fi;i -.;,r;.il': '''~ 1\ .-;~r,;,_', ," . ~il~7'~' !:¡~:~;'Ji;~¡:~1i, " -.-, ,·r t :~"~t",~,,,.:. '0,,' - '-""'''''!' ,;. ~:'!:n;0' -.,,~ .-q" :~I,:~·::EV¡\:¡!~~¡~ . x' ¿. "ë-f~,~. 'id~;~¡,i , 1'1 .~ ~ . ,- i"!~ .. .. :I.':_':i.~....c:'i' :~if,:·"::;"-.'_~·:· ~'~·1·1:i. ." it '~¡¡!ifi¡ . . F:'fj';~: ;' :"'. _/~!~:i:~;:JJ.·~ ,~,.'.L~~·.:·L.\_,::.._ _ :'II,:\i!:""..~ ~.:> - ,f::"f~;': .' ." .-. '. ...... ...'~i· :.". f! I: ","" -'¡"" 'I '._! ,;. ~·~¡>~:L:, ~ ",,~,= ,r-t,~·n;(.1'",~, I' .';\7,.l~.' '.' ~~~~;:'Y:'~;7~~" ¡, I . Cf):}'Ti ¡~.l~, " ,', -.;.0.;:i,Œ~:i?~,~;:::.:.: .... - ':')!.-í ! . ," :-1,' ¡:\~,~¡;. : ·~·-:·fî;'i·F;~_~~.;;;~~~~~'¡ ... I.... ,. II ,._.~.'""..........;,~..;;.~ ',: 'l~!r:·~if:~'<,,;r~ii~:':~1·? 1;· .. '", " ~':'·'::¡:H::J:;;'jd(,>·, ...:';':-' , '''';('iT . ~"""'-")';,'r~';';;"':>;' "~: s' }'?3r~ftt~ ';~,¡!':~~~i; ¿,,';,!:":' . ., '\ Ik .' ~... ....,1. .." oj, ;it\" ·...vf;". .';. ,\I."f~~,:i;i¡i':¡:!'~:'::; ". '. Jr. .,,i"' i::'Jfr,~:f:: , ~~'''z.i';¡f;:;h::..·~ ~. "\,_1:1 :..~: ~.~f:- ·'.:....\~~~rHi;i~k··:~,.· ,I Ii. .' :1 :.. "'" I I ! -..:f ~ _._". " .. .. : ...~~~'~~Ii.';' ;. ..'M ":~,, f :j'. ~·.r ."j{;' -' i: "(f' "I,,; ~: f ,. . II', ~ :", ., .... '" ',',., ':.~ . , ;!, N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: CUPERTINO PHOTOREVISED: 1961-1968 Series: 7.5' Scale: 1:24,000 fL/-/54 'f-:.;",. '9 .. I :' f,~¡.¡pr·t"l_!ti'_I~ . ...W-., . ,.........., - - ..... _'.___~"~. - ..RI· _._ "" '. "1'" c ,.\." ; '.¡ ".1. [/1114 . . . "UI~::~:/<\":.: ':' '1" ~. ',.," _ I". . )I .' .1" '. .......'"..." ., '.. ï ~~~.i '·1- . ;.,.: ..: . ''':~:~::'::'::~:::.'¡ -. .. :11.. t ~ ":::::::::::::. ~ "-"1)1.. ..~.~. .....;; I h_D' ,~,' ."....~ :1 - .J.. H,:; , :.i:::;' ".-.:":':. ~I:-:: . :::;;. ,..'\!~;;/;!:~:,;~:~~' t'" .... '.'. ,,';-.1 ....···"i,·,,:· \',~ r··· ··:\;~~~,.l.',¡,¡,·f..~,~i,·~...JI:: :.~: /'_' : _ . _ j;t .J.I,,~::.p ;: ì1:" ".'..;;" 'í'/ ""," . ':~~\j~:';~ff:ª::}: . ",,¡.k:;' .rl¡'·">ñ'. '1, t:ï"f¡. , \'~ 'J'~ ,¿I I i . ...':. ,i :..... ,.:; . J:~~;~~~;;i , ')f~~"'--I(,~-'::" .1, .'1 .:;i' :¡'I~h+;¡'h " '" ¡ ,:~:.¡ J ~./. .~~'t¥,~,;. ~"T;" ~I' ': i' T1 iii 'I ~ ~t ....' ~·~I t;¡;l! ~:r": . .:....L ' I. . í~fot ~J...:;~...:.!~'!I.,~, .:...11 ,'.~~\;. ':""1~' f:r:;1~,;{" .,11 "r'C(I~" '7'; ¡Ji1,.", 111 - :;\jÍ;::~ ~I..n "-f'i'" I' . ß:~" ,~;: 1 . "\ .~" ". ~!';. '" :~~"""" . :: .¡- ~ I! j ~ ,,' ::::r... ,~ ~. < , - I . J ,- 1 ., ~ ~"4.-' ' . '1>.1..,;. - Ie" . , .' ¡ 'd \ - ¡¡-' ' .111 'ím j; ~ I" " '(:}:-''<;Jr;' I "-.. -_':~-:':t"'!r .¡.J' ,fl.. I,';!:· ;"1' f¡ :: , I "4:lIá9.ir:.'i.4,.i ." '_. Þ.f?I.\'!~.J; - ~: .L:,''' .., _~ .-:,-~! r~~~ì:'::-_J=1~ ...., : . i' ':~ . """1nr~,(;f;T' >:":',¡':<;:\;':i{ .:-....~-: ,: '\_~~.r¡""~:. ~(J"," _ 'I I' ,;;; /1~ . N 'I,d,.,.~ ",.';'¡,:'j;' ",1\', ',~)-~>: "'_'- -:-:.-1\__ .-¡ Q,··:.:.-:',~:;V·r "',_\: ""Ii i, . -'''1".._·~'r., ... -t' '.' , -'" ~ ':\@~"::iì: "f",:V d:'~':"::'l,:,;· 'IL~~~LY~I~~"":~"'''' L~~'~" "@i.' ¡' ··.·,'f(~'r"" rl."·~'·· . . 1.1 I I "\j¡:J;; ,'., ~"," ;,-..:: .,~i~;á~H!~J!~~~, ~i" :¡;,:': ....1 ._Ir.'.u...,..·....,,'\:j. .J~ 'I'·.·.. "',." /~. ::.~tt4.J.!~\ II.~,;H f:"~,~'~H~~ l~ .~_~\ ;.-:;.:\·I¡ :¡',\jt"\~i\ . '. ".,. ;;!~t ¡;~.I~.., '~;¡.:.." ,J!¡.' \ I r.:t - -~-,_ . __'r,j.·"t·",: . , \', i, ~ : ¡ ~ 1-~~' "'-, '-, "~,,' L { i' " (' _', _ 1 ,--.'. ..... liln1 .'1\t.io~"_. ! 'oj' ' . . ] ·~go:'br.¡~ "_ ~mt"~¡:¡¡:1'''r: .··~~~f~;rt ,,,.'j. ¡¡;.';.¡.:,.. .' "!' .. ..:,. ';1' 1[' "~' ",.~'~:~ ~,;~rK ''i,d~:'\~~':~ ; \.:.;a::"I\~,"1 :;.jí." '~.......,. ·~:¡~~"fIIA-~J 1.·,', .~. c~::::' ~~""". ..,...1 ". .. .., ''..' <::~ ! '\..\ ..,,1 !.J j, J;.~:... ~\ I!.:, ':;'-~<-~,:'.,.' '1:.', \ ,"""¥"i ;"·'i;.: '::11\. .. ~,,'f ,.1; '..j,., . Cf;¡..,.... :'.~~:~..:: .' ··~:.~?:·:,;:~é\~\-'~~~~~¡::¡Üll il I'<ft·..· ·.",~.."'ö". 'I W"" """', 'I"j1 ,-::: I I': ::\".¡o!iI: ;1l~';~ ,:~. ~ J_ };/ ':.::.,i,il··.<~'~~~ ,;JI~.ii. . .";';;;:.:" -"'\," ';~~~ :-::;~ :.~,~·tr'" ,J _ I '" \., '~".Io..".......~ .-,\ .' ~ ~1Í.t..., ;11......; J /.: ).," .~, ~ :. .',/ /..·.!.1,. .. ."'\ ~.\~i~~:.::.::.~.~.·-~..·:··!.:·:;\:~.I,~,,:'.~~.¡.;~,'~..::.:..~.~q,':.'~i.,;. ~':;, li~¡ }~,,:~:;':j,:~:.~ I . elJ.p, 1 . m ~ ~ '. t}".;:: ···¡"It~ '..¡¡~!J:L;¡·~QLij; :i·; ~~, ~~ì\ ~,I.:,.:·:I~...i.i':T".;.:...:íi~:_.'. '1;' .~~ \,.-':~~,-,Ð', .., ." ~'4~! 'f,i!" ~: ~¡,'; "', Ir;Jlì;~r¡ ~!.. " : J ··dU ,':::':;; -:"I. I' '''1' .,../.,.... . .\.\i...... "".' ..E; 'a'a.. .;-i ::.::·f;-:.~rf.~,..~.~~J.,~ '~~ .. '-~lL I· _... .. ": .T.:......... .,...¡. . '¡' ". ',' ,,,,.,,v· .. ¡.'~;.~" .;: 'lfji';?l;' ...:....--:::'; ·;-:.t:·ìi' ;}~ ~rl¡ ; ~ :.:' L..., ~~; .\t;1~ ' ..·.\"'1<:;:,.""".,.· ·"·I··it,,,;:,,¡, ..oil. "I'~~' '''1 ;"I·:"_:'~·<~:_I:I~'" :.' ::' 'i ··t~.' ;ij;': " Jt_.w'''~;''... ,,;: !II !: I,t';~;-:;. :~.:rr" :. t::: -:.-,' ~I: :d :1;' J ~ ~_L, ~ < '~.,.¡;;.. _ :··!.....1;¡'il: .1'" ;r': ¡~i :. , 1 1 í q 1_;. . ~.·:~,:;.~;:i'f,'}'~:.·.. :~J ..:..: ::'! :'::':;~Ü:t" :.: ~,; J.j''''L:-·¡ii::!:'' I ·i~·::::.~:!;:e\!~}: ~1.!. ;.'- ":""'-"'1. :··1i'·:r:~r-:~:··t·'.t." ",' '.!~, :"'" ".' ··"'1:, . u_ . I . ! .l:."!"~'JIJ\' .;,',-11 . r,¡ ·1" ~ ,,. ,:¡. ,I "', .:. !'.!{}":~;:'::J:~~. ,\ ~,,.:_.";";;:-!- ~~::::-_.: ¡ 'i:' .!' ! ~"-~ i, (':".,:, \I.:·.h' ..'1.- '"~:''' ': I'" .(i',",,';',~"I,~' , .1·...f. i~' ¡ ~ 1'í~1 , ¡Jr.-"'" ,,:. ,.::-,~.·::··":~~":--~·r~.·~;.:'~.¡ ';::!>:";:'" '_', ,;' ,i I"U ~~) 'HI;'_~~~'~~.', I>' " '. ;-~"" . ...1,_l. ,>~"..\ 0:.' .'_ L'.:~.: V" --, - 'I IS _, ? ~ i it 11_-1-.1 :J'1 ·:'þ",¡¡¡.·...H..t·,..",·¡I'"...·i· ", . 'f';.' ",.:'._~' .j I',.,. ,,~ f.·1 r.'! '."''''' 11 'J. ".! , ~ I"'~¡- ~ ' I 'r ) 1,,0.."""" -~"r I . ,." ,T"~': ''''- .: i. .' S':, ,:¡ ';M"": A.TO "~.~:,' 1:._:" ." ,"·0~ir1 ;~. , If-;,.. ,'tJ.'1 ::J.;..'t]..;.~.y! It '1"-1' ~ f¡ .~g.;-\' l1li1 ..~~'~.. "; ,I!~... ,_;'_ ·...'1 -",' ;1.' f. ji"'rll ~ ,-,.¡';¡f,¡ k:"l ! _n "".. J>":i"tft~/{~i,... ,,/, .,' '_J).. :,,,~A~'",,_. r~I\,,,..,....O'''f>~_ .. li- ·;'..:r 1;1: ~.~ }, :r~~'¡ ~-,~ }J;~.~_.:"-: '~~i~__~,;:_~\i;:,:: '~.d , . ,: ¡.,j1¡,~ ':"1':~: mP', ""k,,·--""'·:. '··I"!'f·i¡'i. ; _ "i G ~ '<I ¿",,,~ -, I~' 'Ü -;;d!;4l,.,¡;~. '. "--~.~- ;JJ ':;r-.j ,"")! ~ :1, :."1, I,' II: 'j~ j.··r·¡}r....'M ./~:~!:*:'!i.:J!'-¡,· <"-'. ~ "d::¡,- 1",,;1;Œ,~ . ...,.... ,.--, -;, :,~,,"'<;., ~,.;t.~"."F"1:"'1,~;, . .'IS "~ ¡"o"Mi::St.EJa:b" . J. ·;tI'Ii'; , ROAD ,:;f ~~.,,: ::-'" -¡..::¡...-..-,¡","",¡o:;. '11"'''''' '-..--'-'~-,._¡;;- '"-·,.í ~;{f,<-:);Î('.. '..: " I' ! . , '\I' "" ,...........1 i! I·'· . ..' . I . ..-, !·..~r···__;1<~;:!4{... ··N·.! \ :.': I" I !Jl,,,1.·'; ~ ¡ ¡>.. ,." ..:.-.. _'., ..¡"~. t'-r;~ . I .'.,., ! ':1. 1/,0 ¡1 lé'\:i: ~;,:~i' ¡. : ·1' If;¡:,';"r . ;.: ".. ;'¡"~j.'f!' '1 ~ I ¡,. J ,. q% "'" j}J ..J~,¡¡:.¡!.1r~, ,I.. ·W·. i J.·t/,) ~1ŒHi - . ¡ ...,.::. I·~. L:.·~~:.~':'" "~,~ ,'..& .. _: ,.-- ._~.~':i:.l:ln"",--pr:;I·- -. ,.,- -·-'~'~~..-r~·~ -j .' ".1 ¡':r fi"h, ; '~:;J;(::- ~", ·'t.Y;~i .. .:~: :~tl::tJ' f' ~ '~l'~:';~: -':'.., : ."::\~.'.~ " ¡j .,L.;.;,,~;(.. r" . ~:'-.ii:.~ _. , ,.r·" " ,; j ~ _,I ;¡:,:' >., .: .-.~ ~f. ';"';''/.-'" i'~' 'C" .11 'If "'~-~~!:t', II ~n " .~} ,.. .;.;-:::;}'¡;,<,-,-,-~,: ,'. " 'I~_'~'I'" ,t~1 II ' , '>'~' ~ -, "~"'.'''' :.r.;,''''Í~'- .-: -'~" ".: -, I ,lI ,II ~ I: ' "... "('~" ~;."'~" ,.~:':~ {$;~ ..Ir. . (11~,ì~.\' '. .(~:t'tr,l"· "', - ~ ~,I .. ,,;\.~~ .,~,::~-: ,;,';"~. .:~. :~·:>t,:1' . ~ ;~\¡.':'[. ;--': r, _ ,.~~g~¡v""",~~1~", ~ ,:: "._ .,c,,_, ,".'.:' ....., :,,- '.. ~I_I _.t.....~f!""li:'r 1,," . ..r. ti', f',';'-~) ,.)r':;:(~/1)r··: '1; ..,. "=",p \~ ~".....~ ,-> , . \< i(dlWl ~..",~ r,! i' ',¡,~!.. . < ¡-._ ,.,.¡I,: ..' S,'hAt!- ,,"-4" '\.,r.-' ., '.' ·'.:;~¡ßi,:~ ;;,'~;~J-'"(~~f/. ii'" ... ':Fft~£(f~í;;,J~ . i .' t"" -.J _;;,'.~:):\::~ii'.'·J,;~'· . "'8i . ",·.f",:, ,. ., ;,_ ~r'4 ~~7l·1i:'"7~::'~'¡';"".~...'.l.·,·...·.:.1.·,'.0 :!,::,It~, :'~.":~. _:~~~ ß ,j ;..;. ·:~.'I f·. :8.J\. ~:~ . :~.:'<!~}~-;~~~: '~.::~}~:: ;'.. ,. 'I: ~: j~~'.~:\tß/:: .- .... :',', i" . U . . 1 . "I' ; ·1 ~ ..1 ~..~;æ¡! . . :i~ff~lL =-::.., .' 11,7:' .~ 1-' , -...- ; __,:r .:,..:;:;;";.' .j._ ':t -::....: :"1 .'",,,. ...¿i~n- "., "" " l\IH~ iT",;" . ." ~j . ,I -: '--"'i'l' 1·::-¡·r~~:J~~ I:· , .' . I N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: CUPERTINO PHOTOREVISED: 1961·1973 Series: 7.5' Scale: 1:24,000 ~ 11 ~~'. .. .\.... , ..... ".' i I I L{-- f 55" ~.i~5~;.~;.~".F.I.\~,!_"..· f;t,.tf. ~I I < 1 ,." . . J::œ<;'.;~.{I.: ¡ fk~. ~ , __ ___.,_J " , ¡'J.;t't¡\:¡"'fS~£-h:'l~;,-¡ ~.. 'O\",·r-- ' . 'I 1 Î Ii ¡: l""-·,·'.¡~"'*·;"",,,o;i: "".1. . -~ ;~;-""'r:rf-lrl'~~5(:::'-' 1l '-I,:~"j¡'?<:,'j::;l: ~ ~ í -~:1 : '\ 1~l'(;~;_ : ~.,.-t.('f.~~~Þ~!·~,~-~;", y: 1',..) !~(.:.// >. . ~~J,:.: r:'~~.:r.-...,__..'...".·:..'.:,..-.:.~.:.!.',f.~.~.-.·.:.J";.,,)::·;:'.::··;¡;¡I~-· ::.' ., 'k:~;~¡, '. ,,'r¡ ,.r. ..¡~. ..." . ¡. : I' ·îfJJ,I.i ,~\..., 'I' .;c"" ;~.i." '.:".', t·,...·"... -... ..r::- ~J·~;-:-:t~:...·.....!.._.:~.:~..:.:,:;;.,..... ?!;:rrlì;L i'1t:)~;:jj .::',.; ,~·.:,r -. ..;.~:,,:,- ~.,:, . ~ U:'-¡ ¡,-:: ; (;p~~MjJlI) '··l' ::.·.·.·..~,:.-.~..il:¡:;'~,.,.~,0~,·,:...'~~.::...~._.,£..:,:..- ~;, ,,:~:;¡..ß! (:ctj;~·ç'~~~ ~~~!_:.,~..!.. _ _.~ . )(... ,,,.. ""'-"ï'-'''¡'' ·;·l·f"'''''·'''~''i~ ::.'. t:.i..·!, ~.',1.....~.,:.~~,....& ~i~i~~ . ':i;,'::'-~!}t~!ï\!~ift~~ i .r.=n c . ~.~'.. ., ',~:' " ""¡'~I.-...~~.,:...~".',,,.)¡::, i"'5;'1. ;~'ø.ïi m :'1,. I ,-: ....I.,J .". '. .~~::..,_t;!:_,.. . . ~..~,¡;:.-.:.".,,.., ".,. . ,·f . .:;:-"-o:.:~~,, '/r-'~ '\.~_,J~. ".:i I~ . :[ L· ,.,¿·:'~1 <- "01 .',",' ",! .... . J ,(~:' , I!-,··· ,r:," h.:¡ \ ~:~ .,~; '¡¡1~ . ~t"':' 'z' . ..I-J 0.,,\,:,: '~'~f'!' (,/P"> ' .' . I ~~~Î ..i.,I. f · :' -........ ..;,,': -. - .71, ,. :.,: :'.';'!t"" ,~ ! .-". ,~:' .;, 't;· ",:..: ¡ ~., :~~/' .¡...; . .....I,.;.::fi . ':"i'~;': -.\. .¡," ~'.~;~:~:~~~~~.:,;;~ . ¡"p. ~"." ,,~j '"\fj w.t1 . .: .~..~~ .,'..1 :]il·:.11,: '.- ',It ,.... i.fr ''''. ·-1 -t ,,- -.. '~:. "('ók.,.".., , . .1':1 '>.~./ .. , 'I~·. . N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: CUPERTINO PHOTOREVISED: 1961·1980 Series: 7.5' Scale: 1:24,000 . ·~f (;:' ,. ;., \;,1 -..>::" _. .. . ."'t'. .. -'"'.~. ." ..... . .j~- . +:~. 2.:,1 ,'.\.',. . ~~!~i!·"~~\¡ì~~r~ , , ¡'f I \i . !" t.1',:';~ _ ¡tLl,\ " ... " ,', ' .;,"-' U\').;~.: ::' j :1. -¡ ·""In-J:'" ~")~ 'f,{..\\&¡ 'f'~ - ::'~T (\\'t '';'1:. ,I' ';~:;~~'::~ ~~:¡ .} f ,i',I' '. --!r ',' :}~I;~~, ~¡..,. . :¡ '('·';ITJ";·'¡·ê~t": , II . , j I" ' I ¡¡." .~. ~ ~"' , ':: =11= "I F!,Ji.i! .,:'1 1'1., ,," II:(! 'i ,.-G. ~ ; h,'~i,'~ H~~lIt~~: :;¡ ; -j]~:~,¡j,'-.-: "'. ·"hi~"·· .'.< ,ï·¡,' f,.., .!:;"\t:..'!~:~t'I;"'.: ·t'··,¡: ... .: ·:·';tr.:~·~ ',; -c- ". , :i ~L,\,¡i:~_ ¡'!'j .; ".". "'. ..:.... .i~~:~·; ,~ . ~. :¡Ÿ7" ¡ ,........&1' '" ',~~~I ==-~;;''-' .\""...... '. ...'.\;1.... " , . ';., )."f' -·t'" :'; ., . .. .,_.,..,.... ;' ,- I !:" ~; ,.;~:~ . . . ~)" ~~/;: ..'."' ~.~.' ''','>". ~'-- ,,' ~^'. ....' -,- ¡' ,'¡'"' "''''''.t::!.;;; ~ii':~1r;:,'7/r/'f . .".")'''',;':,' .:'/. . ". .,~; i' III ¡..!. ,It', ~___<". '.!. 1 -'I -- .) "~J \! '~~.. "~"h.J .. /4 - (5'ró ..,. ""',lft",.. ,. IpS ""7?"'~:~" '·-.:)11 yo, ........ . ~::..fc=H-'- . . -.J ';';J"'~. .... ?'-r ... ,/\ . . - ...' --:~./., .. t-~,":L ç::0q 41i I ,¡I. if"'; // r '. ""~';'I i ' .........../ 1.·.:.1"1.·:r.·..'..·.n:::.\:~::r.c.ClI. '.(, . ,I 411' l) '. .'. } I ): .\\:~ <:b'L8\'\ '''T~ ~-[ ¿ , 'Wi --I ....,.....- 'í'~r" -"1' ! "~I_'" "'ì: '. ~~:':,:;;;,;,,,,,, ..1 :.:.1' ·f:Z.J;·¡:¡Gi ,-:: :~f( "..' "-.,. __ $ b ~J' ~-:.~'":.,\' .. '-. 1._ -"/' -.J. .- ':.¡H t·,,,,;,,.:, t-:r- '.- _ __ / \ ~"':-:'Stb~ .L...·_.t;..~ui' > '--f ... '1 '..L..·.:-- -'I;;i -\!,:.'~~i)·"'>-.:It·Ff -~'-1, F;~'';''('~' eM L:..{ c.__ H J I r IV". .¡; U llíi l~-.:, 2·...,JJ.-l'_.t·,~.;¡~.."'~r~.1 .:H gt(~tl,.:r.~ 162-_-=\~ . l 1_~1 _~ '1 Cl All i7~;:rT"¡¡?:)1¡ ~',_ ·.m-~"·n~ ·'1.,'7\ ¡7;'JTt7]" f r1¡1 ,-- ¡~:.~: .A r!··Bï-TJ· .ll.T'~'~';"I: ..;'~"'.' ''''''41.'[. ·l··· L.;;L,,,,.,,;¡ '..1 i .1. ¡ .f.! .... : I. ·i . I 1'" I 11 l. 1'\..1! .pI -. I".!. i, .' .1 !," '1·1 Dr"'· h.. ._\ 1"., S",h-,.~ '~. -¡ II 'I !{_~~_-+,,_ __...LJ~....,f' , '-- f [ 1 "1- !PriI'f (~ ~ \.:ttf~l'fi-.\,i.,:~s(,.·.~"VF.:."'..f·....FDIi ~t_~~~J.~J.~.....J.J::.~; ·1 J .I ,If '''~íl'r- '-p~'~-/.----Ij"l¡fõ·n ìMI!ldììS'I'" . ·~·-rT·t...\,-<:-::r-..l.-"i···.'....~~¡·"'...-.·r..,\ j' [;;r~.Nlmük:J I t "---~1 I ,'i!<II";¡ 'fVfIk."~ -"~'J'-f- . (i. î-'-'\;"'~'~',.,_·~ '-1 II \ )l..t~,$(:h,f~j -'--1-..._:' ¡ , j-""' ?lIlk ,ur!1 J. "'''':.-.'' } ¡ {.- !'<.,,,¡}. ,.~~ .~..c!.!U!t!..~~.,~-..._~:r:-· 1 .'J '\ -1;1 _J..J,,~"..~.,,'.L~L ~ J ¡ I :.'-"'.--"" ¡. "! ,". t I '. j 1 ¡ 1 ~.._ _,. _..\ . ~~: 1 I ~~~~~,~y__ lAtE r ;! j "'~'. ·';~:,..·:..!~,L~,:_.i t.'·"r"'~:·< .Ilj· ¡ .¡: ~.: ¡i' .t, 1 ___¡1..."¡. "1 L I)I_·-_,L t I1UM!(I ~~I""'" ",',,' ,. Ii J .,.,. ....... ."i· ;-. '1 L' , . ~ . .. - -. ¡ , . oE; 'r··· -n¡'l! I~~~T-~' "'j'lèi±:::;J:JJ'=:' fl~r'--':U ~fJl,:.r11 ;~+r'-:':::=î'~:¡ \ ¡c'''¡:':''''1':,:,rE ¡:~:~.i'\;I:~! "".. '.' r I·! ¡ ~ ."'¡¡Ij" AL/JeRt.....··, I ,we 'L .'. j \..... ., r3/III. 1. ,., ¡ " I' ,........,-."'.....,... ._- .. c--I ' ... .I r.... 1;. ! " ) .I'",q. ·"'.'.I"'i:~\_ I:':'.;j! 1\,.)! /-J.~. .", -""\. \;t·r')--·· ì I ¡:~ 'i~:f"; 'it-.:; ~::_~J J _J i·' (i i 1~ -!,<,..¡~, ...;; !.."'....'.'.....~, ....,'...·1.. "'......... .11....,.. ......~......... ...'1... ...:\.... ....-..-. .,_..J.. '1 H-...-·,....: ~"";'¡""_...¡~ -,. .. '"1 1 ....' .(~..r.1.._ " - ¡-.-..)!--. , ;'.....T:¡-~..,:..... /\:/ /) T· " ¡·..t:\-t, 'h~~'\- j I ,'.. I ì ·1' L···I ~-"i.. ..I '1 i i )-"- ... "i~ 'J ,...... ¡. 'I : " " l(t.l¡~I(~r\,¡I¡lcj·::.-:~~~= t'!l: I..~ _:-,j:1-"~:.J fit €I\li.Lr~:·~:..I~ ~ ¡--Ii Ii ,~,a±:~L~1J:.t;~_ ),xj I.;,b~~~ ,,,.~'.:;":.L~i:; '£'. ·.¡..,:..;if.'~~III".,.C}j~...·.T.?(.' """..'".'F1¡," "" 1"" "'Clck.-"!"'\I,.' f'!' ! 1"0h-"~' ......,,,1. L_.:.I j IIIi i::···..-:fifll..~itli1J~~~';,..:..--·...'J ì¡ l-j.l'~ ,'" ,f ~\I \ r~_. ~_I I ". .:.;,....,... !. . [......, r:"'- . Ur-:.J~ .,E 11 : ' ¡¡,Ii.,. I ! ¡·";"f .." f I: ':! 'if;' ,: :fWP,¥ t_: '-Lr~~! -- ~ '~- .~,-.~)~=.;-_-!I . -. , .;4.::... !! j ~ . ¡ ¡. ~...{ . ,. .....~..... ~. j. ....---., ....--- :"~"'K-!!T' 1 '" 1 ·....r..: .. ~ ...\_t...:_~-rr~_~"'..,.. "..I: : .."" ..... ,III'~'rr1 ". '-'. ':.... ' 'II- ~- ___J Gantt.. Gal-: . " - : ...+--. i, '~.. ,..c,. . ! . . .---t.--='-~- !. . a. ,-"",;.. J.''''! [,,--, ! ,.... S,h' ¡ ... ......¡, . I r...·j·""-' n, "1-1"'·.... " ,'. ..' "<' I I ¡ ?,.. r··--.' I f ,n! ¡ ; , \ , -/-. If -"" I '~ ~.....~ ·....·1----r- '-'--'- - -64 n7 :' :_1._.1_ n)¡ ! t t"--....r.._l, .~ ...-.....,.. ~fA i-;ï ~--=-r:· ··:·1¡'1·-.:.--J~' 1, -~,....~~.~,,,,,,.j"~-- ;.'. -',¡ I -1-- -4.+__. .,.. r(ê~^ro\ ~;;\ ;:',-{ ..: : ;.J ....j , i--..~:T: Ø!II~:ib;~~'f'1 5'\": ¡ ! ¡-T ~., II¡:, . , \'1t "..-......".. .. ; f i , ¡ ~~J.-'\! ! i' ¡ ¡ ;,.~ ~i . j ~ · ~ ¡: jj ..~..~:...~~..,.i:'i....,;::,.f'..<·í.··; ,¡ ·lr;U-j..1~~1'1~'Ljjl !.. '" ;1,. \-:01 ". <}';~;"'!~;:"" ,'.;¡:i ·T·~P·--E'~~! Nj·O·n. ¡ l ¡;..¡r: Lr--+~'!" .' ri; ">Di~' , '.. ""'if 1 , : .,\\"\: ·"·v·A·r· ..~:.c~_..n~: . i 1\ I.' ,.-.\ I . I""!· ""~"""'~"'"".' _f.~.1 ''(\. '. " .' ,. 'J:;'.' .-....<>.,.. ..,..... ". \. 1, iA '. ill .. __1$ ~ \\"~ "'"'', , ii" J 0 ~ ¡.I.! .. oá:i SS~h'·,·ph'l ... ..i....T'·"·\-.l'.. "1 ...,........: ..,.~,. ~~~;! 14 ::..!~± .fJ.;, ~~ì"~J~.'.:::.l..;.. ,:- ';;.:+ i ;"v,"~:~:~f+11 ~~~!.. .~~'?<' - ;~ .:-,..,.,~ ¡¥f ..' "1.. .:,\ \ !.I.·:- t:nll~!I" ;. . ~ .'M'_~. '. .':i!.:. ¡- I¡,~--i~ '~'CI,J <, _ __ .. ·I"-'~·. r .1 ' ! r 1""1 ¡ \ ·~-'1·;". I ;, F~rl~ _.1 'j 'r-."-~-'''-'.¡' ... -' ~--Q ~..: - _¡r, ; ICU;~fll~I' J ¡. ')' :'~'i. .L_....· ) 5ch.!.:! j.. I: ,-;J 1~--.:.·· ...{1-!": /.)., ,~t ~11 11~ .u§Sqh!, f._ :. \" ,',. II·· , - iJ 1..------·······-· '~.~'~.-_.-~ I. j' l.l ~.../ t . '¡ ; i ~ :,',r~ ~.¡.:.. \. \., '·"I)I'~I'.:· f::-._:::.~···.{~ L ...._..).~ Z ( ,_ -··...1 / !.L,\, ,j";- 1'1.·:'· I .' · . \\·,I:O(1..·"j 't¡ ''.Ii \.'<-......., I I 1"'" -'.. \. " _ f:" '. . (:, ·f· t.-<·. ,.. ...i '; '..j".......- ¡". !' ¡:. . j ;i"" '..¡ '1" ' ).! ¡ ~\ \ . i,1 - ,I g ".'r-"-~ ¡ ! .....-.; ~r'L\...:~::~·l. :< ..:! !j":~'-"1'\~'.:-~. ~:-."-'·I"'·~t/( :J·~2·.-~.:~¡ !~_.~:; .' ,~.' 11·-. ,\\/ : ~...,. I ¡ ~ t--.!! ~-'I'-"";-.....;,-_. I{I . 7·,-··,~. ·,·'···rr·¡ . r : ' ! i~; J .. ...... .,.".'-~.."~'~'{"'" ... "'.. . ..... .,~_" ..:,' ,. ..,.........¡~-.,.: ,-'.' ;~I~ .;~'~!... .:~..,:_J.i _¡._.:.._.~.. t,"", l t,..',>.:~.',j f-(~\\ ".Lf~···~··Tt~:=:...~::/· . ..: .}. .' ...... \ "' _-- _~ ¡,., I "~./ .,' 'J',"'-. '~'Il"' .. I :' .~-..!...g".f(oYN4'11 ,-J~I' ..-. "!' ,11, r ll/lÚ~ P.O.,(/)' r ··-;·'~.'-'~1-1···~"-' ·>f.,;< ¡.. .,' I' r.~ ¡: . ¡ I.... t:;:C-, ,. ..... r..· .""'.'I,.,, :f·~·:·:1::.,.,.-;.~..:"",-.~'~,:.'.:..'..'.'. ..;·····.~·-l ;~ ; : /" ,-'..( ,.:~-:;.~: 1. ~ r-'-d.s('dtJW~dl., ..1. .. ~ ¡,.,. .\)' .( '.{'<'I-"",! : I'''' .', do' . 'r ... 1-,.. ~d1 "·"·<·~·I \,;, \_. .'__w ....,~.:, '" C:d, ¡ : ,: l..-~~~:9/·./'; , Ii ;·r·:"'r'", ;' ¡, ¡ : ~¡...,..".\ ' ¡" ¡ i .!. ~·I'· -, -!.?~ /~ I . J' U'I¡,j! ¡ ( ,:.¡- \ì "':1.. ._~.;. ···t·H...'..'''í':.,........ ""õ"....... i ¡ ~ ~_', ,', ~! 1 I J, II}qh~::;~'<b' , õÐ \ ..r .1 , ''''''~.: ,. I . ':..... i ,., - I 1 ~. 'I' I ., , .'" .." \.,'.~,..,.,' . -" . "I J. I ",.,\, : , -~ ..' !, ,I .......'""-..ICU/.,. ¡". ' J ,.~~\.-; ..... ¡ I.',;'..;, "',11 ,'.." '.I.,;,~.:,']',.' ': :r~iJ~~.._.,·rf'J,V(, ~~""t".':,..ç~~.r i"~~i~;~;-....~~'~"~~t'~~_. r, \\ j>"" ..........,-J~., ! ; ,-::'¡"!...~~~"( if\O"'/~ ''..~ i ~ ,"1,'" --, ! ,. . -I J I ¡...... ',If)# C;Q",. I '-" . .-¡"" ' ". ..-,..... ":'ì'1" ,.\T·' !~~~L,~~!r ,1....,¡.:,; :,' " llr.~ .'f. /. /..' . :' " ¡,:., j' .r, ~ ,t _ . ,~. ··_,,····--~·.'f':'~'.'~ ...... ~',.-,., r . < ..-'-'-- /.~.~ I . I, ..1 ! ¡ f . ;' i " : I ....~ f.,. 1"! ,r-. . L .... ...: \,,< "..,', I "., I.~ I. I,.', i.j '/'i r J ,"- ; '~~. : 1 . , t I 'I I." , : ....~ ' \ .. .-., ":' ',..... --I. I I I......... ., '., ,I í ' . ~;~ :t.\, ,,' ¡ .. '. ('''.-.' ~rv..,'-;_./..(\ \:"" "1: 'T' -.... -: ~:'... \ t.'·· I M,~e' ,, , '\": ¡ ;d ',- . ...."-,,.·;:I).tø.:UI1Il' . _}.. . "i~~~~·'l".l'(i'\ \, \~_·t! L .... I I _¡...~~'~ / ~r.h ~ .~~,-.f~1 ¡ : L~j,., .'~,~~' ../ :,,' N ^ EDR INQUIRY# 1371387.13 TARGET QUAD: CUPERTINO YEAR: 1991 Series: 7.5' Scale: 1:24,000 /4-/57 0, .:, '.: EXHIBIT G m tJ o o If1 ttJ f1 fiJ [) ~ fi1 bfJ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ 1.O\"1NE\f"ASSOClATE"" Envlronmento /Geotechnlcal/Englneerlng Services Soil Quality Evaluation Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino, California This report has been prepared for: SummerHill Homes 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 August 31, 2005 Revised September 20, 2005 Project No. 1047-49B N Bryan R. Gilbert aff Environmental Geologist Thomas F. McCloskey, P.G., C.E.G., C Principal Environmental Geologi t w ~ ~. '<.;'. ,.-. ,~ ~ San Ramon Fairfield Fullerton Mountain View Oakland Sacramento Las Vegas 2258 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583-1353 Tel: 925.275.2550 Fax: 925.275.2555 E-mail: mail@lowney.com /4 - /51 o ~ til tü I!ù [J 1fI.·..·.· UJ til IJ ~ ; I I I I I I ; i I ~ ~ SummerHill Homes Pruneridge Avenue TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... ................... ................. ................ .......... ............ ............... 1 1.1 Purpose.. ........... .:. ................ ................ ..... ............. ...... ............. ............ 1 1.2 Site Background......... ....... ................. ............ .................. ........ ............... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ........................................................................................ 2 2.0 SOIL QUALITY EVALUATION ............................................................................... 2 2.1 Subsurface Investigation ......... ................. ....... ....... ....... ............ ............... 2 2.2 Soil Sample Collection and Analyses .......................................................... 2 Table 1. Laboratory Results of Selected Soil Samples.................................. 3 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 3 4.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................... .'4 5.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN APPENDIX A - SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND SOIL SAMPLING PROTOCOL APPENDIX B - ANALYTICAL RESULTS LOWNE\"ASSOCIATES Eò\Î)ri:irírrÙ3fÜðïløè'ófå'êhriiqpi!EngïþøeJ~Ðg':$èlYrë:,s_s Page i 1047·496 IL( - I~r ill ~ ~ ~ m ~J ~ ~ ~ I I I I I m I I I ~ I SOIL QUALITY EVALUATION PRUNERIDGE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose In this report, we present the results of the soil quality evaluation performed at the Pruneridge Avenue site located at 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino, California, as shown on Figures 1 and 2. This work was performed for SummerHill Homes, who is considering the purchase and redevelopment of the site. The planned development includes single-family homes. 1.2 Site Background Based on our previous Phase I report (Lowney Associates, 2005), the site was planted with orchards as early as 1939, and remained an orchard until construction of the two current on-site buildings in 1973. Topographic maps from 1902 and 1920 did not show buildings on-site. During the course of agricultural use, pesticides such as DDT and lead arsenate may have been applied to crops in the normal course of farming operations. Hewlett-Packard was the reported tenant of the buildings from 1973 until sometime between 1992 and 1999, using the buildings for marketing and telemarketing purposes, shipping and receiving, administrative purposes, conferencing, and training programs. Hewlett-Packard may have vacated the buildings in 1992 and remained on the lease until 1999. Once Hewlett-Packard vacated the buildings, they have remained vacant to the present time. No information was found indicating that significant quantities of hazardous materials have been historically used or stored at the site. During a 1993 site inspection by another consultant, small quantities (less than 5 gallons each) of insecticide, cleaning solution, concrete patch, wood cleaner, paint, roofing patch, engine degreaser, wall covering adhesive, industrial heavy duty degreaser, microbiocide, spray adhesive, and stainless steel cleaner were observed on-site. A paint spray booth for preparation of marketing materials was also observed in the 19130 Pruneridge Avenue (southern) building. With the exception of 5 gallons of paint, 25 pounds of patching compound, and 1 gallon of cleaning solution, hazardous materials were not observed on-site at the time of our March 2005 reconnaissance. One 4,000-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the west side of the southern building in 1988. Low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) and benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) were documented to remain in on-site soil as a result of leaking, primarily from the tank piping. The Santa Clara County Fire Department signed off on a letter stating that no further action was required. 'ASSOCIATES eçhnrçqrl~rjgrnet;:lring,.~f¡fvrC~$ Page 1 1047-498 14-/00 c c D o o o o o o o u ~ u o u ~. ti D o ~ SummerHill Homes Pruneridge Avenue 1.3 Scope of Work The scope of work for this study included the following tasks. . Drilling and logging of up to 11 shallow exploratory borings. . Collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis. 2.0 SOIL QUALITY EVALUATION 2.1 Subsurface Investigation On July 18, 2005, under the supervision of Principal Geologist Thomas McCloskey, R.G., C.E.G., C.HG., Staff Environmental Geologist Bryan Gilbert directed a subsurface exploration program and logged ten borings (SB-l through SB-I0) to approximate depths of 4 to 12 feet at the locations shown on Figure 2. Borings SB-l through SB-7 were drilled at scattered locations across the site to evaluate the lateral and vertical extent of soil potentially impacted by past agricultural activities. Borings SB-8 through SB-l0 were drilled adjacent to sewer lateral lines to evaluate possible leakage at the southern building. The sewer laterals were located based on observed cleanout locations, one of which was inaccessible for drilling. No sewer cleanouts were observed adjacent to the 19320 Pruneridge Avenue (northern) building. Soil samples were obtained continuously for logging purposes while ground water was not encountered during drilling. Soil sampling protocol and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs. 2.2 Soil Sample Collection and Analyses In borings SB-l through SB-7, soil samples were collected from approximately V2 to 1 foot (just below asphalt and baserock) and 3V2 to 4 feet. In borings SB-8 through SB-I0, soil samples were collected from 9V2 to 10 feet as no impacted soil was observed at shallower depths. Selected soil samples were submitted to a California- certified laboratory for analysis. Seven shallowsoil samples from borings SB-l through 5B-7 were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (EPA Test Method 8081) and pesticide-related metals (lead, arsenic, and mercury) (EPA Test Method 6010/7000) while three soil samples from borings SB-8 through SB-lO were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (EPA Test Method 8260B). The sampling depths and the laboratory testing results are presented in Table 1. Copies of the analytical reports and chain of custody documentation are presented in Appendix B. LOWNEYASSOCIATES EnVlrQnrnentoj7G:ªÞtØçhn,içpI/Englneering-.SøNÎC6S Page 2 1047-496 /4 -/0 ( r:¡ tJ B "; ;\ @ ~ ~' -{.'..:. ..'-' " ~'.', ~'-' .~: ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I SummerHill Homes Pruneridge Avenue Table 1. Laboratory Results of Selected Soil Samples (concentrations in parts per million) Boring Depth 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Total DDT Arsenic Lead Mercury vocs Number (feet) 5B-l V2-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ND <0.88 4.1 <0.10 - 5B-2 V2-1 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 ND <0.88 2.5 1.1 - 5B-3 V2-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 ND <0.88 5.0 <0.10 - 56-4 V2-L 0.0039 0.14 0.093 0.237 <0.88 <0.37 <0.10 - 56-5 V2-1 <0.002 0.0059 0.0066 0.0125 <0.88 5.9 <0.10 - 56-6 V2-1 0.023 0,0094 0.013 0.0454 <0.88 5.3 <0,10 - 5B-7 V2-1 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 ND <0.88 4.9 <0.10 - 56-8 9'12-10 - - - - - - - ND 56-9 9V2-10 - . - - - - - ND 56-10 9V2-10 - - - - - - - ND CHH5L 2.3 1.6 1.6 11.0*) 0.07 150 18 < ND Indicates that the compound was not detected at or above the stated laboratory reporting limit. Not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit. Not analyzed. California hazardous waste criteria. Volatile organic compounds. California Human Health Screening Level. Organochlorine pesticides not listed were not detected at or above their laboratory reporting limits. * vocs CH HSL Note: The California Human Health Screening Levels (CHH5Ls) presented in Table 1 are published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIjEPA) (OEHHA and CaIjEPA, 2005). CHH5Ls were developed to get a general understanding of potential health risks and estimate the degree of effort that may be necessary to remediate a contaminated property. The CHH5Ls are the current regulatory standard for direct exposure for all regulatory agencies. The presence of a chemical at a concentration above a CHH5L does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health are occurring; exceeding CHH5Ls indicates that the potential for impacts may exist and that additional evaluation may be necessary. The CHH5Ls in Table 1 are for direct exposure under the residential land use scenario. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, including DDD, DDE, and DDT, were reported in borings 5B-4, SB-5, and SB-6. However, these concentrations, along with the concentrations of lead and mercury, are well below respective CHH5Ls and California hazardous waste criteria, as shown on Table 1, and therefore do not represent a threat to human health for the intended site reuse for residential purposes. Additionally, laboratory analyses of soil samples collected adjacent to suspected sewer laterals (borings 5B-8 through 5B-10) did not report any VOCs above laboratory detection limits. Further evaluation of soil quality on-site does not appear warranted at this time. The arsenic laboratory detection limit of 0.88 ppm exceeds the CHH5L of 0.07 ppm. It is not feasible to lower the detection limit, and naturally-occurring arsenic concentration in the Bay Area commonly exceed the CHH5L concentration. Because of IATES \g'-~,yrc'~s Page 3 1047-496 /4-f(ça.. o c o o o o [J o o o o U· ¡: ".: ~ o ~ o o D Ð SummerHill Homes Prunerldge Avenue this, remediation to the CHHSL concentrations are not required by regulatory agencies, but instars to naturally-occurring concentrations. 4.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of SummerHill Homes in evaluating soil and quality at 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue at the time of this study. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services have been performed in accordance with environmental principles generally accepted at this time and location. The chemical and other data presented in this report can change over time and are applicable only to the time this study was performed. We are not responsible for the data presented by others. The accuracy and reliability of geo- or hydro-chemical studies are a reflection of the number and type of samples taken and extent of the analyses conducted, and are thus inherently limited and dependent upon the resources expended. Chemical analyses were performed for specific parameters during this investigation, as detailed in the scope of services. Please note that additional constituents not analyzed for during this evaluation may be present in soil and ground water at the site. Our sampling and analytical plan was designed using accepted environmental principles and our judgment for the performance of a soil and ground water quality evaluation and was based on the degree of investigation approved by you. It is possible to obtain a greater degree of certainty, if desired, by implementing a more rigorous soil and ground water sampling program or evaluating the risk posed by the contaminants detected, if any. 5.0 REFERENCES Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and California Environmental Protection Agency, January 2005, Human-Exposure-Based Numbers to Aid Estimation of Cleanup Costs for Contaminated Soil. Lowney Associates, May 17, 2005, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 19310 and 19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California. . * * * * * * * * * * * * lOWNE\"ASSOCIATES ï:r'1vJ.i6nm.$'dföt/<;èQ1:éctjnlc;:åT!Ëngrnee:rlngS<;1Úi[ce;; Page 4 1047-496 r--( -/03 n o D o D D o D o D ~ ~. ,. ;~; '" ~ r ~ f!l, [J ~ o o ~ -8J~'" ~:+-" ª/ i!J '11 .'';; ~I ~I ~I ~ ~~ s lJu "~" ~ :1 :1 f,[ r;* ' .L-_ -t1!l1llli +-~lijr>LL't ~~~ ~\ i ~] g œ ~¡ ~.. ; ~t. ~ ~!~ -'J.;" r¿~ .:¡¡,. I=! N~ ¡. a.. ~..;! ~'I ::3 ~ .. ~ ¡f('TI")';::~; ,; It: ~!~ (,t, ~J""- .!:!.rü.L..J!.. =- 1- _' ~r~ :»ÄiW4 _ :"',1 Q ELI .A,b;:¡!,.fj WY ¡ · ¡r-~ ~ 1 . ~"'" ^ ,., ~:, ~ 36'",'''''-,''' . :"r'1- § ~ ~ft~ "'''~ _ I MiD SEE C H4 ..";~':~,. =c ~ .J '~".~ (~Š 1:1 ~ ~ :i !I~ ~¡:;:~~ !~1 1w ~ ~ ~ ::¡; : ,¡,zJU, <T ., ,,," r'(f.:;\~' -,ÿ ~ n :: '¡ /"..."~"",,, ¡¡; ......., ,~I' lit ~. ~ '¡f:i:' 11,,,j,'.' .-:r;....~ ';J.;II,U1II ill "- <Ir ~'Ot.[,: ~'Y o,-,rr ~ ;:;: !¡ DElOOSIURf W '.itLfL-J Z i ~ ;::~:~ /,T ~ ir "" ~ ';;'~p í ;j' .. -- L ........ 'ON \.IV I ~ 1...."1 II" Pl~.. '" +~,~ .;:r ~ ~¡_ ~Jt ¡it , '''.J:-; ,m,¡¡r.MWiHE Io'Y 0 ~ é DIJNFQR\) H~'a.'-' <.f § ~ ,"t·.{l"~"{-i'-~L;~ __ "~~,. .:! d _J!~.!H\JIL '" If' ~ ~ =-G:::.: ElON ìlY :,:I~ wY I ~ :;"...-~ ~~fi 'f!f,' r,; - > "'$HIO' " ' , " r'" >V R'A~~ ,.,., ~~~:~~~ [) Žl..l~~~ ~~~J ~.'FlrE iIy;r~ - ¥~IEX~R~!/f ¡;r,,-i. ,.,---,>"",",J ~~ i~~; O·~ ~~:",~[L~ ~~ ,1'_0;>1 'I~,'",''.''WI':' \-(~"II:(~ 'II If UN I,({ ~ ~1 ... ~:> GL~.'Þ. 14 '.t4I~":"J':~:'.. ~';' 'f-..~~ -\~~- .2;( "'" ( ¡hd¡>t, I j/; tl <;( il :"'PAIiK"; n Ö ð' _~ '''I _ ~WTC\'U! IIR ¡1#:~ ,,,. ,1111, .," ' .,~ \ "",BliCK " ~ " ;,'''":::: ¥% ,- ;y" '>..(- , ~ ~.. ,;§ <., [NV~JmE5S ·,~~~.:;:n :: ~ ""ir ~ ¡ ~ j;;¡,(,1.TI". " ....''''''n ~ ~ '~IJ. uoor.uLE ....: 'c<, ~ " ~I' I '"'' " I ,I'>') I, ~ '< ~!, " 7!:h '" w IT' ., ò5 ~¡:,',.':~-~' : <X 'k-;¡¡ ~~ :', ~:.::: "il_:~¡¡i;..]t-' «( "'" 0 'II '~"'I'; "/F:~:" ,~ .., "I" .:' ' -,,,,,;, ''', ,..~f ~P"'f::"-~'::~: ~ ););,.1011 ;:;¡~. .s--f f~~ .... .j' -~'Ijf.."'":t¡ '§ ('I'4'! Il, <1""'0';, _ ~ ,:m~ 1~1~11''II.;:¡ - "II'~ "'nll"""~r ~... ~ KINl't'RE., ...- E,::':: "~~I ~'·;·~~,'Jr~'"'*ì ""~I¡I i ! ~ fcU""", ",~""'* ~ i"~."'P(IM ~~/'r~!~ ~S~: ~ ÏÌ\Ff;TEADI RD'~ E HOMEJSi ¡ Dr è LOR'" ~ . ' - WI, ,;ow .. CTII ,:6 ~I' ~L iE°'"')"" I ··I"~i~ w J f.;'~ 'f2'-r'-1 ~ 'f-,' ,·"u ..~. " · ~ ~p .':-..." 'I ·1,' Lt ~ ~¡::-; ~ ~~ ~*-~ ~ l:> jjAa 1.1) gf¡f' ,. j':~:;~ PJf!J/l 11.~=¡....:=-,' ~I ";'.'-;":" ~ LI;I)~!w 0 ~I j¡ i . ... ~ I- ~m -'. -- , .;' ~,~; ~ -Jïij""'. L fl' AV ~~ - ...~...................... ~_:s ... _¡/.:or W:C;~ --...;;;:;; .'0 ,., : ~:; '~~j~ ~l:.:Ji· :"'iI ~ %rOW.l1'....íolt'lf : ~ i f;;I;7. c;~':!1~~'~~" i·~·þ,'L·-·..···"··-..- I£RI '~II-~ --?f;;:r~ ~~:!!~~·"fiil'-1U :....-- ô! t!).. ~~l'Ptl '-' ~_...ttllllr,::c, ,\.9: Dr?~ . 5\ll... ....'Y"'~ ð ~ ~ :rru ¡,"oH" ~ ::s- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ IWIRU, U1::i Õ '~~ ~!I :;: ,r..m" ,~""' ö; ,,~ . ;>;ji'i DR fOVCõT '.,....... 0 #-._ ~ ~ ~ !;ill ¡ ::i tJ:I~~ÇP<M~"f]:~i'J":~I~Tg 1 ;;~. "...,",," "";If" ~L!L'!L" ~ ~ d--~W~ It: e¡ :.;¡ 3' o:z ~ ("[.~! I ijÍ~~£9'€ <.> 2!!1 ~ t.:mlllr~~I1L ~ i 'rII£ATrAI DR or¡1¡f.I1 " ~I' f..AJtRENCE PRINCE 5TArlOft (.m . ~ SIT E ~::;;~~ ~\'^' :;~~. . ~~-- , .y ""1 (]</3'" if~ :rSl",l.'ITA f)f1J :+. ~R ~;-:~~ 1" _~- oi.I: / i ~_ i i:! ""télJIIô W v~, \ ~ ~ altlUl ,. ."! ~; / .)[1t, ~'/!j" "" " " <;< c>: V ""~ !î !~. ~ 't. ~ -~.:! c< ~J!2 r-I!I 'J~"ti ~ ' 9' oj ~¡¡w3" '-'i¡ ª. GENf'- :¡. :1 ;æ: .... .)t~; III:~~~ TRAC"'f -_JJ;'fflC!K,tDl! ~t: . ~1 .S ,r:~1 AV:V 11 iT ~t;'\~ì. ã! fGJI!i',"- <II it I ~TI IJ// ~¡ I ~·I SEE A E6 ~¡1>1' ' ,II , ID'TIflIrm~,q (I II)j!fI(l'[sr so < ~J!ã; 2IŒ!UI!::>1SQ g ~ rœnt>Ul5Q 10 II)¡ ~ 1iOI!TJrJ:~ 50 11 III?' 5hŒ'tH'C11IT1f1 .2 a ~œIICHII!£ 50 13 1I:oP.11VJ [.~ 1" SEE D AI -- 1 ~A~I::O tI! 2 VJAI'A!lI~ 3VIAJWIOLt . VIAf'ŒTOfIlQ ~ \'IA PPUI'ÐS ßVJA~iltIITO - §2 , ~,Œ ._';_'11." VAlLCO . PARK 8 me ... ~ ,o-i1(.- L- '" I ';¡'-~D'1 !~ LJ '; "'''''',¡...- ,'! . ~T ~ 3: /1 ~ 191" , ~~. n r'':.: .I,'tW» r:m ð ..4',1J <c .;r /~r;, ¡ ~""'~~"1-~ I'Z 0110 lJ! ~~~' ... , ~:!t : 1J~,z;-~~~"'r/ll. p¡¡;e~ tIP.'#: r- G '\J~ ~. I ~ Ylg~~ : OJJ 'I r~,o:' . 'ª j,_~ ,. . ~ eWERr/NO U ;¡¡:. ~ , _':'h ~"UIfI ~fj1 1tOD'!!GUES': 1'!!IŒ ~ ~ ¡ ··~I!t l...~ ~.., T.r. HS~·~.;¿!---..!'- ;.. LN .¡Ø- . '/I: rl- Hi [:k1 <, .. _ Lit ... ~ .-:- ~; '0(" 1\-#-' ~E p~.¡f¡tLI3 t· S C'/", 'V- 'f1.I{p~ . Lo E ~ AIJ ø~d1:~µ' 1 .CN 1.AS001r.A~iIYUl, CTi~ II. "''] f:J ;'Z -!.¡". >-'~ __~ ~~ ILlB 8 ?~~~l];~, LA i:: '" .,¿ jt-'~I ~ ~ ~ z £/,!'!. u.J '" çr riT .~ '" t:: u. LQ ¡ I- Q: g ~ ~ l- S!!< Œ :rr.."..··o ur, i ¡... I:; ;: ~~.t ,; CÞl..L( [[~Al!ilmu. ~i ~ t* :; ~ ~ ; c jlt~ ib \: f2 ~ ""¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ - CREEKSIDE ~¡~:.':1 IN ~ ~ ¡:: Il c ;5 :lFJCA ):! § * "1Ij. "ty",..~;},...\5"~ "~"('ijt¡;PIU'K-_~!-~;¡i ¡:UD::I_ TlI, AV.~.._..!i! CCS!L\'ERN:O 13; 5uISUN it 'I.""" ~\cjj, "'~ ~tmAAD itf ¿¡PHT~ UI 8PR1f-fA.ÇT !t fLSON ...~ ",."AV"TÞ ;~ 2~n~(I" ~j<t: ~ J1j;,~~~~~' ~~ ~:~ ÇJJ ;;...µ~ Ò ...10)" ~/PfM'\.Dr.'.r... ." ~¡ L I " !Þl'~~C ~::'a" o~ AAmn /rIj ~j/ ' ;'Jl<AArn ~ AV CT T-r.. 02001 Thomas Bros. Maps 8X1,S'EEI VICINITY MAP 19310 & 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE Cupertino, California LOWNEYASSOClATES N 1 :;: lLlì OM' · GRANA~ i ~2' ) Š $fl.-WI! «¡!!!.it!: -I .(i[[ ~ CMt:1I3~ 9'õ1;F 91..0":;11 l1fj ]:I ~r(. ~ ž!Ì',>--~ H~"j .~~[] ~Srr)Alt t~'l~ ';-J IIITTY , , , FIGURE 1 /4 - ((pC¡ o o o Hewlett Packard 19483 Pruneridge Ave. o 5B·2 EÐ Parking 5B·3 EÐ o 19320 Pruneridge Ave. o 5B·1 EÐ Capacitor ~ r'- '-, j I EÐ 5B-4 ~ GJ m < m :;: () o C JJ -< o Former UST location o i j j L. Mechanical equipment enClosure]' -, I Transformer -0 g! c"" _ ø ",g ~~ ê a. The Hamptons at Cupertino 19500 Pruneridge Ave. 5B·S 58·10 58·5 oEÐ .1; 1 D o o ~ i: ~~; , 58·6 EÐ ~' ~\': .'/'- ~ Ð' . ;', f:1 [j HIGHWAY 280 LEGEND EÐ - Approximate boring location o 7A:1!i"a SITE PLAN 19310 & 19320 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE o Cupertino, California LO\VNEYASSOCIATES ~ Environmental/Geotechnical/Engineering Services L +~ Hewlett-Packard 10SS5 Ridgeview Ct. Buildings CAC-D6 & CAC-'O NTS FIGURE 2 1047-498 IL-{ - { (p S EXHIBIT H ILUNGWORTH&RoDKJN,INC II". Acoustics· Air Quality ."11 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, California 94952 Tel: 707-766-7700 www.Illingworthrodkin.com Fax: 707-766-7790 illro@illingworthrodkin.com August 8, 2005 Eric Morley Morley Bros., LLC. 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 720 San Jose, CA 95113 VIA EMAlL: eric@morleybros.com SUBJECT: Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA- Environmental Noise Assessment, Project # 05-111 Dear Eric: This assessment presents the results of the environmental noise assessment conducted for the proposed Pruneridge Avenue residential development, known as Pruneridge Residential, in Cupertino, California. The report summarizes the results of a noise monitoring survey conducted at the project site, describes the applicable regulatory criteria, projects future noise levels, and evaluates the project is with respect to the regulatory guidelines as established by the State of California and by City of Cupertino. Recommendations are presented to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to acceptable levels. Appendix A contains background information on environmental noise and definitions of the terminology used in this report. Existing Noise Environment Pruneridge Residential is proposed for a site located west of Ridgeview Court at Pruneridge Avenue. The site is surrounded by mixed uses with offices to the east and north, residential apartInents to the west and Interstate 280 located south of the project site. The predominate noise source affecting the site is vehicular traffic along Interstate 280, which is audible throughout the site. Noise generated by traffic along Pruneridge Avenue affects the northern portion of the site. A noise monitoring survey was conducted ITom May 24 to June I, 2005 to quantify the existing noise environment at representative residential receiver locations. Two long-term (24·hour) and one short·term (IO-minute) noise measurements were made to complete the noise monitoring survey. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 1. Long-term noise measurement LT-I was located near the southeast corner of the site, approximately liS feet ITom the centerline oflnterstate 280 and twelve feet above the surrounding ground. I-280 is located about 4 feet above the site elevation and consists of four traffic lanes in each direction, with a northbound auxiliary lane. A 4 to 5 foot concrete barrier is located along the divider between northbound and southbound traffic lanes. Hourly L,q noise levels ranged ITom about 79 to 83 dBA L,q during daytime J'--f-({P(p Pruneridge Residen~a\ Environmental Noise Assessment August 8,2005 Page 2 of 9 hours and dropped to 70 dBA L,q at night. The calculated day-night average noise level was 84 dBA Ld" (See Figure 2). A second measurement, short-term ST -I, was also made at the L T -I location to quantify the ground level exposure at this location. The measurement was located at a height of 5 feet above the surrounding ground and noise levels were 3 dBA lower than those measured over the same time interval at L T -I. The calculated day-night average noise level at ST -1 was 81 dBA Ldn. An additional long-term measurement (Location L T -2) was conducted 50 feet from the centerline of Pruneridge A venue, about 1000 feet from Interstate 280, and about 12 feet above the surrounding ground. Hourly L,q noise levels ranged from about 57 to 65 dBA L,~ during daytime hours and dropped to a low of 48 dBA L,q at night. The calculated day-night average noise level was 64 dBA Ld" (See Figure 3). It is estimated that Interstate 280 traffic generates an Ld" of 57 to 58 dBA at this location and that traffic on Pruneridge Avenue generates an Ld" of 63 dBA. /Lf -fee 7 Prunerldge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment Figure 2: Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-j Noise Levels at L T-l -115 feet from the centerline of 1-280 May 25-26, 2005 "" " ., " <' '" ro '" " > " ,: · · ., ·õ z " ., ~ ~ 14:00 18;00 2200 u-&--.to:. _Acous/lcs.AJrOu./Hyør 2;00 Hour Beginning 8:00 10:00 Figure 3: Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2 Noise Levels at LT-2 -SO feet from the Centerline of Pruneridge Avenue May 26-27, 2005 "" " ., " <' '" ro '" ! " ~ .~ ., · z " ., ~ 1700 '00 Q:OO 11:00 13:00 19:00 21:00 23:00 1:00 3:00 7:00 u-&--.to:. _AcouJllc$.MrOu.ll/yllll Hour Beginning August 8, 2005 Page 3 of 9 . Coo -o-L(1) -+-L(10) -e-l(50) ----L(IiIO) Ldn- 84 dBA . '" -+-L(1) __L(10) -B-l(50) ----L(90) Lda" 64 dBA ì'f-/0ó Pruneridge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment Applicable Regulatory Criteria California Building Code August 8, 2005 Page4of9 Envirorunental noise intrusion into new multi-family housing is regulated by Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208;Sound Transmission Control in the 1998 Califomia Building Code. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA DNL in any habitable room. Multi-family residential proposed in noise environments exceeding 60 dBA DNL require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior level. City of Cupertino General Plan, Public Safety and Health The Public Health and Safety Element of the City of Cupertino's General Plan sets forth policies in support of the City's goal to, "ensure a compatible noise environment for all existing and future land uses." The Land Use Compatibility Chart (Figure 6-L, shown below) specifies that exterior noise levels in multifamily residential areas of up to 65 dBA Ld.. would be considered "normally acceptable," noise levels ranging from 60 to 70 dBA L... would be considered "conditionally acceptable," noise levels ranging from 70 to 75 dBA L"" would be considered "normally unacceptable," and noise levels of75 dBA L... or higher would be considered "clearly unacceptable." lJlnd USi!"Category Community NoiH Exposure (Ldn or CNEl, dB) 55 '0 6; '" 75 .0 ~sidenti31-lctw Deoslty I J (SinQl~¡:amìly, Dupiex.. M:>bi~ Hom.¡s) I I ~,' I Residential-Multi Family I Transl,..nt Lodging I (MotQo!s,. l-IotQls) I Schools,. Ubrarles. Churcl',Qs, I Hospitals,. Nursing Hom~ I Auditorlums.Col'ICelt Halls. I I AmphithQatQfS Sports A.r~a, Outdoor SpQCtatorSports Playgrounds, ø'.'.~·,'''':' .,.,,,,,~, Nelghborhocd Parks I Golf Courses. Riding Stables. ~ Wat~ RIÖ<r..atlon, C,..m,..tQ{jfloS Offic," Buildings, CommQ-rcial I and Professional Centers Industrial, Manufacturinç!, UtllltlQs, Agrkult\lre Sot'n-~: 5T...n- '''>F CM_I ~u~,....·s í ;<f'''''~ù rL,¡ (;I..-,kl"I<'>, 'VQo.'( Figure 6·L: Land L,'Sl' Corn 1uribiJiry for Communif:-' Noisl' EtU"ÎTOJU1ll'nl~. I!i!i!!i!i!I Noon..Uy AcceplJlbk Spi<:iliid I~nd lI$. 15 utisf"ctory, b.asoH! upon the assumption thai any bulldl~s Inv>,lwd at@ofnormal cor",@ntie>nal o:>n$t'\Ktion. without u,y spotdal noisot insul,a1ion r4quirlinMnlS c:::::J C~ditton.;a lyAccepl..bM N4w !;ORsùuctlon Of d9w1opment should b... undtl1ak.n only an.u a deuilo!d anaI)'51 s ofth@noiM r@duaion r9ql11r@m@nts is ~..nd netdltd noise r9ductionM.lturesindudoRdlnthli' deign. Conventional construction. but ""'¡Ih ck-»d windows and fresh air 5UPply s)'$totms or air conditioning will ßoQlm.;a/lysuflcff, 1;I<·':';·"";.q~'1 Nonn..1ty UßI (C.-pt.llbM ~ consÞuc-tíon or dewlopment should 9IQnttaØy b. diSOOUt~.d.lf new construction Of d9V1t'lopmotnt dOlis prÖ<oflid, ~ d.¡.Þ¡led ~na ysis of th. noise rtduction ...q ulfemofnts mutt b, fmld9 ~nd n'i'id9d nci,. In$ulatk>n f.~tul.s indudotdin IhotdotsiQn. - C.....,1y Un..:ctpl..bl. N...... construction Of dotwlopment shou Id 9@n.lallynol be uod@rt~ un. ~ Policv 6-36: Sound Wall Reauirements: Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other measures of noise control have been explored and that the sound wall blends with the neighborhood. Sound walls should be landscaped. 14 -((p9 Pruneridge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment August 8, 2005 Page 5 of9 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Assessment Exterior Noise Environment The future noise environment throughout the majority of the site would continue to result pritnarily from traffic noise generated along Interstate 280. Based on the site and building plans, I residential units proposed on the site would include private outdoor deck areas. Future build-out traffic volumes along roadways in the project vicinity were not available. A credible "worst-case" assessment of future noise levels would assume that traffic would increase by about I to 2 percent per year for the next 10 to 15 years. Assuming this increase, future noise levels would increase by approximately I dBA and decks facing and adjacent to Interstate 280 would be exposed to noise levels of up to 82 dBA Ld. in unshielded areas adjacent to the roadway. The majority of the deck areas are located further from Interstate 280 and partially shielded by the project structures. Partial shielding would typically provide 3 to 5 dBA of noise reduction. Noise levels at deck areas in the southern portion of the site would be considered "clearly unacceptable" and could not feasibly be reduced to meet "normally acceptable" levels without fully enclosing the deck areas. Decks located further from the freeway or shielded by project building would experience lower noise levels, although noise levels at decks throughout the majority of the site would exceed 65 dBA Ldn. All residents would have access to the park is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. The priDlary noise source at the park would be traffic along Proneridge Avenue due to the acoustical shielding from Interstate 280 traffic noise provided hy project buildings. Assuming a l-dBA increase, future noise levels would range from 60 to 65 dBA Ld. at the park, generated primarily from traffic along Proneridge Avenue. Noise levels throughout the park would meet the normally acceptable compatibility criteria for both multi-family (65 dBA Ld.) and neighborhood park (70 dBA Ldn) land uses. Interior Noise Environment Interior average noise levels in new residential development must be maintained at or below 45 dBA Ldn per the noise standard established by the State Building Code for multi-family housing. Interior noise levels within residential units with the windows partially open would be approximately 15 decibels lower than exterior noise levels assuming typical California construction methods. Interior noise levels are approximately 25 decibels lower than exterior noise levels with the windows closed. Where exterior day- night average noise levels are less than 70 dBA Ldm interior noise levels can typically be maintained below State standards with the incorporation of an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in the residential unit to allow residents the option of controlling noise by maintaining the windows closed. The nearest proposed residential facades facing Interstate 280 would be located approximately 100 feet from the site property line and about 215 feet from the centerline of the interstate. Assuming a l-dBA increase in the future traffic noise generated along Interstate 280, unshielded portions of these façades would be exposed to noise levels of about 79 dBA Ldn at ground level and about 82 dBA Ld. at upper levels. In these units, interior noise levels would be approximately 54 to 57 dBA Ldn with windows kept closed assuming typical California construction methods. Attaining the necessary noise reduction (approximately 37 dBA) from exterior to interior spaces is achievable with proper wall construction techniques, the selection of windows and doors with high STC ratings, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems. Specific noise control treatments cannot be determined until final building plans, project site plans and grading plans are developed for residential areas proposed on the site. Preliminary calculations show that I Pruneridge Residential, Charles W. Davidson Engineers, August 4, 2005 and KTGY Group, July 26, 2005. Ii.-( -(70 Pruneridge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment August 8. 2005 Page 6 of 9 predicted interior noise levels generated by traffic along Interstate 280 would be reduced below 45 dBA Ldn inside these homes with windows and doors in the closed position and either (a) standard stucco· sided wall construction and windows doors with STC ratings of 43 to 45, or (b) stucco-sided wall construction reinforced with resilient channels or built with staggered stud construction methods and windows and doors with STC ratings of 38 to 40. Stone façade has acoustical properties similar to that of stucco. Wood siding with resilient channels is also similar acoustically to standard stucco construction. Standard wood siding Would require much higher STC ratings to achieve sufficient noise reduction and the 45 dBA Ldn standard may not be feasible with the use of standard wood siding. When windows are required to be closed to control noise, the project must include a forced-air mechanical ventilation system, satisfactory to the local building official, to provide a habitable interior environment. Traffic noise levels typically drop off at a rate of about 3 dB per doubling of distance over hard surfaces such as paved parking areas. In addition, a row of three story townhomes would provide at least 10 dB of noise reduction in areas well shielded from the roadway by the structure. Units located further from the interstate and/or shielded from roadway noise by project structures would experience lower noise levels and require lower STC rated construction methods. Sound rated construction would be required throughout the southern portion of the site and the incorporation of adequate forced air mechanical ventilation systems would be necessary in all units to meet the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard. . . . . This concludes the environmental noise assessment for the Pruneridge Avenue Townhomes. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, ~'00~ Dana Lodico CN = Dana Lodico. C = US. 0 :::: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc 2005.08.10 16:06:40 -07'00' Dana M. Lodico Staff Consultant ILLINGWORTH & RODKlN, INC. JLf-/7( Pruneridge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment August 8. 2005 Page7of9 Appendix A: Fundamentals of Environmental Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical tenns are defined in Table I. Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist ofa single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical A- weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 2 for different types of noise. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, Lo\, LIO, Lso, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during I %, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the L"I is also widely used. The L,q is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time. In detennining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM tq 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. /'-f - {7 d.-. Pruneridge Residential Environmental Noise Assessment August 8. 2005 Page8of9 Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio ofthe pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A·Weighted The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level Sound Level, meter using the A·weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter dBA de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the nequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. LoI. LIO. Lso. L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%,50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise The average A·weighted noise level during the measurement Level, L", period. Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained Equivalent Level, after addition of 5 decibels in the evening nom 7:00 pm to 10:00 CNEL pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained Level, DNL after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Lmax,Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Ambient Noise The composite of noise nom all sources near and far. The nOrDlal Level or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, nequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or infonnational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Definitions of Acoustical Terms Table 1 ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. Acoustics / Air Quality (4 -(73 Pruneridge Residen\ia\ Environmental Noise Assessment Àugusl II, 2005 Page 9 of9 A-Weighted At a Given Distance Sound Level Suhjective From Noise Source in Decibels Noise Environments Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100') 130 Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Pile Driver (50') 100 Very Loud Ambulance Siren (100') 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal Running Freeway (100') 70 Moderately Loud Vacuum Cleaner (10') 60 Data Processing Center Department Store Light Traffic (100') 50 Private Business Office Large Transfonner (200') 40 Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Indnstry ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. Acoustics! Air Quality Table 2 !t..f-(74 EXHIBIT I ILUNGWORTH&RoDKIN,1M II". Acoustics· Air Quality ."/1 505 Petalurna Boulevard South Petalurna, California 94952 Tel: 707-766-7700 www.Il/ingworthrodkin.com Fax: 707-766-7790 illro@illingworthrodkin.com MEMO Date: September 21, 2005 To: Eric Morley, Morley Bros., LLC From: Dana Lodico, Rich Illingworth Subject: Response to Noise Comments, Pruneridge Avenue Residential This memo is in response to comments from the Cupertino Planning Department dated September 15,2005 and from the Environmental Review Committee Hearing held on September 14,2005 concerning the Pruneridge Avenue Environmental ~oise Assessment. In accordance with our acoustical analysis, the common outdoor use area, which would be shielded from freeway noise by project structures, would meet the normally acceptable criteria for exterior noise exposure at multi-family (65 dBA Ldn) land uses without additional noise reduction measures. Portions of the site that are located closer to Hwy. 280 would experience higher noise levels. Ground level private patios/decks adjacent to Hwy. 280 would be exposed to noise levels of up to approximately 79 dBA Ldn and upper level decks would be exposed to noise levels of up to 82 dBA Ldn. While, noise levels at patios/decks located adjacent to I-280 could not be reasonably mitigated to meet the 65 dBA Ldn criteria, noise levels could be reduced to 75 dBA Ldn as specified in the Planning Department Comments and recommended by the City of Cupertino Environmental Review Committee at ground level patios/decks with a sound wall located along the property line. We recommend that the final sound wall design and height be assessed during the construction stages of the project, once final site and construction documents and building plans are developed. Due to the topographical features of the site (Hwy. 280 is located at 0 feet and up to 2 feet above the site grade), a sound barrier of up to approximately 11- \3 feet would be required to reduce ground level noise levels to 75 dBA Ldn or less in areas adjacent to the freeway. The noise barrier would not noticeably affect noise levels at upper level decks located adjacent to Hwy. 280. Upper level patio/deck areas adjacent to Hwy 280 (as shown on the Figure I) would achieve 65 dBA Ldn through use of solid materials and/or deck enclosures, such as sun rooms or other features. Specific design and materials are recommended at the building and construction phase. Patios/decks located in the southern portion of the site would meet the normally acceptable (65 dBA Ldn) criteria without additional noise reduction measures. I L( -11<) Interior noise levels in all proposed residences could be reduced to meet the interior 45 dBA Loo standard with high sound rated construction techniques and forced-air mechanical ventilation, as discussed in the Environmental Noise Assessment. Figure 1: Deck Enclosure Recommendations to Meet 65 dBA Ldn Solid Deck Materials and/or Enclosures --------------+"!-' ----+-- ¡Lf-n0 EXHIBIT J Draft Report Transportation Impact Analysis for the Pruneridge Residential Development Prepared for: City of Cupertino Prepared by: Fehr & Peers August, 200S SJOS-793 IY-l7t TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 5 Roadway Network......................................................................................................................... ....................... 5 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...........................................................................................................5 Existing Transit Service. ..... ............... ..................... ...... .......................... ............ .................................. ............... 6 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations..................................................................................... 6 Level of Service Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6 Existing Intersection Levels of Service..............................................................................................................10 Field Observations.......... ...... ................ ...... ............. ..................... ...... ..... ..................... .............. ...... ................. 11 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................12 Background Roadway Improvements ...............................................................................................................12 Background Traffic Estimates...................................................................................................................... ...... 12 Background Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................................................13 4. PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 15 Project Traffic Estimates. ..... ....... .... ...... ....... ..... ... ...... ...... .... ..... .... ............. ...... .......... ..... ......... ..... .... ......... ........ 15 Project Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................................................17 I ntersection Impact Criteria....................................................................................................................... ......... 22 Intersection Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................... 23 Site Access and On-Site Circulation.................................................................................................................. 23 Parking........................................................................................................................... .................................... 23 5. EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 24 Expected Growth Traffic Estimates ................................................................................................................... 24 Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service...............................................................................................24 6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 27 APPENDICES Appendix A: Intersection Turning Movement Counts Appendix B: Level of Service Calculations Appendix C: Approved Developments 14 -( 79 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 8A Figure 9 Figure 10 LIST OF FIGURES Site Location...............,...............................................................................·....·...·.·..·.···.··· ................... 3 Proposed Site Plan... ....... ......... ................ .... .... ........ ..... .... ....... ..... ............. .... ..... .... ...... ....... .......... ......4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.......................................................................................... ...............7 Transit Facilities.......... ........ ......... ....... ......... ...... ............ ........................ .......... .......... ..... ............... ...... 8 Existing Peak-Hour Volume ......... .............. ........................................................................................9 Background Peak-Hour Volumes... ....... ......... ...... ... .......... ..... ...... ..... ....... ........... .... ..... ............... ....... 14 Project Trip Distribution ...... ...... ......... .......... .................. ...... ...... ..... ...... .................... ...... ..... ......... ...... 18 Residential Project Trip Assignment ..................................................................................................19 Net New Project Trip Assignment ......................................................................................................20 Project Peak·Hour Volumes ...... ......... ...... ........ .......... .... ..... ....... ................ .... ...... .... ...... ............... .....21 Expected Growth Peak-Hour Volumes. ..... ..., ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ....... ..... ...... .... .................... .......25 /4-( 8'0 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 LIST OF TABLES Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions_Using Average Control Vehicular Delay.......... 10 Existing Intersection Levels of Service..............................................................................................11 Existing Office Trip Generation Rates and Estimates....................................................................... 12 Background Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................................13 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates................................................................................... 16 Background and Project Intersection Levels of Service.................................................................... 22 Expected Growth Inte<section Levels of Service............................................................................... 26 l'-i -{ tl Prunelldge Avenue Residential A~~t2005 . . . ~ 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Pruneridge residential project. The proposed project includes construction of 139 townhomes and removal of 128,500 s.f. of vacant office building. The project site is located at 19320 Pruneridge Avenue in Cupertino, California. The purpose of the analysis is to identify potential transportation impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system, and recommend appropriate improvements to mitigate these significant impacts. A map of the project site location is presented in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the conceptual pian of the proposed project with access to the site from Pruneridge Avenue. Existing and future conditions were evaiuated with level of service caiculations for the key intersections near the project site. Project impacts were estimated following the guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The analysis evaluated the operations of the following key intersections: 1. Wolfe Road/Homestead Road 2. Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue 3. Prune ridge Avenue/HP Driveway 4. Pruneridge AvenuefTantau Avenue 5. Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps 6. Wolfe Road/I-280 Southbound Ramps The operations of the study intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods. Each intersection was evaiuated for the following four scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions - Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one·hour conditions during the morning and evening commute peak traffic periods. Background Conditions - Existing volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments near the project site. This scenario assumes full occupancy of the vacant building on the site. Project Conditions - Background plus project trips from the proposed residential development. Expected Growth Conditions - Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date of the project (Summer 2008). plus traffic from approved and pending projects plus the proposed project trips. The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. The existing transportation system serving the site and the current operating conditions of the key intersections are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 evaluates traffic operations under Background Conditions for approved but not yet constructed iocal developments and occupancy of the office on the project site. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadways by the proposed project and its impacts on the transportation system under Project Conditions. This chapter aiso includes a discussion of site access, on·site circulation, and parking. The Expected Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: fþ 1 FEHIt & PHRS 11'.I'UU'H ~ ~Jin"tl...t! fLj-/?a-- Prunendge Avenue Residential A~l~t20~ ... ... ..... .. ~ Growth Conditions is described in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the study results and conclusions. fþ FEHIt & PETRS n...",.~..M!<i" ,fiil.lU\1~"U 2 1L.{-{?3 LEGEND . - Study Intersection [22] Project Location @ N NOT TO SCALE SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1 ~I ~ <U " U " " . 5 Homestead Rd ~I <! 11 Ave, ;:¡ .)' o :;: Blvd Stevens Creek lol\Grophics\figQl_sih,-locotion.ct",g VatlcQ_ff' ;:¡ .)' ~I PEE RS CONSULTANTS Ave Reside " :t > " " . ,¡j FEHR & TaANSPORTATION Aug 25. 2005 MJC N:\Projects\SJ05-793 Pruneridge - -t. ...l <>q ~ U f :1 ! II I :II , it 'I if " ,I " : / 'I ! I 1/ ;?¡ IÎ ¡¡ /1 1/ 1/ ?j, II ~~ ¡t·· t . . ;\ \\ , . \ ;\ . , \ \\ SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 /. /! ,/ ~I'--"'- lif f"'i:"''''')]'/:J.~ --II : ~p U ,/ y- II ,.,~ ,~-, " ~, t ,_( ( r" .. -;'t G/L¡lj_ ---,,--.,g :1 ,.¡ "I j' 1.,.J ",", # -~--.. I ~ j "'···hi , --~-_L :-1, 'f I ~~~~~~ :8 I' -._~~-J t:¡ I : : U I :t¡! ¡ ,,\.~ "LJífJ.' t" ~~'-=:--'i:.,~ fir '5 !Ii ~."--- --~ ""'---'- I' a¡ ~ ,~ . ,t"« ..... - ~ I/l! ~ï ¡ " I t ii! . f Q ¡ " /: ¡ , . :; f µ....,....' .....r:::..'t""1 .-------- : J' ,>.' . ~\ ! 1, I: '\~ \ í ' I , II, ' I, \ \1 \ \\ I' I; ~ r~"r ... ~~ 00 W:., k ú cl ..>-~. caURT_ ,.JID'-201......_. R!OGEVlEW r- \J >- ~ ... IJ' o ~ '" ~ I:' " FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Aug25,20051,4JC N:\P'Djeds\SJ05-79J Proner;dge Ave Residential\GrDphics\f;g02_.ite_plon.dw :t -t "'<) '-1\ Pnmendge Avenue Residential A~~t2005...... .. .. ~ 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes the existing conditions of the roadway facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit service, traffic volumes, and intersection operations. This chapter also includes a discussion of the methodology used to calculate intersection levels of service and the corresponding results. ROADWAY NETWORK The project site location and the surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Regional access is provided by Interstate-280 (1-280). Lawrence Expressway. Wolfe Road, and Homestead Road. Locai access is provided by Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau Avenue. Descriptions of these roadways are provided below. 1-280 is a north-south, eight-lane freeway with one lane in each direction designated as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes. also known as diamond lanes or carpooi lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons or motorcycles between 5:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. HOVs include carpoois, vanpools, and buses. It extends from San Francisco, in the north, to San Jose, in the south. In the vicinity of the site, 1-280 runs in a northwest to southeast direction and is located south of the site. Regional access from 1·280 to the project site is provided via its interchange with Wolfe Road. Ramp metering is utilized on both northbound and southbound on-ramps during peak periods. Lawrence Expressway is a limited-access facility operated by Santa Clara County. It is a six-lane facility south of 1-280. North of 1-280, Lawrence Expressway is primarily an eight-lane facility with the right lane in each direction restricted to HOVs only during the commute hours. Access to Lawrence Expressway from the site is provided by Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane. east-west divided arterial located south of the project site. It extends from the western boundary of Cupertino into San Jose to the east. Stevens Creek Boulevard is primarily fronted by commercial land uses, including retail, restaurant, and office uses in the vicinity of the site. Wolfe Road is a four-to-six-Iane, north-south arterial located west of the project site. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, this street is known as Miller Avenue. Homestead Road is a four·lane, east-west arterial north of the project site. It extends east from Cupertino into Santa Clara. Pruneridge Avenue is a four-lane, east-west arterial forms the northern boundary of the project site. Pruneridge Avenue extends east from Wolfe Road to San Jose. Tantau Avenue is a four-lane, north-south roadway located east of the project site. Tantau Avenue extends from Homestead Road to Bollinger Road. Through movements across Stevens Creek Boulevard are restricted by medians. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides on Wolfe Road. Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. All of the signalized intersections in the area are equipped with pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths. bike lanes. and bike routes. Bike paths are paved pathways for use by bicycles that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with tp 5 FF.HR & PEERS !U",.~..U¡U çÙlou...n 14- -( rh Prunendge Avenue ResIdentIal A~t20œ.. . . ..... -- special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are designated with signs only. Bike lanes are provided on Wolfe Road, Tantau Avenue, and Pruneridge Avenue near the site. Miller Avenue and Pruneridge east of Tantau Avenue are designated as bike routes. Existing bicycie faciiities are shown on Figure 3. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Figure 4 shows the existing transit faciiities near the project site. Route 25 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and Sunnyvale. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 11 :00 pm with 20- to 50-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided on 30- to 50-minute headways between 7:00 am and 9:30 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. Route 35 is a local bus route that provides commute service between East San Jose and Vallco Fashion Park. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 9:00 am and from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm with 50-minute headways. This route does not provide service to the study area on weekends. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway. and Pruneridge Avenue near the site. Route 51 is a local bus route between Vallco Fashion Park and Mountain View. The hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 7:00 pm with 30- to 50-minute headways. Saturday operations are provided on 50-minute headways between 9:00 am and 7:00 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway. and Homestead Road near the site. Route 81 is a local bus route between East San Jose and Vailco Fashion Park. The. hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11 :00 pm on weekdays with 30- to 50-minute headways. This route operates on 50-minute headways between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 81 operates on Woife Road, Pruneridge Avenue. and Tantau Avenue near the project site. EXISTING INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak- peak-hour conditions. The AM and PM peak periods occur from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one-hour volume counted during each period. Traffic counts at all but one of the study intersections were obtained from previous traffic studies. New traffic counts were conducted at the Pruneridge Avenue and HP driveway intersection during the AM and PM peak periods in August 2005 (see Appendix A). Figure 5 presents the existing AM and PM peak·hour turning movement volumes at the six study intersections. Existing intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices are presented in Figure 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions. to LOS F. or the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents "at·capacity· operations. When voiumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. 5 fþ FEIR & PFERS 'h~"~I'~t¡~. a"UlU'''\ (4 -{f7 Bike Lane Bike Route LEGEND -- LZZJ Project Location Homestead R.d . I I I .; > "", 0, " ~ c " >- ;;¡ J' ~ ---- ~ "" o 2 c " >- @ N NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BIKE ROUTES FIGURE 3 Residentiol\Grophics\fiqOJ_bikeroules,dwq FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Äuq 25. 2005 MJC N:\Projects\SJ05-793 Prune ridge A.JI ~ I - ~ ~ LEGEND 0 local Bus Route IZZJ Project Location ... -= EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES FIGURE 4 oj ~I .:J o . >-- oj > <{ o .:J o '" @ N NOT TO SCALE FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Aug 25. 2005 MJC N,\Projecls\SJ05-79J Pru"eridge Ave Residentiol\Gropt¡ics\fig04_tronsit.dOlg ~ -t. -t =<;J ~ ¡g ¡¡;- 0;_ q:-~oo ·M ~~O __="0 ~-~ ~IO~ ~¡:::~ -L 71 (98) -~~ L85 (135) ~mm ....."!...... -¡¡¡~ -- 352 (577) -¡Ill --21(61) " 189 (385) "'58 (707) f<M>..lMdfld. illlr Prunond¡¡o.... illlr 153 r03¡-" 28 f25) -3 519 521 =:. ~~ 38 20¡ T i~8 258 260 , ~~ 77 (163 NMN N~~ ;;¿;; ~WM ~~~ ....."'.M ~w ~. , HP Dwy /Prunendge Ave 4 Tantau Ave IPrunendge Ave W _ -"'- ~MO m~~ ~_m -L84(19) ~-- -L 71 f86) -m~ -vN ~ ~ww ~Nm --128 (351: ~N~ - 98 405) -il- ,2(2) -il- ,123(81) -~ -1, -~.- 218 (18\-3 189 (1-3 it- 329 (208 --- 481j13 -- 37(9T ~ô 21 (48 T :!~~ N-_ -N- ~N~ v W - ~~¡g I ..- 6 Wolfe Rd 1-280 5B Ramps ~ "' '" ". ~ Iii q 8= 858 (852) II r 374(810) 1111 - ---¡:¡'¡¡¡-NBfIIrnpo 1-211)58_ II 831 (314) cd¡ It ¡¡¡ 312 (271) =¡¡ ¡¡;- "" ~ N N ~ W ~ .: "! PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS· EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 5 LEGEND -3 . Turn Lane XX(YY) - AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes [ZZ] . Project Location 0 Study Intersection ~ - Traffic Signal ti gl -<, ~I c . f- u > -< o 11 c '" PEE RS CONSULTANTS Ave Residentiol\Graphics\fig05_phlv_ex_con.dwg ~ J! Q S ~ .!! ~ FEHR & TRANSPORTATION Aug 25. 2005 MJC N:\Projects\SJ05-79J PllJnerid<]8 N NOT TO SCALE @ ~ 1 -....... -.D () Prunendge Avenue ResldentJal August 2005 --- The level of service methodology approved by the City of Cupertino and the VTA analyzes a signalized intersection's operation based on average control vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 20S. Transportation Research Board) with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY Average Control Delay per Vehicle Level of Service Description (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable s 10.0 progression andlor short cycle lengths. B+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 12.0 B short cycle lensths. 12.1 to 18.0 B- 18.1 to 20.0 C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 23.0 C andlor longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 23.1 to 32.0 C· appear. 32.1 to 35.0 D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of 35.1 to 3S.0 D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. 3S.1 to 51.0 D- Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. ",.~O - E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, 55.1 to 60.0 E long cycle lengths, and high VIC ratios. Individual cycle failures 60.1 to 75.0 E- are frequent occurrences. 75.1 to 80.0 . F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring > 80.0 due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Traffic level of Service Analysis Guidelines: June 2003, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for all of the signalized study intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D. The same operations methodology is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The level of service standard for CMP-designated intersections is LOS E. However. in Cupertino, the City·s thresholds are used to identify intersection impacts. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing intersection lane configurations and peak·hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the levels of service for the key intersections during each peak hour. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing fþ FrH~&PrrRS 'U~I""'M¡O. <uI""un 10 /LI-/9 { Prunendge Avenue Residential August 2005 .. Conditions are presented in Table 2. The corresponding calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Count Date Control Delay LOS 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM 07/03 Signal 34.8 C· PM 07/03 34.8 C· 2. Wolfe Road I Prune ridge Avenue AM 07/03 Signal 23.4 C PM 07/03 38.2 D+ 3. Prune ridge Avenue I HP Driveway AM 08/05 Signal 18.8 B- PM 0- 18.5 B- 4. Pruneridge Avenue I Tantau Avenue AM 01/00 Signal 25.8 C PM 01/00 24.4 C 5. Wolfe Road 11-280 Northbound ramps' AM 10/02 Signal 15.6 B PM 09/04 14.6 B 6. Wolfe Road /1-280 Southbound ramps' AM 10/02 Signal 13.1 B PM 09/04 8.1 A Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 V'v'hole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehide for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Designated CMP intersection. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations of the study intersections were conducted during the morning and evening peak hours in August 2005. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak hour period. No significant congestion was noted on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, or Tantau Avenue. During the AM and PM peak hours, the general travel pattern on Wolfe Road is to and from 1-280. Travel along Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau Avenue was light compared to Wolfe Road. Vehicles typically cleared in one cycle length and queues did not block through traffic at the signalized study intersections. fì> 11 Ff.HR & PEERS IU~I'OI'~':~ft ;hIUl1'~'1 14-f9d- Prunendge Avenue Res/denl1af August 2005 -- 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter· discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development and serve as the basis to identify project impacts. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area and occupancy of the existing office buildings on the proposed project site. The results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions are presented in this chapter. BACKGROUND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Prior to project completion. no future roadway improvements are planned at any of the study intersections. Therefore, existing intersection lane configurations were used for the Background Conditions analysis. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the study area. The list of approved projects, presented in Appendix C, was developed with input from City of Cupertino planning staff and Cities of Santa Ciara and Sunnyvale. Traffic from the approved developments was obtained from traffic impact reports or estimated with ITE trip generation rates and standard engineering practice. The trips associated with each development were then assigned to the roadway network based on the relative locations of complementary land uses and existing and estimated future travel patterns. Background Conditions also includes full occupancy of the vacant office buildings located on the project site. Traffic from this use was included since the building could be occupied at any time by an appropriate tenant without substantial city review. The traffic generated by the existing office buildings was estimated using rates published in Trip Generation (7th edition) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The existing uses consist of approximately 128,500 square feet of office space. If the existing buildings were re-occupied, they would generate approximately 229 AM peak-hour trips (202 inbound and 27 outbound) and 223 PM peak-hour trips (38 inbound and 185 outbound). The generation estimates for the office uses are presented in Table 3. TABLE 3 EXiSTING OFFICE TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Daily in Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Office1 12.59 1.57 0.21 1.78 0.30 1.44 1.74 Trip Estimates Existing Office (128.5 ksf) 1,618 202 27 229 38 18S 223 Notes: 1 Trip rates are expressed as trips per dwelling unit (d.u.) or per 1 ,000 square feet (ksf). Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. fþ FHIR & PHRS U.¡~"~"~I;~.· 11i,.,U\to." 12 /4-/93 Prunendge Avenue Res/denlml August 2005 -- The trip distribution pattern for the existing office uses was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. The trip distribution pattern is illustrated on Figure 8. This figure shows the percentage of trips entering and exiting the study area on each major roadway. In general, trips were distributed aiong regional roadways (Wolfe Road and 1-280) and to residential areas in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. The peak-hour trips generated by the existing uses were assigned to the roadway system based on the information presented on Figure 8. These trips pius traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments were added to existing traffic volumes to obtained background traffic volumes. Figure 6 illustrates the traffic volumes at the study intersections under Background Conditions. BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE intersection levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating levels of the study intersections under Background Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for the key intersections are presented in Table 4. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour under Background Conditions. The remaining intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. TABLE 4 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Intersection Intersection Hour Control Delay LOS 1. Wolfe Road I Homestead Road AM Signal 36.4 D+ PM 41.6 D 2. Wolfe Road I Pruneridge Avenue AM Signal 25.2 C PM 57.1 E+ 3. Pruneridge Avenue I HP Driveway AM Signal 19.4 B- PM 19.8 B- 4. Pruneridge Avenue I Tantau Avenue AM Signal 27.1 C PM 25.4 C 5. Wolfe Road /1·280 Northbound ramps' AM Signal 22.3 C+ PM 43.5 D 6. Wolfe Road /1-280 Southbound ramps' AM Signal 14.5 B PM 10.1 B+ Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 VVhole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFJX level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Designated CMP intersection. 13 fì> FEIIR & PFfRS u..\.U~~'lq. .ø..uuuu Ii{ -r9t{ ~ ¡;¡ 0 ~::-m v~ §;;=.. ~£i~ N _ :::~:: M-- -L 100 (139) -vM L91 (160) m__ ...-v_v 11¡~ r;== 376 (653) --¡Ill ---21(61) ,'90 (468) r¡= 176 (638) lIDm_odlld ilHr _dgoAwo iltlr 157 rO~ ~ 26 (25) ~ 567 571 =:: m~N 36 (201 T æ~C;; 285 350 , ;\_N 77 (163 ~(')_.!2. ~~£o!. ;t~ NSo- "'N- _:;¡M M~ V. '" . HP Dwy /Prunendge Ave 4 Tantau Ave /Prunendge Ave 8 ¡;::-¡::c;) v ~ ~-~ __m -L64 (19) --- -L 74 (91) :::~t:. ;;¡ß&; _Nm -------135 (374) mN_ --107(411) -jl.- í59(13) -jl.- í 124 (67) P......ridgolwo -1, -- ,I-- 218(16¡~ 1851'201 ~ 347 {218 -- 487 146 -- 182 (36 T _MN 221 (76 T ~~H:J w-'" _N- ~ - V M _ ~m~ N U')~OI IiIi - 6 Wolfe Rd;1 280 5B Ramps iß g N N ,;: ,;: 0 ~ M 0 * 909 (662) "- "! II r 434 (847) 1111 - -¡:z¡¡¡¡;¡~..... .28O)SB~ It 861 (320) dJ II ¡ 365 (490) ~ fO' ~ '"- ~- ~ ~ "1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS· BACKGROUND CONDITIONS FIGURE 6 LEGEND ~ - Turn Lane XX(YY) - AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes [ZZ] - Project Location 0 Study Intersection ~ - Traffic Signal ~I ~I c ~ .; > <: o " ~ c ~ FEHR & TRANSPORTATION /lug 25, 2005 wc N;\Projeds\SJ05-79J Residentiol\Gr<,phiCS\lig06_pht"_bockground.dwo;¡ PEE RS ONSUlTANTS ;;j u' ~I ;;¡ J' Q " ,.. Pcuner;dq @ N NOT TO SCALE ----- f ......... ~ ~ Prunendge Avenue Residential August 2005 - 4. PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed residential development on the surrounding roadway system are discussed in this chapter. First. the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. Then, the results of the level of service caiculations for Project Conditions are presented. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. A comparison of the intersection operating levels under Background and Project Conditions are presented, and the impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed. Site access, on-site circulation. parking, and neighborhood traffic are also addressed. PROJECT TRAFFIC ESTIMATES The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by a proposed development project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution. and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of added traffic to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements during the third step. The results of the process for the proposed Pruneridge residential project are described in the following sections. Trip Generation The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed 139 townhomes was estimated by applying appropriate for the AM and PM peak hours trip generation rates published in Trip Generation (7th Edition) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) The peak-hour trip generation rates and trip estimates are presented in Table 5. By itself, the proposed townhome project is estimated to generate 849 daily trips. 67 AM peak-hour trips (11 inbound and 56 outbound) and 79 PM peak-hour trips (53 inbound and 26 outbound). The net change in trips for daily and each peak-hour period was calculated by subtracting the trips generated from the existing buildings from the trips generated by the proposed residential development. The existing buildings will be demolished prior to construction of the residential development. The existing uses consist of approximately 128.500 square feet of office. The existing uses are estimated to generate 229 AM peak-hour trips (202 inbound and 27 outbound) and 223 PM peak-hour trips (38 inbound and 185 outbound) as shown in Table 4. Therefore. the amount of net-added traffic is estimated to be a net decrease of 769 daily trips, a net decrease of 162 AM peak-hour trips (191 fewer inbound/29 added outbound) and a net decrease of 144 PM peak-hour trips (15 added inbound/159 fewer outbound). The number of net new trips is presented in Table 5. fþ FH'R & PH"S "',,,"o".lr~1i ::~"~V'''''U 15 (Lf-( '1(P Prllnendge Avenue Resldenltal August 2005 -- TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTiMATES AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Daily in Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates 1 Existing Office 12.59 1.57 0.21 1.78 0.30 1.44 1.74 Proposed Townhomes 6.11 0.08 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.19 0.S7 Trip Estimates Existing Office (128.5 ksD 1.618 202 27 229 38 185 223 Proposed Townhomes (139 d.u.) 849 11 56 67 53 26 79 Net New Trips (Proposed - Existing) -769 -191 29 -162 1S -159 -144 Notes: 1 Trip rates are expressed as trips per dwelling unit (d.u.) or per 1 ,000 square feet (ksf). Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. Trip Distribution The directions of approach and departure for the project traffic were estimated based on the existing travel patterns in the area and the relative locations of employment centers. In addition, information provided in the Census Transportation Planning Packet (CTPP) was used to help determine the trip distribution. The estimated general approach and departure directions are: North: 15 % on Wolfe Road East: 25 % on 1-280 5 % on Homestead Road 3 % on Pruneridge Avenue South: 25 % on Wolfe Road 10 % on Tantau Avenue West: 15 % on 1-280 2 % on Homestead Road 100% 16 f¡> hHIl & PEEIlS 1U~"O"M Ø. H~~",U~h ¡tf-( q 7 Pn.lIlendge Avenue Resldenl1al A~stW~ .. .. . . . -- The major directions of approach and departure form the trip distribution pattern for the project, and are illustrated on Figure 7. Most project traffic will approach and depart to 1-280 east and west. and to Wolfe Road north and south. Trip Assignment The project trips generated from the residential development were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. Figure 8 shows the residential project trips assigned to each turning movement by intersection. Figure 8a shows the peak-hour trip assignments for the proposed project less the traffic associated with the existing on-site office buildings or the net new project trips. The net new project trips were added to background traffic volumes to establish intersection volumes for Project Conditions shown on Figure 9. PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection levels of service were calculated with the net traffic added by the proposed project to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Background and Project Conditions are presented in Table 6. This table also shows the changes in critical delay and volume-to-capacity ratio 0IIC) due to the addition of project traffic. Critical turning movements dictate how an intersection operates: therefore, Table 6 presents the change in critical VlC, and delay. In most instances, slight improvements in critical delay are reported. This is due to the method the program uses to allocate green time to the various turning movements and the reduced number of trips generated by the residential project compared to the office buildings on the project site. All of the key intersections are projected to operate at the same or better levels of service as Background Conditions with the proposed residential project. The levels of service calculation sheets are included in the Appendix B. fì> F,,,~ & Prr~s 'u.,~~",~'IU .U\u.,..", 17 1L{-/9'¡ LEGEND ~ - Residential! Office . - Study Intersection IZZJ . Project Location '--- PROJECT DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 7 ~I . 1', ~i t\.Qm ~i jl 111 PEE RS CONSULTANTS Pruneridge Ave Residen\ial\Gmphics\f¡g07 _pd w_rototion_dwg FEHR & TRANSPORTATION Ä1Jg25, 2005 I,4JC N:\Projects\SJ05-793 @ NOT TO SCALE N --- ~ ....!..... ~ ~ LEGEND J - Turn Movement XX (YY) AM (PM) Residential Project Trips 0 Study Intersection ~ ~ L1O(4) N ¡ N ,36(17) [ZZ] Project location l- - - --~ _duO"''' ~ 0(1), It í Horn, <;- - ~ '" ~ ~~ ;;! EI iIIII.III 1\1 - . lID c J' " ~ >- §: í2(10) ..J -0(2) '" - PourooridgO"''' - ::&~ p....".Odgo/Wo "', 9(43), lr 3n~ Î ~Q< §: ~ 21- ;:::-Œ 63--. ~ ;; N- ~ -0 ~~ ~ - . - IIIII!IIIi .. ¡;;- E£ ~ ~~ -~ ;!;! '" ~N 0 J¡ L3(13) J¡ .:J c !" .280.<8_ f-~anS8_ @ ;:J I 2(6)J t "- ¡;;- J' iii '" c ~ ~ N " NOT TO SCALE - - --- FEHR & PEE RS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ASSIGNMENT ~ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS - FIGURE 8 , ""'925,2005 MJC íU N:\Prnjec\s\SJ05-793 Pruneridg8 Ave Residentiol\Graphics\ligOBA_,esid_pro_cssign.dwg ÇJ ~ LEGEND J - Turn Movement XX (YY) AM (PM) Net New Project Trips ;!i . Study Intersection N [ZZ] Project Location ¡ -~ - .,01-'), î L61-1B) ¡:¡ ~ ,201,94) ........- Î '" ~ - e /Prunendge Ave - 0 '1 ~ ~-6(0) ¡;¡¡;;;¡;¡;;;;; Ol·'m---.J Î 1 -5 --- ª 21·t5' ~ '1 ~'" õ;:- ~~ N'" 1.2 "'w ~~ ~~ JI L-46 (4) JI - ~ZtID He Ranopo f.2I1OSBRompo - t ·29 (2) J t § § ~ w '? - NET NEW PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE SA II q¡q¡ O~ """"~Iwo 36 I lr "''''" ::1- "'M w N -55 í , 6) jl c . f-- .; > '" Æ c . f-- Hnm FEHR & TRANSPORTATION Aug 25. 2005 MJC N:\Projecl.\SJ05-793 ",:", "'t':>"} '" ~ Pruneridge Ave Residentiol\Grophics\fig08A_pro_trjps_dwg ;:! J! Q " ;:¡ J! ~ PEE RS CONSULTANTS @ N NOT TO SCALE :t: , 9J C) -..... w ~ ~~ .~ ô~~ ~ci~ ~~s ~~s ¡;¡~~ --L 100 (139) ::~N L98 (142) _I¡¡'I- ~376(653) ~21(61) ,c,;: "'9014ô8) -¡II l "'98(744) _11<1 """",.A.., ~~~!~~n-' ~!I~ ~¡~g)~ ~~~ 275348)~....~ 77(163~T (0..... , ~~~ ~~~ v~ C\ ~ ~m~ ~~ffi v_ m. . HP Dwy !Prunendge Ave 4 Tantau Ave !Prunendge Ave W ~ ~E~ ~~m ....-- ~!2.t:. --L64 (19) ;;~t5: --L 74 (91) ....C\ CJ) ------135(374) <IJ(\ .... --101 (412) -1 ~ í4(12) -1 ~ ,124(67) Pouno.OooA... P..-riógoA.o 2181161~ -j í 1B5(1021~ î L 347 (218 ___ ~~ 488 (141 -- .--1:. 46 (52 T !~Ë 223 (51 T ::re~ o ~ - ~ .... mm~ C\I~m I" 6 Wolfe Rd 11-280 58 Ramps íß ~ - ci N - ;; ~ ~j ~ :~: :~~ ¡~¡ - ~8_ ,..80sa_ t! 833 (322) dJ t! ~ 365 (490) =,t ~ <'l I":. g ~ ~ III PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS - PROJECT CONDITIONS FIGURE 9 LEGEND ~ - Turn Lane XX(YY) - AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes [2'Z] - Project Location . Study Intersection ~ - Traffic Signal t1 "I ;¡ o . ~, " . f- , o ..: o lJ " . f- Pruneridqe Ave Res¡dent¡ol\Graph¡cs\f¡g9_phtv_pro¡~t.dw' ~ J' ~ ~ J' ~ PEE RS CONSUltANTS FEHR & TRANSPORTATION Äug 25, 2005 MJC N;\Proj"cts\SJ05-79,3 N NOT TO SCALE @ -- -Z , Q) C) <µ Prunendge Avenue Resldenltal August 2005 -- TABLE 6 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Project Peak ô in Crit ôin Crit Intersection Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay VIC 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM 36.4 0+ 36.4 D+ 0.0 0.002 PM 41.6 0 41.4 0 -0.4 -0.002 2. Wolfe Road I Pruneridge Avenue AM 25.2 C 24.7 C ·0.7 ·0.007 PM 57.1 E+ 49.6 0 ·6.9 -0.031 3. Pruneridge Avenue I HP Driveway AM 19.4 B· 19.1 B· 0.1 0.019 PM 19.8 B- 18.6 B- ·1.5 -0.078 4. Pruneridge Avenue I Tantau Avenue AM 27.1 C 26.8 C -0.7 ·0.033 PM 25.4 C 25.0 C -0.7 -0.012 5. Wolfe Road /1-280 Northbound ramps' AM 22.3 C+ 19.4 B- -4.4 -0.029 PM 43.5 0 38.4 0+ ·7.9 -0022 6. Wolfe Road /1-280 Southbound ramps' AM 14.5 B 13.9 B -0.8 -0.022 PM 10.1 B+ 10.1 B+ 0.0 0.002 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 VVhole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (VlC) between Background and Project Conditions. 5 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay 1) indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay or 2) reflects the lower number of trips. 6 Designated CMP intersection. INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes one of the following: 1. The level of service at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F; or 2. An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the criticai VIC ratio by 0.01 or more; or 3. Degradation of the levei of service at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or better under Background Conditions to LOS F; or 22 fþ FH'R & PErRS !U~"U''''O~ ;h~"H.~H f-f -.9.0:3 Pnmendge Avenue ResldentJal August 2005 -- 4. An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical VlC ratio by 0.01 or more. According to these criteria. the project wili not cause a significant impact to any of the key signalized intersections. Ail of the key signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. INTERSECTION MITIGATION MEASURES The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project wili not have a significant impact on the key intersections during both peak hour periods. Therefore. no measures are required to mitigate any project impacts. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION Access to the project site is provided via one driveway (Ridgeview Court) on Pruneridge Avenue and is controiled by a traffic signal. The number of driveways is sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic voiumes generated by the development. Based on the uses and on-site street layout there is expected to be a negligible amount of vehicle interaction between the proposed project. the residential development (Hamptons) to the west, and the office buildings to the east. It is recommended that the on-site circulation aisle that connects to Ridgeview Court be aligned opposite with the on-site circulation aisle from the office building development. The existing stop sign on Ridgeview Court should be relocated to this on-site intersection. No other modifications to project site access are recommended. Sidewalks on Pruneridge Avenue provide adequate pedestrian access to the project site. The site also has adequate bicycle access via the bike lanes on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue. The layout of the circulation aisles are proposed in a grid network. The circulation aisles serve two-way traffic and two dead-end aisles are proposed. However, these aisles serve a limited number of units and would not affect overail vehicle circulation through the site. Ninety (90) degree parking spaces are provided along some of the circulation aisles and parailel parking spaces are provided along the Prunerldge Avenue driveway aisle. The on- site circulation is adequate and no modifications to on·site circulation are recommended. PARKING The proposed parking supply includes 402 on-site spaces of which 142 are open parking spaces. The City of Cupertino's Municipal code for townhomes requires 2 covered and 0.8 uncovered spaces for every residential unit. Although analysis of project impacts is based on 139 units. the current site plan proposes 130 units. The required number of parking spaces based on 130 units is 364 spaces. Therefore, the project wili meet the City's parking requirement. 23 fþ rLHR & PEERS uu..ut~<I~. ,~".u\".." /4 -d.O 1 PrwJefldge Avenue Resldenltal August 2005 - 5. EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Expected Growth Conditions. Expected Growth Conditions are defined as existing volumes that are increased by an annual growth factor through the project's completion date. plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed project. The project is expected be occupied by Summer 2008. The analysis of Expected Growth Conditions is required under the CMA's guidelines and is presented for informational purposes. EXPECTED GROWTH TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Expected Growth volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1.2 percent for three years from August 2005 to 2008 (3.6 percent) to existing volumes, and adding traffic from approved developments. the proposed project. and pending projects listed in Appendix C. Expected Growth traffic volumes are presented on Figure 11. EXPECTED GROWTH INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations and the results are summarized in Table 7. The intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour under Expected Growth Conditions. The remaining Intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. 24 fj> FEHR& PEERS U.'."H'''IO. ~UI~U"!f, /L{ -,9.()5 LEGEND .J - Turn Lane XX(YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes [22] . Project Location . Study Intersection ~ . Traffic Signal ¡j[ ~ ...~ ~~ Œs&3 _ci~ ~~~ ~.....:s ;-~_î -L 103 (143) ~~~ L101 (147) m~~ ......'<t_N --I¡¡~ ~389(674) -¡Ill r¡= 22 (63) ,'96 (482) ,204 (770) """'.._lie! ilHr P....._- illlr 163 1'"1-' 29 ¡26) .J 586 590 == g~ 3921!T ã)@"6ì 284 358 , ~M 80 (169 ...~~ ~C':!.~ ~~£:!. g='~ ~=--- ~~N N"'M ",'" ::I. "'- e HP Dwy iPrunendge Ave 4 Tanlau Ave /Prunendge Ave ¡¡¡ _65'_ ~...~ ~ ~ ~~~ _~N -L66 (20) ~-- -L81 (94) ::-!2~ ~~~ "'N~ ~N~ ---140 (381) ~M~ ---110(427) -il.- ,4(12) -il.- ,132(69) P.....n._ --1, ~.A.... 226 (1m .J 211 l' 061 .J ,I- 359 (226 -- 521 146 -- 47(52 T 61'>¡¡) 241 (53 T C")('\ ¡::: ~-~ N"'N ~N~ ~N_ o ~ ~ ~ ON~ MOO N_ I .. 6 Wolfe Rd 11-280 SB Ramps ¡:: æ ~ N N '" '" M ~ ... ~ B= 892 (689) q '" II r 448 (869) 1111 ~2111) N~Ronopo ~_"fIon' >O It 863 (333) ~ It " 376 (500) =¡J E N "'- ~- 0 ~ m: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS- EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS FIGURE 10 .; ~I . ~ c .' r- " > « " lJ c ~ fEHR & TRANSPORTATION />'ug 25, :WOS wc N:\Pmjects\SJ05-793 ;,:¡ ", ~I ;,:¡ J! ~ PEE RS CONSULTANT"S Prun"r;dge Ave Res;d,,"t;cl\Groph;cs\f;g'O_phtv~e,p_9rowth,d..g @ N NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ ~ Prunendge Avenue Residential AUgLISt 2005 ~ TABLE 7 EXPECTED GROWTH INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Intersection Intersection Hour Control Delay LOS 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM Signal 37.1 D+ PM 43.2 D 2. Wolfe Road I Prune ridge Avenue AM Signal 25.4 C PM 56.0 E+ 3. Pruneridge Avenue I HP Driveway AM Signal 19.2 B- PM 18.7 B· 4. Pruneridge Avenue I Tantau Avenue AM Signal 29.2 C PM 25.3 C 5. Wolfe Road /1·280 Northbound ramps' AM Signal 22.5 ·C+ ,. 45.4 D 6. Wolfe Road /1-280 Southbound ramps' AM Signal 14.5 B PM 10.3 B+ Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 \Nhole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehide for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Designated CM? intersection. fþ FfHR & PEERS !.'UI·~o~u'I~. "h,ijl"~" 26. /c.-f-do7 Prunendge Avenue Residential ~~stm05 . .. . . ~ 6. CONCLUSIONS With demolition of the existing 128.500 square feet of office buildings on-site. the proposed residential project of 139 townhomes is estimated to generate a net decrease of 769 daily trips, a net decrease of 162 AM peak-hour trips (191 fewer inbound/29 added outbound) and a net decrease of 144 PM peak-hour trips (15 added inbound/159 fewer outbound). The impacts of project-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway system were evaluated with an intersection levei of service analysis. The resuits of the intersection LOS calculations indicate that the residential project will not have a significant impact at the study intersections. The number and operation of the site driveways were found to be adequate. Adequate pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site will be provided. The project is not expected to significantly impact nearby neighborhood streets. fþ FFHI\ & PrERS n..U\.'''UI~~ '~MU(fH!I 27 /4 -d-n r APPENDIX A: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS /4-;:)°9 FROM Traffic Data Servi~ PHONE NO. 4083772998 Aug_ 11 2Ø0S 12:34PM P2 Traffic Data Service (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com File Name ; 1AM Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 08/11/2005 Page No : 1 start TlInê RÖ¡¡ A¡>p. hi Telal --- -Factcr 1.0 .0 07:00 AM 3 15 13 --1- 5 18 41 76 07:15 AM 2 4 24 0 6 48 88 115 07:30AM 3 5 31 2 6 õl 91 130 07:45 AM 1 3 36 1 3 67 113 153 Total 9 104 10 30 190 4 08:00 AM 4 0 2 0 ] 9 30 0 0 :¡g 0 1 0 0 1 10 56 47 0 '23 169 08:15AM 3 1 3 0 15 30 0 0 45 3 0 1 0 4 7 78 66 0 141 197 08:30AM 2 0 2 0 21 40 1 0 62 2 0 2 0 4 7 87 50 0 144 214 08;45 AM 2 1 2 0 19 28 1 0 48 1 1 1 0 3 13 98 as 0 176 232 TotII-'-Tf . :i 9 Ò 64 128 94 6 4 0 12 :g 329 218 0 584 812 G"",d 20 8 24 0 50 96 197 5 0 29!! 8 9 " 0 22 (f1 519 331 0 917 1287 Total App<ch % 40. ". 48_ 0.0 32- 66. 1.7 0.0 36. 40. 22. 0.0 7.3 56. 36. 0.0 0 0 0 2 1 4 9 7 6 1 Total % 1.6 0.5 1.9 0_0 3.9 75 15. 004 0.0 23.2 0.5 0,7 0.4 0.0 1.7 5.2 40. 25_ 0.0 71.3 3 3 7 PRUNERIOQ A SOuthboun<l w_ start Time RIg ~~r:;l::i R~I Th~ILeftIP~I~ hi _k HOW' rum : AMI" ; AM.Peak1af1 1- 08:00 AM I I n Volume 11 2 9 0 22 54 128 2 0 194 6 2 4 0 12 :g 329 218 0 584 812 Perœnl 50. 9.1 40. 0_0 33. æ. 1.0 0.0 50. 16. 33_ 0.0 6.3 56. 37. 0.0 0 9 0 0 0 7 3 3 3 08:45 2 2 0 5 19 2B 0 48 1 1 0 3 13 98 65 0 178 232 Volume PeaK I 08;45 AM 10.875 Factor High In!. 08:15AM 08:30AM 06:15AM VoMnc 3 1 3 0 7 21 40 0 62 3 0 0 41'3 98 65 o 1761 Pool< 0.786 0.782 0.750 0_830 Flldor ¡Lj -;;Zf 0 FROM Traffic Data Servle PHONE NO. 4083772998 Aug. 11 2005 12:3SPM P3 Traffic Data Service (408) 377-2988 tdsbay@cs.com File Name; 1PM Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 08/10/2005 Page No : 1 a~E?! PrirtteØo Unshift~ PRUNERICCE AvE il"cRwv N Starl Time -Rig App. og Thi Left Pod In!. hi u Total ht ú . TooaI ... Factm 1. 1.0 1.0 rÕ 1.0 1.0 ,00 PM 2 36 ~ ··..63 4 10 0 1 42 t 04:15 PM 20 29 58 61 a 0 9 0 9 46 145 04:30 PM 29 39 7S 81 3 0 8 a 11 45 178 04:45 PM 21 37 B4 .~7 1 0 7 0 8 53 185 TooaI 91 1 271 292 7 4 34 'Ö 45 186 663 05:00 PM 44 2 25 0 71 6 97 0 0 103 1 0 6 0 7 1 32 3 0 36 217 05:15 PM 36 0 13 0 49 6 78 0 0 54 5 1 9 0 15 3 60 6 0 89 217 05:30 PM 32 0 17 0 49 4 97 2 0 103 1 2 5 0 8 3 58 4 0 65 225 05:45 PM 31 1 24 0 56 3 79 0 0 82 3 0 8 0 11 2 58 3 a 63 212 To4sI 143 3 79 0 225 19 351 2 0 372 10 -3 28 0 9 208 '6 0 233- 87' 06:00 PM 32 0 '8 0 so 2 82 0 0 54 3 0 6 0 9 0 43 9 0 52 195. 05:15 PM 14 2 '6 0 32 4 63 0 ° 87 3 3 8 0 14 0 31 '0 ° 41 154 05:30 PM 22 0 20 0 42 5 58 0 0 63 6 3 5 0 14 7 35 11 0 53 172 06:45 PM 2' 1 20 0 42 6 54 . 7. 0 87 4 4 2 0 10 a 32 a 48 167 Totol 89 3 74 0 168 1 ""7 0 281 16 10 ----21 0 47 '5 141 3a 0 1 G",nd 323 9 199 0 531 49 885 11 0 945 33 17 B3 0 133 32 503 78 0 613 = ToœJ Apprch % 60. 1.7 37. 0.0 5.2 513. 12 0.0 24- 1:2. 52 0.0 5.2 82. 12- 0.0 8 5 7 8 8 4 1 7 Total % 14. 0.4 g,O 0.0 23.9 2.2 39. 0.5 0,0 42,$ 1.5 0.8 3.7 0.0 6.0 1.4 22, 3.5 0.0 2'7.6 5 8 8 I I 79 0 225 19 351 2 0 372 '0 3 28 0 41 9 2C8 16 0 233 871 36, 0.0 5.1 94. 0.5 0.0 24. 7.3 68. 0.0 3.9 89. 6.9 0.0 1 4 4 :¡ 3 05:30 0 17 0 49 4 97 2 0 103 1 2 5 0 a 3 58 4 0 65 225 Vo!yme P- 105:15 PM 1°·968 Fsctor High Int. 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:15 PM Vol""", 44 2 25 0 71 6 97 0 0 1031 5 1 9 0 1S I 3 60 6 o 691 P... 0.792 0.903 0.683 0.844 Fedor 14 ~ ZIf APPENDIX B: LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS /Lf-d-(d--. MonAug 22 15:03:582005 ~ Prunerídge Avenue Resldenlial Surt'lT'ilt)' Sœ1lario CompariSon Report (With Average Critical Delay] - Future Volume Allernative - - ~ExislI..!!i- AM" ""''''' - AMPrtJiect AM Expected Grow\h A"" A"" A"" A"9 ^"9 ^"" eMt A', Cn! A"9 "'It eMt enl A'. erit Del enl DO Del Crit Del Del enl V., Del DO Del eril Del LOS ,~¡ V., (see) LOS (see) V., (see) lOS (see) V" Change ,""¡ Change I LOS (see) V., (see) c:- -34.8 õ.649 33.9 D' 35.4 0.710 33.' D+ --""'36.4 0.711 +0.002 35.8 +0.0 D' 37.1 0.735 38.8 C 23.4 0.899 28.1 C 25.2 0.772 31.4 C 24.7 0.766 _0.007 30.7 -0.7 C 25A 0.791 32.0 O· 16.a 0234 19.7 .. t9.4 0.249 19.8 .. 19.t 0268 +0.019 20.0 +0.1 .. 19.2 0.277 20.0 C 25.8 0.592 25.5 e 21.1 0.643 28.6 C 25.8 0.510 -0.033 26.2 -0.7 e 292 0.660 26.3 0 15.6 0.BS7 18.7 e. 22.3 0.965 29.4 ,. 19." 0,935 -0.029 25.0 -4.4 e· 22.' 0.967 29.9 0 13.1 0.716 14.7 0 14.5 0.819 17.1 , 13.9 0.797 -0.022 16.3 -0.8 0 14.5 0.823 17.3 Copyr\ghl (e 2003 Dowling Associates. IfIC. licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN .JOSE COMPARE - Inlersection " Wolfe Road I Homestead Road .., Wolfe Road I Prunelic!ge Avenue " HP Driveway I Prunefidge Avenll8 '" Tanlau Avenue I Pruneridge Avenue .. Wolfe Road 11-280 NB Rafr4¡s .. Wolfe Road 11-280 Sß Rsmpiò L 1 9.J ~ ~ Traffix7.7.0515 WuII. Road I Homem;1d RolId "" ~...- ....."v... "::0 ,It- lINt I I I 02 ~4t~~ ~ .. " UIO . " ~, '5~;A:JCIOIi ~-~- 1.....Of_c--."_ _",",,,,,",,,_"-___1 '" _....l~ -~ ..." _.....n'U':M1IIOI --- CONP.....E 1"'-t1;«11on'1 \_OI-..ëO-~·¡¡¡'-"", lOOO"c; O~~,._"""M WOII!Road I Homes1eadRoad " .-- 8..-................1........ _Yo> II .., ..... '- ~'4 ¡ ~'~ ~.- ~ -- R___ IMM i: .- 1= v..c.co.oo c-p......""" 1.no1_"04 -- ."e.ilIJo _} ....,.,.,._1 lOC, ~--tt,.r" J. 2 o. IN ,qJ." JSJ '" . ~ . f x. ~ -- "-, ...-- .f ~ --+ r -.. m- - ~ " ~ .. -- ,..- "- "-. Of ~ " J... ... .- n. T .. " . YoIc.ro.. Gyd.1_1..·t <-'-_I ~ ~--tt,.". 2. 2 .' In ,...... 3>, ....-..........-. "'*"'V!<;, ...C<iI....__~ ..........._r - u.- ..__ .f ...t.. -+ r -...., ,n- ,. eound T - . HO",lIItead ¡¡oild BOund Wen T . L 10 10 ... .... Sonth Bound L T - -.. MoHe North Sound " T . Street NalDl!: Approach: o!oveo\eot: Ho.....te...d Road Eallt BOund West Bound. ¡, T - It ¡, T II "- -- " " " " . " '" ." ... '" . ... 1.00 1.00 ... " " 35J. 001.0Q U 351; , , H 2" 19037' 1.001.00 1.001.00 19037' , , ljlg 37' .001.00 .001.00 190376 , m 1.00 '" " n '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 '" '" ... no , .. '" ." ... '" , " .. .. " " m ... m , . m 1.00 1.00 m , m Lao 1.00 m . " .. .. .. , , " .. .. " , " .. .. " " " 577 1.001.00 9' 971 , ,. 15 In 1111120 .001.00 .001.00 11111:10 , , 1111120 .001.00 .001.00 1111120 , m ... m , " '" 1.00 1.00 '" . '" 1.00 1.00 '" 1901 O.jI' ,.. n noD aoo 0.83 0.98 :1.001.51 31502922 19001900 1900 0.5.:11.000.92 1_00.:1.001.00 17503BOO 1"150 '" ,.. ,., " .. .. " " 190019 0.1130. 2.00<1. 115051 u 24.4 0.11 55.' 1.00 55.6 " 0.13 ::2-1.4 0.71 55.1i 1.00 55.Ii U " 11.2 0.13 1(1.2 1.00 10..:1 . " 30.2 0.13 55.3 1.00 55.3 " 0.09 11.030.1 0.'710.'1 61.0 U.8 1.001.00 61.049.8 H :.11 " " 61.5 O.H H.J 1.00 :U.3 " , 63.5 0.4' ::a.3 1.00 2...] " , ,., 0.61 '1].9 1.00 1].9 , --------n--I· VolU111I! Module: Ba... vol. 17;1 1365 Groveh Adj, 1.00 1.00 InithlS!!e: 172 1365 Added Vol, I 2 Appro"..d, 21 126 Initial rut:.: 1,,1<1.n U8e.r Adj: 1.00 1.00 1'KF Mj, 1.001.00 PHI" Volu_, 1'H.1-I93 lIeduct Vol: 0 0 Red.uced Vol: lU U91 PCB Adj, 1.00 1.00 MI.P Adj: 1.00 1.00 rind Vol 1941n3 u___ ____ul_________ SaturationUowModule Sat/LaDa, 1900 uno 19011 AdjulOtNmt: 0.1111.00 0.92 Lane..: <I.ooa.oo 1.00 pipalSSI:.· 315\138001750 ------------1- --.-----.-- Cap.del" Milly.is MocI.u'1e: vol/Silt, 0.060.39 Q. erit Move.: .... ¡¡¡reel¡ Time, 1".6 l' V01UIIMII¡CàP: 0.11 O. De!1ay/Veh: .:11.517 Uller t'lelAdj 1.00 1. MjDelfveh, 23.511 H0I2U5tb: J1 --I " I 1&9 352 11 .001.00 DO U9352 11 , , , , , , 10 15<1 11 1.001.001.00 1.001.001.00 1611 H<I 11 , . , ln 351 11 1.001.001.00 1.001.001.00 In 352 11 If......., Wolfe R"ad. "PP",o;¡¡ch, NoÜh Bound South Bo\Uld "ov_nt:., L - 'I' -. 1.. T _ R ---··-------I-·----n------·II·________·_____ Hin. Gnu.n, .., 10 10 .., 10 10 _____u___··I··_______·_____II____···__u___ VolU111e Module, ~~ Count Date, 10 Jul 2003 cc BaBe Vol: 172 1365 111 96 517 119 Growth Mj: LOa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initlallllle: 172 1365 331 "971 89 Added Vol: 0 0 0 \I a 0 P...",rByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 a Initial Fut: 11213SS 311 jI' 977 U VIler Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 PIiP Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 'HF Volu,,"e: 17~ 1365 3Jl U jl77 B9 af!dnct Yol: 0 0 II 0 0 0 lIO!duced YOl: 17~ 1]65 In "977 U PCE Mj, 1.011 1.00 1.00 001.011 1.00 I'11.F Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 00 1.00 1.00 final Vol.' 17~ 3U5 331 U \177 n nnmn···I·nmnnn.__ Saturation Flow Module, S;at/1nu\f!' 1'00 ¡gall noo Ad.:!n"tn.ent, o.n 1.00 0.91 1.&I\ell, <1.0020001.00 FhoaISat,· 31503J00 1750 _.nun____I_nnu___ nu Capacity Analysh Mod..le, Vol/Sat, 0.050.n 0.19 Crit Move", .... Gree.a Time: 18.1 H.3 76.3 YolUlJle/Cap, O.H 0.S5 0.34 Delay/Veh, 54.2 2:1.1 17.1 Uaer DelAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 AdjPel/Yeh: 54.~ n.l 17.1 HCJ12k9Sth, 6 U U , " " m ." m , , m 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 m , '" ." '" , , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , m ." m , , ", 1.00 1.00 m . m 1.00 1.00 m 1900 0.95 O.H m '" ... ... '" ", ... ,., m 19001900 1900 0.9:11.00 0.5<1 1. 00 ~ .00 1.00 115038001150 1900 0.95 0.2' ." 1900 O.jIjI <1.1" 5132 1900 0.81 :LOO 3150 " .. " ., " ., " 111.1 O.H 54.8 1.00 54.11 , u :n.6 0.65 54.:1 1..00 54.2 " 0.11 23.' 0.65 54.2 1.00 5402 " ,., 11.1 0.65 '5.8 1.00 '5.8 , " 30.' 0.'5 51.<1 1.00 51.2 " u 30.6 0.60 41.0 1.00 41.0 .. , O.DjI 111.1 o.n 51.9 1.00 61.9 U " 63.2 D.H 23.7 1.00 23.1 " u '3.2 o.n 23.1 1.00 23.7 " ,., ,., 0.59 61.1 1.00 68.1 . I l_"_~_".AlfIOSE ~1. _"""'''_"''' Tr......l-Ofl' ~.._~_......~ ~(o ___........ '_Uti!' -. ~ 1 ~ ~ -Q ~ U",,3.SI_ --..- ~O!_~~ ~-~('---I Awnue - .....- >-"' _v. ~ " J- ..- 1= " .....¡r¡,.lltit'_ ......v'"'" ,.., ..,- - .-"4 ¡ }.'~ ~ ,. " D,n~ II-< ., - VOICot~ ....·_t-I ....rn.~~ _VICe ~..ClitDol<-~ ....ØoIo '~~ ~- ImersediooI2:Woll.Road .- - ~.....- ..t ~ -+ r ~¡ Yol' - ~ _.....:12.1...:._ ,........",.-- ·1ö."QI_~_ 2<>IIO"(:W~(FW<·__t .....r....... IlilølKOCtio<I 112: WorII Road Ipnaneräge AIleNle --- -- " ,m ",M' "- . , , . , .-'4 t ~~ - - _.,.. ~_ 11""- YoIc..IDo.."............_ 1-.. "'"VoI· ..t C....T....(toc~ ,. ~ - " ~ l....r..._~ " J- - -+ -~ .- ..- " r A..c..ol>ol~, tt. 1= " ...-- ,.- -- tit''' ,~ ~'*ttt--~ J' 2 . I U 1Ur' .' ...r -...._ " .,'*t t t--~ ~. , . , . . -.. n ,,- m -- --. wolfe Icad Appccacb, }leTch aOUJ:ld South Bound h.. Movefl'leÐt, , T , T ~ , , ~ - ......,.... Pruuerid;e AV<Wolle 1:.. t Bound ....t Bound T I. L T .... BOllth IIOImd 10 - T II. wolfe Merth Bound , T , Str"et: MðIII.II! Approach, "e"emetlt, Prwu,ridge Avenue lIe....d 1I".t ao"nd T R L T - R _II.. n___ 10 10 0 1 _n_____nnl___ un SatU"atJ,QII 1'1_ Module SAt/Lan.., 1900 uoo noo Adjunmeat' n.u 1.00 n.n La"".., 1.002.001.00 rill.l s..t., 31503800 1750 ~-----------I--~~~~------~ -- C.p4City Molyd. Module; Vol/Sat: 11.03 0.51 D.H erit Kovelil' ...- Green Tilfle' 11.S n.7 9&.7 Vol....../C..p, 0.220.770.70 Þehy/Vlilh, n... 19." 18.3 Du'" DelAdj, 1. 00 1.00 1- CO MiDd/Vd!, 60." n." n.J HCM2Unb, J..6 n " .. 00 .. , , " 00 00 " . " 00 00 " " " '" " · · " '" " " · " '" -'" " , '" -" '" " . '" -00 -00 '" . no -'" _00 no ~.... ·--1 10 10 I " 1_00 " . . " 1.00 1.~ " " " 1.00 1.00 " 28 3e 001.00 28 31 . . . . 2. J8 1.001-00 1.001.00 28 J8 " . 28 J8 OGI00 00100 28 38 , , " n 00 n · · n -'" -" n · n 1.00 1.00 n ."... , " 11111275 .001-00 11111275 " . 1 166 143 U41 .001-00 .C01.00 UJUU . . IfJ 1....1 .001.00 .001.0C 14J1441 " m -'" m m " '" 1.00 1.00 '" " '" .00 ... '" " n 17SS 001.00 U 1755 " . 0177 n 1932 001.00 001.00 U 19]J . . n 1912 001.00 001.00 U 19JJ: , Green 1- Volwne Mod..le, B.8eVOJ, GrowthAdj,1- rnith.1Bu, Added Vol, Approved, Initi41Fut, U8er Adj, P:llFMj, PHI'Vol......, Reduct Vol, aed..cedVol, PCIAdj, IILJ'Adj, rillalvol., "" .. 00 .. . . .. 1.00 1.00 .. " .. 1.00 1.011 .. IS1 :u .00100 158 Jl " . . . 158 21 1.001.00 1.001.00 151 Jl . . IS' Jl 1.001011 1.001011 1!i8 ]I " 1.00 " . . " 1.00 1.00 " " " 1.0C 1.00 " 21 ]I 1.00100 JI 31 . . " . 21 J8 1.001.00 1.001.00 JI 31 . " 28 JI 1.001-00 1.001.00 28 31 7 10 10 u_..n.nnn_ 10 Jul JOOl u 111 1275 n 1.001.001.00 111 1275 U · . " · . " 1111275 U 1.001.00100 1.001.0011111 118 1275 U · . . U51275 11 .001.001.00 .C01.011 1.00 lU Ins 11 1900 0.'2 1.011 HSII 1901119110 0.11 1.110 2.'IIG1.00 31501900 190019001.900 G.92 0.95 0.\15 1. GO 0.33 0.61 1750 U5 1205 ". " " " 19001900 0.920.91 1.002.91 17505558 noo O.U 1.00 1750 19001900 O.IJI.OO ],00 1. GO 3150 noo 1900 0.'5 0.67 1:105 1900 0.95 0.J3 '" 1900 0.9<1 1.00 1750 19001900 1900 0.9JO.98 0.95 1.00J.97 0.03 17505552 4' "' 13.8 0.57 70.0 1. GO 7G.1I . -. 13.8 0.12 62.9 1.00 '1.9 , 0.06 11.G 0.17 13.1 1.00 13.1 , co 12.4 0.77 89.1 1.00 89.1 " , " IJ.. G.17 19.1 1.00 19.1 " G.GJ '-' 0.25 67.' 1.0G 61.9 , " 97.1 0.40 12.6 1.00 12.6 " .., 91.1 0..0 12.' LOG 12.6 " 0.08 15.? 0.77 n.3 1.011 n.J " .-. 1..4 0.51 '6.9 I.GO 6&.9 , 0.05 .... 10.114..4 0.7G 0.12 17.... n.3 1.0111.00 77.... n.] , , "' 0.06 13.7 0.7G 78.1 1.0G 78.1 " 0.G6 13.7 0.70 78.7 LOG 18.7 " G.02 10.1 0.24 67." 1.00 '7." , . 9"4 0.31 13.5 1.00 13.5 " 0.G10.2 U.5,t.4 0.70G.37 77.!lIJ.5 1.001.00 77.'13.5 10 17 7 10 10 I________mu__ Volume Module, ~~ Count Date BaBe vol, 82 1755 67J Gt:Qw!:h Adj, 1.001,00 1.0G Init1..1B.e, BJ1-155 673 Added vøl, 0 0 0 pasBerJlYVOI, 0 0 0 Inlti..1F\l.t, 8:21755 573 Uaer Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 PHP Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 PRP voL"""" a2 1755 673 Reduc:t Vol, 0 0 0 Reduced Vøl, 82 1755 673 PCE Adj, 1.011 1.00 1.00 NLFAdj, LOG 1.00 1.00 ..in¡ol Vol '2175$ 673 1 Saturar.ion Flow Mod..le S..t/Lan.., l!10G 190G nGO Adjust_lit, 0.8] 1.00 0.9J Lanes, 2.002.0G 1-0G rinal 5..t., 31503100 1750 um ___ _ ~~~ 1 ~~_____ __ u__u C"~citJ' ADalYlili. Modul.., Vol/Sat, 0.03 O.U 0.]8 Crit "0""'9. .u. Qrel!ll Ti_, 19.299.1 99.1 VOlll1111!/Cap, O.JO 0.70 0.58 Delay/Veh, S8.8 17.0 H.e User nelAd.j, 1.001.00 1.00 .lldjDel/veb., 58.117.0 14.8 HCM,2ItUth, 3..0 JI OrOeQ l_Io'vøl.PŒIIs._JOOf: ~(o 1OO3o....,._Io"1rIo. T,,''' .1~'' ~"O'I!MII"P!su.,_J<>IIIi ..........(< i!ØtO~__~ '_'.HIS. ~ <1 ~ V'\ J,f.U3.·.._ ....................-... l_OI-..;;o·~_ 2OOO~OOow-.::-""""-~ - """"'..-. u.- .....v.I. ~ . ~ .- 1= ur . omewayJ~A.........e --- _Vot II :r' ,- .-I'..{ ¡ }. ~ .....- ....cm[)o ~1 ..........-1 ,~ ..,~t~r>- g 1 I D .- , 1"""'-- .- . .. . u u ,. - v.lc..I""",, ç....r..."..~ .....r...(ooo<1 -- ~1t3,HP .- mIWYotc.-.R__ ,~ -' ~ ~ -+ T ,. " .. ~ ........¡OZl.:CU._ - -"",_R_ - i_01_~__ .....HOOor--¡r~v..o-......_ .....1_ In\eqeç ioofJ;HPDriYewlyIPn.neIidgeA\/&II1IO ~.- ......v..: " ,.. , - , , . . , .-I.{- + ~'+ ..- ........- ~_: " Njv... ....._ ..... A.....- VoI....O....,..·' QIi~_ I'~ -' Codo.-....4...~.. ~ . ~ Un'-_4_~ U ~ - -+ -~ .- .- ur r ....""1001_' IU 1= " ....--, .1.. ~ . ..,~ t ~r>- _. . . -~ ~ -...--.- , - þUV'" Avenu.. Weir BOund L T _ R Pruneridge lIaRt Bound LT' 10 10 gp Drhew;1y North BOunel. South BOund L 'I'" R L· T - It " 0 SlreetlfUlC': Approlch, MOvement: Avenue ",...t BOliDd LT' Pt'\UIeridgll hilt Bound L - T R RP Drivewðy North Bound South Bound T - L - T - R street N.me A¡;rprc.Ch: /'Iove_nt:: ....mi.. mm s.tur.don :rlO>t Modul.. Sat/L..ne: aoo 1900 aoo AdjultlAetlt: 0.'50.'5 0.92 Laa.l, 0.':1 0.08 1.00 FinalS.t., 1656 1-14 1750 .....mm·l.. ............ Capacity AAaly"¡,, Modul.., Vol/sit: O.OlO.Gl 0.01 C"itlloy...: u" areegTime' 111.010.0 VQlume/Clp, 0.01 0.08 Dllhy/Veb, 21.2 B.2 user DelAdj, 1.001.00 Ad.jDel/veh, 21.2 U.2 KCK2U5th: 1 1 uu__...___¡_n_.__.. SltuH.tioø rlow MQdu1..., SAt/t.ane: 19001900 Adjullt",ent' 0.'5 0.95 LAPe , 0.670.3) rinal Sat.: 1200 '00 ~..____u___I___'__·____ C&Pi'city AlIalyllh Module VOl/SIt' 0_00 0.00 erit Movell' .... Green Tilllll' 10.010.0 VOIU101:/Cðp, 0.020.OJ Delay/not¡, 20.920.' I]II..r DelMj, 1.00 1.00 Adjn..ljVeh, 20.920.t HD42k95th: 0 0 " " " " o o " " " " o " " " " , , , " m .00 '" o , m 1.00 1.00 m , m 1.00 1.00 m , " , " o " ." ." " o " ." ." " " 1..00 " '" o m 1.00 1.00 m o '" ." ." m 211 129 .001.00 J18 3J9 o 0 o U 218 341 1.001.00 1.001.00 11a 347 o 0 21834-7 l.C01.00 1.001.00 216 347 u " u o o u 00 " u o u " " u ,. L L L · , 001.00 · , o 0 o 0 · , 001.00 001.00 · , o 0 · , OCl.OO COI00 · , o · " · · o " " " u o U 1.00 1.00 " " a,OOAl'! . , 1.001.00 . , .. 0 o 0 " , 100100 100100 " , o 0 " , 1.00100 100100 " , Miø. GreIm, mm··...·1 Voluu.e Module 8.... vol, Growtb Adj' Initial BS", Added VQl: App=ved: Lnitialruc: User Adj: PR1'Adj: PHP volulII8 Raduc:t Vol Reduced VQ PCE Adj, my,>.dj: P!nAIVo1. o " 1.00 " o o " 1.00 1.00 " o " 1.00 1.00 " , " 2128 001.00 2128 o 0 o 0 2 128 1.001.00 1.001.00 2128 o 0 2128 1.001.00 1.001.00 2121 " " 1.00 " o o " 1.00 1.00 " o " " " " " ,,~ 2U J29 1.001.00 ;in 129 o 0 o 0 218 129 1.00l.00 1.001.00 2U 129 o 0 211 )U 1.001.00 1.001.00 218 )29 10 10 0 _____n __nn_ 11 A\lg 2005 u 9 2 11 .001.001.00 9 2 11 o 0 0 o 0 0 9 2 11 .001001.00 .001001.00 9 2 11 o 0 0 , 2 11 001001.00 001001.00 , 2- 11 , " D.t. · 1.00 · o o · '" '" · o , 1.00 1.00 · o n C01,1.nt · , 001.00 · , o 0 o 0 · , 1.00 LOG 1.001.110 · , o 0 · , 001.00 001.00 · , o L I IIin _n I VolW1H!!fItodule BAile Vol, Growth Ad}, JaiChl B"." Added Vol, "allRerByVQl Jnitial PUC U"..rAdj, PlfP Adj, PRP Volume, Reduct Vol, Reduced Vol pC!!. IIdj, HLF Mj: ri....lvo Green 1900 0.95 0.66 1190 19001900 0.920.99 1.001.34- 11502509 1900 aoo noo 0.920.99 0.95 1,.001.290."11 11502426 1212 1900 0.95 0.15 152J noo 1900 O.U o.u 1.000.15 1750211 1900 0.95 0." 12]3 19001900 o.n 0.99 1.001.31 11502H' 1900 0.95 0.21 ". 19001900 I.n 0.98 1.001.19 1150n2' 1900 0.95 0.85 1523 19001900 0.920.'5 1.000.15 1150211 1900 0.92 LOO 1150 " 10.0 0.J2 22.1 1.00 :12..1 , .010.0' 11.510.0 0.110.)2 20.522.] 1.001.00 20.522.3 , , " 1£.5 0.5~ 18.9 1.00 18.9 . 0.12 18.015.5 0.4.20.52 11.118.9 1.001.00 17.111.9 , . .. " 10.0 0.04 ~1.0 1.00 21.0 o o 0.01 10.0 0.04 21.0 1.00 :21.0 o 0.0 10.0 O.OJ 21.0 1.00 21.0 o 10.0 0.05 21.1 1.00 21.1 , 0.05 10.0 0.31 22.3 1.00 22.J , 000.05 11.510.0 O.Olo.n 19.622.3 1.001.00 19.' 22.J o , " 16.5 0.1& 17.1 1.00 11.7 , 0.12 D.le 18.016.5 0.420.16 17.311.7 1.001.00 11.317.1 , , " 10.0 0.01 21.0 1.00 :11.0 o o 0.01 10.0 0.04 21.0 1.00 21.0 o 0.0 10.0 0.0) 21.0 1.00 21.0 o " .0 " .. " .. o .. o. " .. " u....-4..I'£I«.._., 1M 10M ~«I2003-"_","" T.IlflcU_"\' "-'''~'__IOM: ~!'¡:1003~__._ T'_I.1....15 :t \ 9J -- ~ .. ntl~2Dn ~__aoo l_Of_~...,.,.. _"~eø-.::-~_~ -- _._......v.. ~ " J.- +- ~ T ... .¡o- " ,~ .,~t~,... l_ 10 0 '0 _Volt I(- I" It -- 1nt~IM:T_A........eIP~òcIgoe...wemH! SIg....P ~~_ H _.~ "' ~'4 ¡ ~'\o. VoIc..oOo.., .... c.,a.1I....._~· .. ....,_"'.,* IJ .- .. - _IIIC, A..c.u""'_t .....OoI~I_t WloIvol ~. -- u.-,_ ~ ~ -. T -- .~ .. , .;¡'j~ 22U1IUf_ ~_R_ '_OI_~R.pOir· :ÞIOOHCM-._t.....___ .wE....... rrn.e<sedbnlU:TII'IIaIA.enw/ÞrUl\&l'lcSQeAveh\le ......... .._.,....... _V'" n ~- ~ - . · . . · ~4 ~ ~\o. -- .....~- )f........ LMM 1tIghOo_ "..Cntl).olo \~-- .... -- .. ~ "....'_po.t · ~ " ~ l_'"'-_r " J.- 411-' -. c.oo.:..o."'t:, .m +- . T ~"""I""'t.-) JU r .. ....._..._...r ". .~ \œ, , .,~ t ~,... .- . · . . · .....- n- .. · II¡, """,...- - -- pruneddge Avenue B.at Bound weat øO\Uld L T - It J., T R Avenue SouthBound LT' I ...... 7 10 10 I TiWtau )lorth Bound L - T R "'- Approach: Mov_l:.: l'n>neridga AVIlA"''' ~=, Eut BQ\I.nd \oI..t ao...,d T . L T . L - T . 11- , " " " T , , ----·....---1--.. --- Saturation 'lOY Madul!!1 Sat}!.iWe, 19001900 Mjuetonaut, 0.'20.'5 L"""., 1.000.G. PinalS..t., 175111152 ____________1·_____.._ C...pac:ity Analyah Kedule: Vol/Sat: 0.03D.15 0.15 Crit MOTee, .... Orllml. Ti~: 7.0 volwe/Cap, O.:U Delay/Vah, 21.6 UeeX" DelAdj, 1.00 IIdjDel/Veb, ;n.6 flCM:al<ntb, 3 " n . n , , H 1.00 1.00 H o N o . o . N " 123 98 .00100 1:.13 518 , , o , lH 10"1 .001.00 .001.00 IH 10"1 , 0 lH IO"} .001.00 .001.00 lH 107 " '" -" '" . , m ." ." m , m 1.00 1.00 m " ... ." ... . , '" -" ." '" o '" 1.00 1.00 '" , m -" m , n US -" -" 0" , US 1.00 1.011 US " " " " . .. " " .. , .. " " .. 162 284 .001.00 162 2U o , , n 161296 .nOl.00 .001.00 161 296 , , 161 296 1.001.00 1.0n1.00 61 29' " .. -" .. , , .. ,,, o . .. , .. " " .. " u. -" ... , n .n -" ." m , '" 1.00 1.00 .n Min. Green ...-------·1- volilAU!' Mod ¡le, B88.Y01, 21 Gl:owtb Adj, 1.0n In1th1 BII.' H JIc1ded vol, 30 Approv.ð, 0 Jllitiel ht, 57 UleX" Adj, 1 00 PHPJodj, 100 PHY Volume, ,,7 Reðuct vol, 0 Reduced Vol, 51 PCRJodj, 100 MLPMj, 100 pioillVo 57 , 1.1:3 91 71 .1101.001.00 123 91 71 , , , , , , 123 9B 71 1.001.00 Lon 1.001.001.00 123 U 71 , 0 , 123 U 71 .001.00100 .001.00100 123 9J 71 '" ." '" o o '" 1.00 1.00 '" o '" 1.00 1.00 '" 169 481 .001.00 169 481 , 0 , , 169 481 1.001.00 1.001.00 169 461 , , In 41St .001.00 .001.00 In 481 « " 1.00 " , , " ." ." " , " 1.00 1.00 " ]000 '" ." '" o , '" ." ." '" o '" ." ." '" Tilntilu Avenue Honh Bound South T R L· --11 ___h 10 to 7 1----n 25Jan ." 1.00 '" o o N' 1.00 1.00 ." , ." -" ." N' Dilte, .. 1.00 .. , o .. ,,, o " .. , .. 1.00 1.00 .. 1900 1900 0.990.'5 1.160.84 211' 1512 noo 0.92 1.00 17$0 19001900190 o.n 0." 0.9 1.001.36 0.6 175025U 115 1900 0.'5 0.25 '" 1900 0.95 0.75 IH9 1900 0.92 1.00 1150 1900 0.95 0.36 ... 1900 0.95 0.a6 1S5~ -----I 0.05 !':fOO 19(HI 0.920." 1.001.14 11502144 1900 0.95 D.H 1150 19001900 o.n 0.99 1.001.16 1750 :a5U 1900 0.95 O.::U m 1900 0.95 0.79 lU4 1900 0.92 1.00 17,,0 '" -" -" '" " 13.4 0.21 19.6 .1.00 19.6 , , 0.070.05 '" _n u -" u , 13." 0.2:;¡ 19.10 1.00 19.1i . 0.19 15.' 0.13 24,.1 1.00 u.a u 0.1' IS.. 0.71 24.. 1.00 24.. U 0.11 -. 0·&7 36.4 1.00 36.4 , ,-, 18.2 0.11 2'.9 1.00 26.9 U 0.22 18.2 0.71 26.9 1.00 26.9 " " 10.' 0.55 29.8 1.00 2'.a . 14.B 0.:59 2§.1 1.00 25.7 " 14.' 0.59 25.7 1.00 25.7 " 13.1 0.20 n.l 1.110 19.1 , 0.05 13.8 0.20 19.1 1.0C! 19.1 , 0.07 ToO 0.60 37.1 1.00 ]7.7 , .. 16.5 0.68 2].2 1.00 23.2 U 100.19 9.116.5 0.'00.1iI 32.413.2 1.001.00 n.421.2 , U , 17.5 0.61 25.9 3.00 25.9 U 0.20 17.5 o.n 25.9 1.00 25.9 U " 10.1 0.55 10.2 1.00 311.2 , " 14.4 0.54 14.6 1.00 14.6 · Mip.Green, ______'ho__l· VolUJPe Module, » count '11,11811 Vol, 27 lH GrDlo/th Adj, l.00 1.00 Iuielal Bse' 27 lH Mded \/01, 0 0 pa.seX"ByVol, 0 (I Initial Put, 27 144 Ueer Adj, 100 1.0(1 fHF Adj, 1001.00 PHF Volu<I!e, 27 144 Reduct vol, 0 II R~ced Vol, 27 144 PCE Adj, 1.0(1 1.00 MLF Jodj, 1.00 1.00 Fiaal Vo1.· 27 144 _______....!..__._..u 8stu.ration Flow Modul., SstjLa.f:e, H1I01900 JodjuatJ8l!!lIt, 0.'2 0.95 Lane , 1.000.61 Pinal Sat.: 1.1501117 ----....----1----·...--- Cepacity Analyab Module, Vol/Sat, 0.01 0.13 C"it Movea, UU G"een TiI..., 1.014.4 volume/csp, 0.13 0.54 pe14Y/Veb., 15.124.6 uaer DelA/1j, 1.001.00 Mjnel/Veh, 25.124.6 Jtoak:95tb, 1 9 "'~ Approacb l1oYemeot '_"'ÆHIIIPIlEJQ..aANJOSI ~«11OI/3-'__"" T'_'.'."" ~"_I_"_~ ~(,)1OØ3-',"-."" TI_n,05' - ...ç:, 1 9J - --..¡ P...¡'II tt,UUI2D05 ".......,._R_ ¡_OI____ _H~~(Fubo--1 ~- ., _.....2;IIIUI:HIl'I05 -.....-- l_OI_~"""'" >Ood_t>poo._II'___J '" -- InIðIsectIonlIS: WoII'eRoa¡ /1-280NBRamps -~ - ~ 4 ';Il1O 0 '0 ZOO .,I4tf.~ lnIenIoctÐo\lI5:WolleRWldI~280NBRilmps S9_dIioI~"" _v.t 0 ,~.. ~ .... ~'4 ¡ ~O~ -- t_ ~...._Yol: ~ - $... +- ~ hM..Vol ~. ~ . V..CoItOolo C....-.-_ LMo....._t -~ .....çnol)ol~""" ....DoW,(_ DO ,~ ..,~t~~ ,~ 1 0 0 Þ 1111'" 0 I" r JR'" " " - ........... a.-: t......- j- ~ --+ :{ .- . \1000:..,"".. C...."-_I' ~_'-,...t -~ ....""'1)01_) ....PoOof~_...) , . ,~ ..,~t~~ Þ' 2 ~ Þ t 1ØT" ~ -- - .......- ,--, -- j- ~ --+ :{ Molfe I.ollld :Nortlr. aound Soutb Boupd 10 - ,. . II. L T It ___ ___ u________ Min Green: , 1( 10 10 10 --.---- ___1____·___.._·_ volume Module: Bile Vol, 01'52 0 G'rowtbAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 1nhhl a.e, (I U5~ 0 Added Vol: (I 71 0 Approved, 0 lt4 0 Initil.l ht, 01917 0 u.",r Alij: 00 1.00 0 00 PII1' Adj: 00 1.00 0 00 Pm'Volu","" 0 IU7 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol 011117 0 PCE Adj, 00 1.00 0.00 MLI'Adj, 001.000_00 Piniol Vol., 01917 0 ~ -.. ~ _vO/; Bound T . ..... West " , 1-280 tiS Satt BOund " T . Stc"''''tNa1tll!: Appro."b MO""1IIf!n1; '0",", T - . Rl.mp. ... " - , 1-280NB ~"'"' T . , B.lt " - Ifo.:ch " Stre",t Name, Appro.cll· IIOVefnI'Dt , " ... 1.00 ... " . ... 1.011 1.00 '" , ... 1.00 1.00 ... , .. , , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , .. .. , '" ... '" , " '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" ... ... '" , , , .. , , , , 1.00 1.00 , . , 1.00 1.00 . , .. · , · · .00 ... · , , .. .. , , , .. , , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , 1.00 1.00 , , ... , . , . ... ... , , , 0.00 0.00 , 1011 1.00 1011 " no 1200 1.00 1.00 1:100 , noo 1.00 1.00 noD , , .. · · · · 1.00 1.00 · · · .. .. , 19001900 19110 0.921.000.95 1.33 0.00 1.'7 :112 01007 1100 0.92 0.00 , 19011 1.011 0.00 · 1900 o.n 0.00 , 19011 0.92 1.00 un 19001900 0.921.00 0.002.00 03800 0.10 17.2 0.9' ]5.0 1.110 35.0 n .. ., 0.00 ., .. , , " 17.2 0.'0 Ii." 1.00 16." U 0.00 , 0.00 ,., 1.GO ,., , 00 .00.11 .000.00 O.OO.G .001.0(1 , . . , .. 00 .. 00 ,., .00 .., , " .02a.8 000.60 .09.1 001.00 011.1 , , 00 , , ___ __m__I________ Satllration PlOII Mod\1le Sat/I......e: 1900191101900 A<ljulltlnent, 0.92 1.00 0.92 L....U, 0.002.000.00 finI.1Sat.· 03100 0 ------------1--------------- Capl.city AlllIIlydl Hodl1le: Yol/Sl.t: 0.000.500.00 crit Malrel: .... Green Tift!!, 0.028.8 0.0 WIIUIH/Cap, 0.00 0.96 0.00 neby/Veb: 0.025.5 0.0 user Ðe1.M1, 1.GO 1.0G 1.00 A<ljvel/Veb, O.G 25.5 O.G HCH~k'5tb, II 27 0 " '" ... '" , , '" I.GO 1.00 ... , ... 1.00 1.00 m ----1 ...- .""........ __ l___VoI: .. ~ ~ +- 1= Wolfe Ro.d Bound So\1tll IWlUld T - R L· T - R --..----llm--------m 7 10 10 , 10 10 ·..-----11-------------- n Count D.õ>te: IS Oct 20G3 « 01652 0 011118 0 001.00 001.001.1101.00 o U5~ 0 0 1011 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o U5~ 0 0 1018 0 001.00 001.001.00000 0111.00 00 l.GG1.00 000 01652 0 01011 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 01652 0 0 IOU 0 1001.00 00 001.000.00 1001.00 00 001.000.00 01652 0 01011 0 1·..------ Saturation Fl..,,, Module Sat/Lane: 19001900 AdjusUIleUt: 0.'2 1.00 L....es' 0.002.110 Find Sat 01800 " , 00 , , , , 1.00 1.00 · · , 1.00 1.00 · '" 1.00 '" , , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , 00 , , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , .. .. , · . 1101.00 , . , . , , · , 001.00 001.00 · , , , , . 001-011 001.00 , , Green. _h__ _1_ Volwnt! Module: Sase Vol: Growth Mj, Iaitial a.. Addl'd V..,l: Pa..ecByVOl ttdti.l Fut v..-.: Adj: PIU' Adj, ""F VOIUIIIfI' ReduC't vol, '"' noo o.n 1.U IOU uoo 1.011 0.00 · ,.. ." .n '" 1900 0.112 0.00 , 9001900 .'21.00 _000.00 , , nOli 0.92 1.110 1750 1900 1.00 2,00 1800 1900 0.112 0.00 , 1'00 0.92 11.00 , I'CI! Adj: l'I~r Iodj: rillal Vo 0.28 18.1 0..' 22.' 1.00 22.' n '0.00 ., 0.00 ,., 1.110 ,., , , .., ". L' " 00 ,.. .00 ... ... ,.. , 00 ,., 0.00 ,., l.01l ,., . ,.. 0.00 ,.. ... ,.. · 00 ,.. 0.00 ,.. ... . . n 021.11 000.51 0.0 II.' .001.00 , . , , 00 .. ., .. .. ... ,., , Module 0.'1 .H_ .021.' 000.8' 0.015.9 001.00 015.9 , " I NUllyais 0.00 Clpacit.y V..,l/sat, Crit Moves, Green Ti.....: Vol....../C..p, Delay/Veil, U..er Dellodj Adjne1/Vell, J'lCM2k9Stb: l_"_"_SAN","" _I<I:!IIO¡-._....... _1.1.ÞSIJ ~"'PÐ</O._LSAI<_~ ~(.J~¡ø.-._...,.. TI""_ - --Ç:. \ <D ~ C><,) >. .....--- --- L.....Of_~IIo,..., __o.--IF___·I --, - ~ .., _"'1Z'I:n-M2IOI ---- '_0<___ ____11'......__) ~f'" ~, .....Vol: - ......_ u.- ~ J.- .- 1= In.......ctioP fI&; WoII.Ro.adI ~~IIO 58 Ramps .... ~.......~..... -...,VoI: , 1113'1 .. lMIoI; G G , 0 ø .-'4,¡..þ-.... -. . . " .. ~~- C",,"'--I_1 ,..Timo¡...t ",*-VIC; A"I>'<""'_t "'.__010) - ~-~""- j- ~ - r OIiUIVot .,- InIen;oç ionllCk WGI!e RGacI I 1-2&0 S6A.an1 a --. -~ · ., - · . , . ~4 ,¡. .þ-.... - ..- ~'........... _.....IA...II~ .....~I>.tIo:...._~II/ IIoo_ .,. j- <:1"'0''''''_1 · 1: ~ l...n..o_, · - -~ 0.1.. .- r ..."",~(_.., 11.1 1= , .....--...~ '" .~ · .~ ~~t~~ G' 2 00 o U"'- .. ........P .................. - ~~t~~ .. 2 o. · ~ . .... -"'..-. - -"'" ~. .....VoI: 8clund T ..... ... , '" I-no lI.at Bound T , Molte 1I.04d 11<>10011 South BOund 't' I. T :it 111 1 10 U HQ~tb Streflt !faille lIpproach, Hove<r>ent, &.o..."d . ....' ... , ~ " 1-280 ~~ T . Ba't Jloðd South ao..nd [, T - II lIolte North lIound " T st"eet Hame Approach M(lv_nt 01272 001.00 01272 , " \I 252 \I 1564 001.00 001.00 o IS" . . 0156' 001.00 001.00 01566 ----- -----1--------- Saturation Plo'o/ Nodule S.t/L.....", UlOO nOli Adju.t..ant: 0.t21.00 Lan..., 0.00 iI.ao pinal Sat., \I HOO ------------1------------ Cap¡u;::l.ty AD&ly~h Module, Vol/Sa~: 0.000.41 0 c%"it )lovea, .... Gre_ Time: 0.0 21.6 vol\U1\e/Cap: 0.000.12 Dllhy{Veb, 0.014.5 vaer DelMj: 1.00 1.00 NljDItl{Veh, 0 14.5 ØCKZk''j~b, 0 18 , 00 , , , , 00 00 · · · 00 00 · L , · , 001.00 , , , , , , , , 001.00 001.00 · , · , · , 001.00 001.00 · , , " " " " , " '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 '" " · " · , , , " ." · · · " " · , " m ." m " , on ... ... on . on 1.00 1.00 on · " , , , , .. " · , , " " , 0801 .001.00 0801 , 5 o n'j 01037 .001.00 .001.00 01031 , , 010]1 1.001.00 1.001.00 010]7 . " , 1.00 , , .. .. 0.00 0.00 , , , 0.00 0.00 , , , 1- volume "och¡le: Bue vol: Growtb Nlj: InitiaIB"e, Added. vol: Appraved, Initial Put, Ua,," Adj, PHI" Adj, PIU'Vol\l_: Reduct Val: lI"ducad Vol, PCE Adi: MLF Adj: pinal vol. ......- Min. Gz-ellA , , 1.00 , , , . '" '" , , , 1.00 1.00 , T . , , 001.00 · . · , · . , , 001.00 001.00 , , , . , . 001.00 001.00 , . , L L 1 8n 0 311 .001001.00 831 0 312 , , . , , . 8n A 311 .001.001.00 .001.001.00 831 0 312 . , . 8U 0 312 1.001.001.00 1.001.001.00 8U 0 312 , " " " · ." · · · · 0.00 0.00 , , · " .. · , " _.nnnn. 15 Oct 2002 " 0807 001.00 0801 , . . , 0807 001.00 001.00 o a07 , . o a07 001.011 1101.011 0807 I Min. Grl!en, 7 10 10 ____________1_____ --I Vol~ Module, u Count Date, BaBe Vol, 01212 0 Growtb ""j: 1.00 1.00 00 JnitialBlle, 01272 0 Added. Yol, 0 0 0 passerByVol, 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 01272 0 User Adj, 1.001.00 00 PRFAdj, 1.001.00 00 PHF Volu,"e, 01212 0 Red\lc:t Vol, 0 0 0 Reduced vol 0 1272 0 PCB Adj, 001.00 00 MLP Adj, 00 1.00 00 Final Vol 01272 L L 1700 o.n 0.00 · 19001900 D.n 1.00 0.000.00 , , aoo 0.83 2.00 3150 19001900 0.83 1.00 2.000.00 3150 0 1900 0.91 0.00 , 1900 no 0.'20.JI 0.003.0 0560 1900 0.92 0.00 , 1900 0.92 0.00 , 1900190 0.92 1.0 0.000.0 · 1900 O.U 2.00 3150 1.900 1.00 0.00 , 1900 o.n 2.00 3150 1- 1900 o.n 0.00 · --I " 19001900 0.921.00 0.003.00 05700 ." .n " , I Saturation FlInI Kodl1le Siot1[,a¡¡e, 19001900 l¡djuatmel>t, 0.'21.00 l.&Ies, 0.002.00 Fin...1. Sat 0 JaOO " , ... ,., 1.00 ,.. · .. ., ." ,., 1.00 ,., , .. .. ." ,., ." .-. , " lB.... 0.35 14.0 1.00 U.O , " ,.. ." ,.. " · , , 0.21 18.... 0.B2 22.0 1.00 22.0 10 " ,., " ., " · , 0.000.1 0.027.6 0.000.37 0.08.... 001.00 0..... , , " ., " ., " . , , " ,., 0.00 ,., 1.00 ,.. . , 0.00.0 .000.00 0.00.0 .001.00 0.00.0 , .. 10 20.3 0.21 12.) 1.0/1 12.1 . 0.26 20.10.0 0.720.00 17.00.0 1.001.00 17.00.0 " , " .. 0.00 .., 1.00 ,., · 10 .025.7 .000.30 0.09.1 .001.00 0.0 '.1 , , " .....n Kcduh:: 0.13 000 uU ,., ." ,., ." ,.. , 25.7 0.72 33.1 1.00 33.).. 10 ., 0.00 .., 1.00 .., , ------------1---- Capl/lcity ¡WillYli_ Vol/Sat, 0.00 Crit ""VIIS' Green Till....: VOI......./Cilp, Deb.y{V...h: tll...r D...lAdj AdjDeI{veh, }lC'M2U5tb, l_.._&_......JOSIi: C:O""""M..___""- T,""U,t'iI' 1 ._..Fat'I&_............ ~t'I-.........._...,... 1_7.1a, - ~ I QJ - --0 Page 1 Moo AUQ 2215:04:58 2005 Pruoeridge Avenue Residential SUfmlary Scenario CCIf1'1)arison Report (WIth Average Critical Delay Future Volume AltemaUve CO""... PMExisllna PM Backcround PM Pro1ed PM "''''''øctedGrowIh A.. A.. A"" A.. Avg A.. en, A"9 CO! A'. erU Crit eñt A"9 Grit 0., en, "" Do' Cril 0.1 Dol CO! VIC D" Dol Del cm Del Intersection LOS (see) VIC (""') LOS (""') VIC (see) LOS {~c\ VIC Ch&l1ge (see) Change LOS (see) VIC (see) " Wolfe Road f Homestead Road c- 3<.8 0.706 36,3 D 41.6 0.894 48.0 D 41.4 0.692 _0.002 47.7 -0." D 432 0.918 50.5 112 WoIre Roed f Prul'\Elridge Avenue D' 38.2 0.852 41.5 .. 57.1 1.019 69.2 D "9.6 0.988 -0.031 "".. -6.9 E' 56.0 1.018 68.4 #3 HP Driveway I Pruneridge Avenue B· 18.5 0.259 18.3 B· 19.8 0.359 19.8 B· 18.6 0.262 -0.078 18,.( ·1.5 a- 18.7 0.291 18.4 .. Tanlau AVel1uel Pruneridge Avenue C 24.4 0.529 24.5 C 25.4 0.564 25.8 C 25.0 0.551 ·0.012 25.1 ·0.7 C 25.3 0.571 25.6 #5 Wolfe Road f 1-280 NB Rarrv.; B 14.6 0.= 16.9 D "3.5 1.084 03.3 D' 38.4 1.062 - 0.022 55.4 -7.9 D 45.4 1.091 66.4 .. WolFe Road 11-280 S6 Ramps A 8.1 0.,(55 B.8 B' 10.1 0.739 12.0 B' 10.1 0.740 +0.002 12.0 +0.0 B' 10.3 0.756 12-4 licetlsed to FEHR & PEERS. SAN JOSE Inc. (c) 2003 Do....Iing Associates. Copyright Trafflx1.7.0515 ::t::: \ 'D ~ H 22tU,UI:¡gœ ___w - ~.- """,,:t-I _.....22'...,._ ---"" -- LoO.Iëf-.......~_ 2O!II:HCIII."...._~___t ..- Wof8Ro11dI~U(\Road . ,-- l_...._¡;¡¡.......-~ _HCMOpoo._!F......__¡ " Inl8I"SIDCliOn'1:WoIIeRøødIHDmestolildRoad- -- ,,-_ L-.o~"" ~ '. J- +- 1= ~ ~ ~-- ~~oI.OO ...q- lilt ~~'4 ¡ ~.~ ~oI~Oo.., ... (:....'_1>0<1 110 ...._ Mo<~ a C._VICo ....,...ÞoI__~ ....DoIr.._t &II l""; D .,~tto-~ ~. '... Z .. 1 _v.o:,...- 1>11 W s...-..__ .- «. -- .- j> ~ - r ... -" " . -- '''I1QDO!~",,- ~. -..... ". ~ " J- 1.1111 ...- U.¡ T .. .- . "' Ir p ~""._ --... ........ ,... ~. ~'4 ¡ ~.~ v..er.oo.... c...._....¡ .... .....IOO<~ -~ _",0100001_1 ....PoII1'_~ ~_.. ......- j> ~ - r '. . 'W' .. .,~tt+-~ ..... J" 2 ... ......"'" ~- .., ~ --- ~ .~'" T , Ho....tead Road aound wIIe"- T - JI: .. :t..t " Road South BauDd T Wolfe Kor-t.b. Bound T· , StreetNallll! Appro_eh: Movew.ent:, Hoawu:eadR,,\Od Eu t Bound West BOUDd " T . " . T . ___n_ nl m , " " , " " ·1 W..1'" Road !forth BolUld Soutb Bound L - T L T II 10 1 10 I n · n , « il. .. · 'R , il. .n · 'R non 0.95 0.35 .n uonnoa 0.8]11.99 2.001.6<11 31503050 1900 0.92 1.00 1150 uoo 1.00 2.00 )JOG 1900 0,112 1.00 1150 noD o.ts 0.25 ... uoo 1900 o.n 0.99 :'1.002.15 31505155 " n.o o.n 36.5 1.00 )G.5 " O.::n 3].0 0.,1 36.S 1.00 36.5 " ------ , " 3155"" .001.00 JU 5" , , 8) ,(; 468653 .001.00 .001.00 4&8 (;53 , , U8 (;53 .001.00 .001.00 4U &53 , n.] 0.19 62.6 1·00 61.6 n 0.20 24.6 0.89 63.6 1.00 63.6 " 0.060.15 9.8 :U.6 0.61 0.67 60.541.1 1.001.00 60.541.1 10 18 " 41.5 o.n 31.6 1.00 n.6 " " '" ." '" , .. '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.00 1.00 '" '" ., 41.5 0.650.19 55.231.6 1.001.00 55.231..6 . " _0__ _______ ... S6tuu.tiou Flow I4Odul.., SAt/LAue, Itoo noo 1'00 AdjunlllOnt, 0.13 1.00 0.S2 1..lIe., .1.002.001.00 ri.ud Sat.1 31503800 1150 ... ...mlmumnmu C.p.u:hy I'oIalyds Kodule., VOl/SlOt.' 0.11 0.35 0.18 erit MOve..., .... Qrcl!D'1'irue., 13.' 46.' 46.' Volume/Cap, o.n 0.82 0.43 Dcl..yfVeh, n.' 31.4 22.' Unr lIelAdj, 1.00 1.00 LOa AdjÐd/Ven, 69.6 31.4 22.8 HCM21<9nh, 11 31 13 " 31.3 0.64 35.1 1.00 ]5.8 " " 10] 521 .001.00 103521 , , . " 101 571 .001.00 .001.00 1.01511 , , 101511 1.00 Loa 1.001.00 101511 I 1900 O,9S 0.30 '" lSIo01900 o.no.,. 2.001.10 3150 nn 1900 0.92 1.00 1150 1.9001900 0.921.00 1.002.00 17503800 1900 0.t5 0.29 '" nml " 19001900 0.13 O.tg 2.002.'11 U505080 0.120.1' 19.131.3 0.110." 41.035.1 1.~1.o0 41.035.1 12 II 0.15 23.2 0.71 46.' 1.00 U.' .. 060.14 10.9 :23.2 0.590.65 52.' n.6 1.001.00 52.141.& . n 43.2 0.'11 :n.I 1.00 :19.1 " 0.28 43.2 0.11. n.I 1.00 29.1 " ,., 11.0 O.H U.I 1.00 46.1 . , " . 1 10 10 '" 1.00 ... , . '" ." ." '" , '" ." ." '" I " .nl Dete, ,,. 1.00 '" , , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , ,,. l.00 1.aO ,,. n...____ _n-l S.tur..tion Flow MOd.ulc sat/t....,..., 1900190n 1900 Mju.t....nt' 0.'31.00 a.92 Lanes, 2.002.ao LaO F"aIlISllt., 315031001150 n..nu"··I__mnn..un C.PI'C'ity Andy.is Module' Vol/Sue, 0.080.2' 0.15 Crit Ho.,..., .~.. Gre_ '1'i...., 12.' 44.1 VoI\IIroefCep, a.n 0.'4 Deby/Vell., 53.2 ~1.0 tI...r DelAdj, 1.00 I.ao AdjDeI/Veh: 53.~ 21.0 ftOII:;:k95th: 8 n Sl:;r_1:; If...., Approach, Mo_nt 10814.01 .M 1.00 1081408 " , '>1 n9 159J.740 .001.00 .001.oa 1591740 " , 15917400 1.a01.00 l.aOl.00 15g17tO '" '" 1.00 '" , .. m ." ." m , m ." ." m Hin. Green, 1 ......n_.__ VOlUllleModule, oll.eVol, 254981 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 luithl liae, ~54 987 Added Vol, 9 13 Apprond, "315 InitielFut, 3491315 U.n Ad;!, I.oa 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 LOa pH!'Voh_, H9 Ins Reduct vol, II a lI"duc"dVol, 389 Ins pC"J: Adj: 00 1.00 MLI" Adj, 00 1.00 Fiulvo 49 115 " .. " .. , , .. " " .. , .. Loa 1.00 .. 385517 .001.00 385517 , , , , ]85511 .a01.00 .001.00 3.5517 , , 385511 .oa1.00 .001.00 3.5517 103 521 26"0 1..00 Loa 1.00 103 5:n 2100 , , , , , , 1035:U .260 l.ao Lao 1.00 1.001..00 1.00 103521 2'0 , , , 103521 260 1.001.001.011 1.0a1.00 1.011 103 521 no __n__nnn " __'''n _u___ 10J\¡12a03« 10lual 144 1.00 Loa 1.00 10e Hoe 144 , , , , , , 1011408 144 .00J.ao LOll .00 LOa 1.00 lae 1401 144 , , , 1011401 144 .aOl.ao 1.00 .00 LOa 1.00 Joe 1401 144 ...- ""''' '" 1.00 ." , , '" 1.110 LOll m , m ." ." m Cr..ell nnnn ml.n. Voluna.e Module, » Be.... Vol, 2540 Growth Mj, 1.00 t.niti..lli"e, 254 Added Vol, 0 Pe..erByVol, II Initi"lput, 254 tI..,..r Adj, 1..00 PHP Adj, 1.00 FIU'Vol..",.., :1st lIed\l<::t vol, 0 lIeduc:ed VoL 2540 pC!: Adj, .110 MLl" Adj, .110 rinaJvlI1. 254 44.8 0." :12.9 1.00 22.9 U u.......jo_~I'I!ØIS........JOIe "-"",,oo¡pq-._.... "_'.1.1,,, l_._.PHII........X>M ~¡'12OOJ-"'--","'" nOI'''.' 1. , 9J 9J --- ~_~_c ....Ior ~ .....~o,..._~v.__ ~- WoØeROi1d fPrulleridge Avenue ~-- wwv.t ~i ..,ru In Co_ ~.~ ¡ ~'~ ....- "..c.._ """- """"_ ~_..... <>,doT>MI...~ "0 ~ ,» ~..._(10""" 12 .$...- "'_VIC ~.m ~ ......CottPol~1 4'-1 T ....t>oo.r(_~:lU . LOI". 0. P~iH _....ø~o.....1'OC4 -.......--... L_OI_~-~ _I<CIoI~(~___) ~_, In\erudion 12: W~ Road I PI1oIf\IIrid¡¡eAYeIIUI! _i¡¡IIOII_ ......~oL '2 2.01 ~ 0 I I \I ~4t~ .....~g"..: '....'-_1 ~,- .. Ø!5~:H_ -.....-_... - -~ 1nIersec:t1Dn'2: ......VoL ~ ...- ..........._ lanoo. ~ J- +- T t ,~. '~ ,Co n '''~1M<i' -~ A........IW~~ .....~'~I ..- _wt.....:_ . J- ..t. - --r -- .-- J- ~ - --r -- " .- ., ~ ,~ ~-<tt~~ J' i 0 \ _ '"Ir" J]. ~--- Ð.' .. .n lIIr" ~-<tt~~ '-"' Z' 2 0' .......... _- .311 JOII ......-- Molte Road Horth BOund Soutb Bound 1.. - T - It L T k _.....__~_ _1____n____un_1 Milt. IJUM: 1 10 10 U 10 _n__n__ --I-----.-------ul vohme Module, Base Vol: 268 1135 21111 Growtll Adj: 1.011 1.00 1.00 !.nitid sse: 26"11135 200 Added Vol, 0 0 ::n Approved: 0 47. . !.nit.hl Put: 2" UU HI U.er Adj, 1.00 1.01) 1.1111 PIlJ'Adj, 1.0111.1)1) 1.00 P1!J'vol\U1\O: 2U un 231 Reduct vol, 0 0 (I R"duced vol, 2U 1113 231 PO: Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.110 KlorMj: 1.001.001.00 rind Vol., 2U 1813 231 ..... ..I..........m.. Sat\lrati_ "low 1'100\1.1", Sat/LlOZIe: UOO 11100 1900 Mjut...nt: 0.13 l.00 0.112 LaDes: 2.002.001.00 ru....1SIIt.· 315018001750 ·····.......I..........m.. cl~city IInlly.b Mod.de: Vol/sat, 0.01111.48 11.11 Crlt MOv....' .... Gre~ TilJ\Cl: 9.' 51.4 S1.4 Volume/c...p: 0.98 1.11¡ 0.28 Delay/V"II, 11'.55'.2 11.2 u.er DelJLdj, 1.00 1.00 1.011 MjDIIl/Veh: U.S 5'.2 11.1 UCM21t,sth: 11 58 9 "- WlII·...1: AVeJlue We..t Bouud T . Prwleridg.. I:...t. Bgl>nd 1.. T - II: $tr..etlf...... ,.pp~olch: Mo.....-nt' lound T , PI'Ulleridge Avouu.. Ea..t. BoulUJ W",st 'r - a L , liiol1'e KOld North Bound Sollt.h IOUZId L - or ' L T _ R , " m 1.110 m " , '" ." ." '" , ", ." ." ", 19011 0.111 1.011 17511 191101900 O.U 1.00 2.001.00 1150 l~IIO I UOO tL95 0.8\1 JiO) 19110 0.95 0.11 '" 1'110 0.112 1.00 1150 aoo 11.'5 0.01 " aDo Ul10 0.92 o.u 1.0112.9' 1150552' noo 0.92 1.00 1150 .m·1 " '" ." ." ." 19110 0.13 1.00 JlSI1 ." ." ... m UI10 UO o.n 11.11 1.00B.1 l?SO 1\1 19011 0.')5 0.05 " aoo 11.98 1.95 551111 19IIB 0.112 1.00 1750 1900 11.':2- 1.00 1150 " 23.t o.u 31.t 1.011 3'.t . " " " , o " .00 00 " , " 00 00 " " , m 1.00 m 'n " '" 1.00 1.00 '" o '" 1.00 1.00 '" 0.17 .... 1'.123.t 1.020.15 71.SJS.4 1.001.00 17.5]$.t n , " " 11.11 1.112 122.t 1.00 122.t " 0.10 11.0 1.01 '" .00 '" " " 1'.3 11.111 to.7 1.011 to.1 , I I , m 1.00 m , , '" 1.00 1.00 m , m ." ." m , u .. .. .. " .. .. _n___ , " 25 20 0111110 15 10 o , o , 25 20 0011111 1101011 1S ¡11 , , 25 211 .00100 .011100 15 20 .. ,. U .. U 0.11' O.U "f.l1tS.' 11.9110.98 132.743.6 1.001.110 132.743.' . .. 24.8 0.34 3'.3 1.00 36.3 , " .. .. ., " , , ,. ,. " .. " ,., 211.0 O.IS 47.0 1.00 n.o " " 11.1 0.85 13.11 1.011 71.9 " " " " o o " " " " , " 1.1111 1.011 " 1911 1.00 11118 , ... 24111 1.110 1.00 Jt02 o 1t01 1.00 1.00 2t01 '" ." '"' , , no ." ." no , no ." ." '" , , m 1.00 m , o m ." ." m , no ." ." no 010,111 17.31].1 O.BIIO.85 1\1.713.11 1.1101.011 39.7 n.' , " " H.II 0.15 31..8 1.011 32.' " " " " , , n " " " , " " " " TO' 1.011 TOT , , m 1.00 1.00 '" o TOT 1.00 1.00 TOT h_nu_ 10 10 m 1.1111 '" o o ", 1.011 1.00 '" , '" 1.011 1.011 '" 0.35 .... 44.9 0.15 32.8 1.00 32.. " " .. 11.?5 ?0.1 1.011 70.1 , " .00 " , , " ." ." " , " 1.00 1.00 " " " 1.00 " o , " 1.00 1.00 " , " 1.011 1.00 " H , " ., " , . u~. 1 10 0 ___u_.__u_ 111 Jill 2001 « 103U18 31 1.1101.001.00 101 U18 32 , , , , , , 1011918 n 1.0111.00 1111 1.0111.00 00 101 U18 31 , , , 11131918 32 1.1101.00 00 1.11111.00 110 103 UU 32 , " nat.e '" 1.00 '" , , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , '" 1.110 1.00 '" . o , , , I Kin. Green 10 ·"_.m· I ... Yol......... MOd....le: » Counl BaSe vol, 169 13JS Growth Adj, 1.011 1.1111 Initial III'" 268 1)]5 Adde<t Vol: 0 II PI.aerByVol: 11 0 tnitialFut: 16'])]5 Ullal' Adj, 1.001.00 PfWJldj: 1.011].110 PWi'Vo1.u....., 2'1 1]]5 RRduct Vol: 0 11 R~uc",d YCll: 2611335 PCB Adj: 1.011 1.011 MLP Adj: 1.001.110 FlDalVol.: ¡6I]J15 .......... . -........ Saturat:>Q1J F10.. HodlL1", Sit/Lane: 1900 UI10 Ac!julltment: 0.8]1.1111 [,.Inlll!s, 2.0C 2.1111 Tinal SIL: ]1:>0 JlOI1 -----..·....I..m...... Capacity Aßdydll Module Vol/Set: 0.09035 Crit Mov",.: .... Green Ti"",: 1].0 t7.3 vol\Ufle{Cap: 0.850.82 Delay/Veb., '8.230.1 User DelAdj, 1.00 1.I1G AdjDe1¡Yeh: 61.2 ]11.' HOOI:.Ik95tÞ., 10 H Stre"'t Nu..~ Approilcll: Movellleflt, , ~._._.......... ~!< MJ__"" f._,.1OUI ~.._R._.~_ c......,.C< XlÐSP-..,_.... ,-, -. --C:.. \ Qj \1) 1J .3-" _~n,u":5IZ>O!I -...._R_ ~_0I_~1Ion"""",, 2OII\IHOI_...._.__) - !"I...., DriYewavIProoerídgItAY1I_ <-- >0 _....12"~;M2OQI Pr.........A_~_ ·,_01__...... :zooo_o,...o_~_.....-¡ p.,U!! ~- In~"_ . " -- .......- ~, ~ J- +-- 1= ~.- , ¡... ~ ~'-4 ¡ ~o'-. OIjI.olVtt "- m . " .- on .œ "'1't~1"" . . 0 ~ . -- " ,. ." ~#3:HP -- ._,-- .J. ~ -+ :r v..¡c.u>...· ç........._t ~·'*""/OIo<t -- A,.C<; DoI_t ......DoIo¡r_¡ . ....- Volc..ol>oOo· ..._ ~_ '-- IoWoIVot .,....,-...."..r.. ~ " t_ 1.... ¡..or ,z .J.- .- +-- , ... . .- PIUl\efId¡ <llA~..... _"""'1'IloO"_ Inili.oll'ot.q .... rt - ~'-4 ¡ ~o'-. Drivew.![1 -~ ,~ . .œ .,,"'1't~1"" 0' . ,,' 11 ~~. ......._~ InlwHl:lionl3,HP - --1.-..- .- J- ~ -+ :r n1- -~ A..c.tIDoII_, ....-..._, M . 0- -~ , "- M'~ pr\1Qe.I;idg-e "veDIll! IIoUDd west: 1Iound. T ~ R L T .. HP Drive.....y !fortb Bound BOl>tb Bound 1. T - R L T Street If.._: Appro..ch, MOVUleQt. prunerid.ge Avenue iI....tllOul1d w...taoU1'ld L~T-a I.-T_a HP DrivewilY Nol'th IIound South Bound L - T - II. . T - II. If A..." Approa<:11 Movement , " " " , , " " " " , " " " " , " 2351 001.00 2151 " , , " 13 374 001.00 001.00 1) l'U , , 13374 001.00 001.00 13 374 " , 1.00 , " , " 1.00 1.00 " , " LOO 1.00 " " 16 208 001.00 16 208 , , , " 16 nø .001.00 .001.00 H 218 , , 110 218 1.001.00 LOO 1.00 H 211 , " R " '" ." ", , , ." ." ." '" , '" LOO 1.00 '" " , " , , , , " " , , , " " , " Ip " 1.00 " , , " ,,, ,,, " , " 1.00 1.00 " . " " " " , " ." ." " , " 1.00 1.00 , " , " , , , , " " , , , " " , " 1 Vol\11111! Mcdul" aA.e Vol: 21 (¡tollitb Adj: 1.00 Initid s.e, 2. Added vol: 1)) Approved: 0 Il1itcid Fut' 161 uu,r Adj: LOO PIll' Adj: 1.00 PUF volume: Ul Reduc:t vol, II Reduc:edvol,l61 PCB Adj: .00 IoILJ' Ad): .00 Fil1~l Vol 161 Green, Mho ul " 1 " 1.00 " , , " 1.00 1.00 " , " 1.00 1.00 " , " 2351 .001.00 23:>1 , , , , 2351 .OD1.00 .1101.00 :I 351 , , ;: 351 001.00 001.00 :I 351 " · " · , , , 1.00 1.00 · , · 1.00 1.00 , " OOPM li 301 1.001.0D 16 :101 , , , , U :108 1001.00 1001.00 U 201 , , 16201 1.001.00 1.001.00 16206 U___,___,u_1 10 10 10 ___un .------1 10 Aug 2005 « ! n 1 141 1.0C1.00 1.011 79 3 143 , , , , , , n ) 141 1.001.001.00 1.001.001.00 n 1 141 , , , " 3 141 1.001.001.00 1.001.001.0C n :) H3 " countþ.te , " 001.00 , " , , , , , " 001.00 001.00 , " , , , " 00 00 00 00 , " " . » " ." " , , " " " " , " " " " Green I· VolWDII: IoIodule Bue Vol, Growth Mj: Initi..lØlle Added Vol: PalløerByvol InItial Put U~er Adj, pup Adj, PH!' VolUØl,!!" Reduct Vol, Reduced vol PC!: Adj: ~F Adj: Fin..l Vol Mio. '" ,., ,., " 0.11 15.' 0.41 11.' 1.00 lI.i , 1900 noo 0.92 0.91 1.001.90 115(1)521 0.11 15.£ 0.41 18.6 1.00 la.i , " U 0.05 21.6 1.00 21.6 , 1900 0.9S 0.29 ". 13.3 0.31 19.7 1.00 19.7 . 0_07 19001900 0.920.91 1.0e 1.11 17501175 " u .n .., ." .., . 0.111 H 0.01 23.1 1.00 23.8 , ." ." ... '" H.9 0.41 21.7 1.00 21.7 , " UOO HOe 0.92 0.95 1.000.02 1150 J1 0.0: 11.' 0.41 21.7 1.00 21.7 . " 11.9 0.23 20.5 1.00 20.5 , 1900 0.92 1.00 1150 13.. 0.16 lB.9 1.00 lB.9 , " n___n_____t__ _n_ snu~;l.tloo Flo... IIodllle Sat/L-.ne., 19001900 Adju.tment, 0.9S 0.95 L...."., O.U 0.02 Final S.t.. 1167 n ...._ __I___uuuu eepAcity An.slyde Module Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 Crit MOv".: .... Grem Tln=: 13.411.4 vol_ICap: 0..10.41 DdAy/Veb: 20.6 :Ie.' U.er DelAdj, 1.001.00 Adjflel/Veh' 30.' 20.6 ÞCM21t95th, '6 I· 19001900 1900 1900 noo 1900 19001900 1900 o.n 0.95 0.95 0.920.91 0.95 0.920.91 0.95 1.000.02 O.U 1.001.91 0.09 1.001.19 0.11 1150 " 1.163 L7503546 '" 17503510 '" ______uu_____II____u__u____·II·______________ 0.050.08 0.08 0.010.06 0.0' 0.000.10 0.10 .... .... ~... 1).'11.' 13.9 7.014.2 14.2 9.911.1 11.1 0.200.15 0.15 0.010.35 0.25 0.1110.15 0.15 18.119.8 19.' 23.111.7 11.7 20.911.2 17.:1 01.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 '19.1 It.. 23.1111.7 11.7 20.917.2 17.2 , , , , , , , , , 1'.100 0.92 1..00 1"'150 10.0 0.03 21.0 1.00 ;1:1.0 . " _'__'h Modul..: O.C~ 0 10.0 0.10 11.4 1.00 21.4 . .1- m Sill:uratioJl flow Module S..t/Lil.Zte, l'.I001900 Adjlløt......t, 0.950.9S Loane., 0.9110.10 Flnal Sat.' lU' 174 ___u_____ul____ c.paçity ""alyd. Vo1/SAI:, 0.02 Critlol"ve.: I]reen Time. 10.0 vol_/e.p. 0.10 De.by/Vdt: 21.4 !hIe:r DelAdj, 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 21.4 KCIOk9!ith: 1 l_._A_&AHJcS:I' ~l<læn__........ "_'.T.ØU~ ~_"~~'_5."""_~ """"""1·J;æcø-._.... T_'.'.4 -- -t: I 9J ~ ~ ""!"~, nl$o.;!I} )IJ$ --- l<W0i_~_ :IOOII"g,¡__II'_V__) - .. ,~. -- ........._ ~_V'" ~ " J- +- r !rIEo-secllDriJ4:T;¡nIau........""IPtuneri '. ,,-~~~ ......v.I 151 1" Ð" ~ .-I'..{ ¡ ¡.'~ VoI""',,","_ .... . " .~ n, - ~""T_¡""~ -- .....~ÞoI_ ....PoIor_~ -,~ - "",,,v... Ynoo___ 12t- ..J ~ -+ :r .)-u }>.'~"'- __R_ l....O/_~.... --."....-p;..o._~ ""'........ T_"'_IPtu~""Aven\l<i! .......-- ....VaL I" .., _ ~. .-I'..{ ¡ ¡.'~ ..- - '--- __ Val""''''' <QV,IO(IO ~ ~._V« ~ CjOCIoTóno¡...t n ~ ~ ....r....ÞO<~.. ~ ~ .... +- --t .. ~ -. 'f" -.. - ..-VJC: ....."""DoI__1- "OOt>oIo,.-~ -- IRletsllClionU: '" -.""'.... · ,œ ..,4t~,.... I Q . 'G 1m zor on ...-."..........- n, , . " .œ ..,4t~,.... l_ '. I 1 I _,,_ '" 2III.ø In ....... - . "- ..,,,v.¡ J>.v~\1e West. BOund , T . 7 ~D 10 p~..r1dge Bound T . . Hin. G"el!J1: 7 .....000010000 Val_Module: 1I...e Vol, lU 268 Growth Adj, 1.1)0 1.00 Initi..l Sse: 114 16B Added vol, , 0 Appraved, 0 U Initiall'ut: 120 282 UserMj, 1.001.01) PH!' Ad:!: 1.00 LOO PH'Volmne: 120 282 Reduct Vol, 0 0 R..duced Vol, 1'0 2&2 PCE Ad:!: 1.00 1.00 o(LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 pinal Vol.: 120 2U .nomn···lnn...n S.tur.tion Plow Modol.. S..t/Lane, 19001900 Adjustll'>ant: o.u 0.g5 L;ule.: 1.000.70 Filial Sat., 1750 U53 00.00000000·1...· Cap.eity AnalY5b Vol/S..t, 0.01 Crit MDves: Gr<i!en'1"ione: Vol......./C..:p: Delay/Veh: 'OsClrDdMj Adjnel/Veh, HCH2kUth: Eiut TlUlt..u Avenue tlorth SoImd South 1IOWld L T R L - T . .- AI>P"oac-b, 110"""""IIt., Bou.nd . , ~veJ; ue W..st Pruneridge I!:aat. Bound Lor· R uu __~________ 1 1(1 10 Tantau Avenue Bou.n<1 So\lt:h Bound . ,. North , T Streettla....' Approach, lIav_nt, , , " I· S..t.ur..t.ion 1'10" MOO\lle Sat/Lme, 19001geo Adjunlllellt.' 0.92 0.9S ¡.a.ne.., 1.000.'9 Final s..t.: 11501231 00........1. ...·...00 Capacity AnIllYllie Module Vol/SU: 0.010.22 Crit Ko,...a, .... 'Or..,"", Time: 12.' 2".2 VollIdII/Cap: 0.330.51 Delay/VfOh, 2f.920.0 u"erDc1Mj: 1.001.00 I\djCel/Veh: 2....9 20.0 1ICM21r.95th, 5 13 .. 00 .. . , " 00 00 " . " 00 00 " '1 4.05 001.Ge '14.0'5 . , , , 1i7 _111 OOl.GO 001.00 1i74.11 . . '7411 001.00 001.00 '7411 · .. .00 .. " · " 1.00 1.00 " · " :LOO 1.00 " '" .00 '" , , '" .00 .00 W . '" .00 .00 '" " 1.00 " " , no 1.00 1.00 no . no 1.00 1.00 no '" ." '" . " '" 1.00 1.00 m . m ." .00 m SO 131 .001.00 50137 . . , " '53111 OO1.OC 001.00 53 In . . 53111 001.00 001.00 53171 · no 1.00 no · , no 1.00 1.00 '" · '" 1.00 1.00 '" " .. 1.00 .. · · .. 1.00 1.00 .. · .. 1.00 1.00 .. T " UfOS 1.001.00 61 '05 · . · . UfOS 1.001.00 1_001.00 Iil 405 · . '1 "'05 1.001.00 1.001.00 n 405 , , .. 00 .. · · .. 1.00 1.00 .. · .. .00 .00 .. U 137 001.00 U 137 · . · . U 137 1.001.00 1.001.00 U 137 · . U 137 1.001.01) 1.001.00 9.131 . " ---- '" 1.00 m · · m 1.00 1.00 '" · '" 1.00 1_00 m , 25.J..n2000 50137 1.001.00 50137 · . · . 50137 1001.00 1 (HI 1.00 50137 · . 50131 1.001.00 1.001.00 50 137 T " " ~" no 1.00 no · · m ." ." m · m ." .00 no " Coun' '" .00 '" · · '" ." ." '" · '" .00 .00 '" , » '" ." '" · · '" ." .00 n. · n. ." ." '" I ,"'. ..00 I Vol"",e. Mod..le BlIseVol: Orowth Adj: Init.ialB"..: IIdIiedVol: Pa..erByVol, tnithl Fut., URr Adj, PUP Adj, PUP Volume, RedllCt Vol: Reduced Vol, (ICE Adj, NLPAdj' f'iDiIl Vol Oreen 1900 0.95 0.37 on 19001900 0.920.911 1.001.6"3 175030:2' 1900 0.95 0.70 1266 19001900 0_g20.n 1.001.30 11502432 1900 0.95 0.48 '" 19001900 o.n 0.g5 1.000.52 1750 938 1900 0.9$ 0.30 '" 1900 0.95 o.u ,.. 19001900 0.g20." 1.001.'" 17S030S! 1900 19001900 uOO 0.95 0.920.U 0.95 0.50 1.001."1 O.$) U3 1150'139 giG 11___----u.:..h 19001900 0.i2 0.95 1.000.50 1750 g01 1900 0.!!5 0.J1 '" " 1-1.5 o.n 2'.0 1.00 ".0 " . 0.14 101.5 0.61 2&.0 1.£10 2&.0 n 0.' '.0 0.28 21.g 1.00 27.9 , .. 1'2.9 0.30 23.3 1.00 23.3 · 0.01 1.311.!! 0.&10.30 40.523.3 1.001.00 40.523.3 , . .. .. 19.' o.n :U.I 1.00 21.1 n ... 7.01!L' 0.280.'1 30.424.' 1.001.00 30.421.4 , n " " 24.1 0.61 20.1 1.00 20.1 " .... Kod..le 0.1.3 24.1 0.&1 20.7 1.00 20.7 " 11.6 0.39 21.2 1.00 21.' , u 14.8 0.58 25.3 1.00 25.3 .. 0.11 .... U.' 0.5' 25.3 l.OQ 25.3 " " .. 0,25 21.5 1.00 27.5 , . .. 11.' 0.15 22.g 1.00 22.9 · 0.05 12.& 0.25 U.9 1.00 2:1.' . 0.05 '"' 0.50 U.5 1.00 U.5 · 0.15 11.3 0.51 :13.1 1.00 23.7 " 0.15 11.3 0.5" 23.7 1.00 23.7 " 0.03 '"' 0.21 30.1 1.00 30.1 , " 21.2 0.'5& 20.0 1.00 20.0 U . l_"'_~_5.ÞNIOIIIi ~(.1Dl:l0000II00_""""- '11_11-"15 L-..._._....,...... ~t.IJIIOJ~_...,... '_1.1-"" --- ~ , \U I j ~ <a'f~iOØI - -~. .~)., <a1t...._ ---~- '....Of_~FIIt ICIOI Hoo"",,,__p>w..__ f'!~1 - ~- InlefUCMn'S, Walfe RI>8d I 1-280 NB -- "...- '-,-- ~ ., J... - 1= -. ......ç.,ø... _1_fo"~ <-T"'_I -~ ~ ~"","""(_I· 'n ..........,_t .11 .~ , ~~t~~ . a ~ .. . .,.. . ...-.._~ _..._,,- l_OI_.......-_ _~CIII_~__ '101_. InllIf1:lICIiool5:WoIftRolldII·28DNBR8m III ...--t\IfI\IP...... _v.o :r.o ZHr' . ,- .,"4 ¡ ¡,.... ft .. ....- --......-- .~ ..\. --+ :r . -~ ~..CIII...._I ~..ÞoI.r_1 ~. ~~t~~ .. z .. . - . .......--- ....... ~ io/1. ....... .....Vol . 15"'- ~ .,"4 ¡ ¡,... -- ......0.0110..· &IUŒdI """"_ 0.-. ......Vot Ç"',T...!M<~ H ~ ur- 'on T...Ioo<r 5 .:- 5 UZZ ~ 1= - 1011......1_"_ J ..\. --+ :r .- -- - .....v.. 8o.."d T . " m ." m " , ." 1.00 l.00 '" , '" ." ." '" " , .. , , , , .. .. , , , ... ... , U"". 101'".1: , " " " " , m '" 1.110 1.00 '" , '" ." ." .n .. , 1.00 , , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , ... ... , 1-2&0 ..- T - . , , 001.00 , , , , , , , , 00100 .00100 , , , , , , .00100 .00100 , , East , , , Road ~"thBo"'Dd " - T Ii --------,-- 7 10 10 , " , " , " ,,, ,,, , , , 0.00 0.00 , 01679 001.00 01'19 , " 0$114 022" 1.001.00 1.001.00 022" , , 022" 1.001.110 1.001.110 02466 Wolf" tfo:nb ØQund L "T ]\ " IS-~ : IS pili US 0 1.001.00 US 0 n , 486 0 Ult 0 1.00000 1_00000 U84 0 , , 1314 0 1.1100.00 1.000.00 1384 0 " Mill. Gn:O!II: ., --------·..-1·--- Volume Mod\Ile: S: 1I..e Vol: 0 oro"'tb. Adj: 1.00 l",ithIS.e: 0 Added Vol: 0 Approve<1: 0 IDil:ialF\lt: 0 UIeT Adj: 1 00 PHr Adj: 1110 PHr Vol"...: 0 Re4"c:t Vol 0 Redu.eedVo 0 teE Adj, 00 m.r Adj, 00 ri.ru.l Vol. 0 Strl!et H...... Approec:h, MoTeDl!Dt, -. 1oI'..t1l0"..d L . T R , m ." m , , '" 1.00 1.00 '" , m ." ." m " 610 0 .00100 610 0 , , , , 610 0 1.00100 1,00100 no 0 , . 610 0 1.110100 1.00100 IiIO 0 , .. . , , " , , , , " " , , , " " , 1-2& Ba.t iIo""d , T ---- - , , l!t~': ISpIII , , 1001.00 , , , , , , , , 1.0111.00 1,001.011 , , , , , , 1.001.00 1.1101.00 , , .." So"'th Bo"nd , T . --- 7 10 10 __"'''hn ( Sep 2005 u 5 011i79 001.00 01679 , , , , 01679 .001.00 .001.00 01679 , , 01679 .001.00 .001.00 01679 , " , , , , 11.00 0.00 , , , 0.00 0.00 , , Wolte ""'''th BolIIld , T . ., 10 10 ____________1 ~~ t=oUDt Date 0885 0 001.001.00 0885 0 , , , , , , o US 0 00.00000 011 .00000 II US 0 , , , o US 0 00.000,00 00.000,00 o eu 0 streetJl"a"",: Appro.c:h, MoveGeRt: I Hi. ... I Volune lIodule Baae VOl, GrowtbAdj, Inith,IB.e Added Vol, Pa..erByVoI Initialr"t IJ.er Adj: PH'Mj, P"PVol"..., lIedl1Ct Yol Red"ced Vo PCB Adj, ML' Adj, pi_lvol Green: 1900 o.n 0.00 ,inalSa.1 0 ......---..·1--........ Ca.p.1Ic:I. ty Anllly.!., Hod"le V01/9at, 0.000,]6 exit Move., Green Tillie: 0.0 Vol....../cap' 00 Df!la.y(Veh, .0 Unr DeUdj 00 AdjDd(Veb' 0 HCM2k95th, 0 1900 0.92 1.16 2518 19110 1.00 11_00 , 1900 O. 9~ 1.5' 27]2 1900 O.SJ 0.00 , 1900 1.00 0.00 , 1900 0.92 0.00 , 1900 0.92 1.00 17050 uoo 19110 o.n 1.110 0.00 ~ .110 031110 n""u' Fl"", Module: Uoo 1900 0.921.00 0.1102.00 03100 Sat"".tion Sat/Lene, Adj"atllllt..t It( O 0.9':1 1.52 2654 19001900 0.921.00 1.48 0.00 2SU 0 19110 0.9':1 0.110 , 1900 1.00 0.011 , 19011 0.92 0.00 , 1900 0,92 1.00 1750 19001900 O.'~ 1.00 0.002.00 0]800 1900 0.92- 0.00 , 1--....... SAturation Plow Hod",1e Sat/LaDe, 19001900 IIdj".tIIlCmt, 11.921.00 t.anei' 0,002,00 .illillSat 03100 " 15.7 0,92 ~7.& 1.00 27.8 " O.UII.OO .... 15.70,0 LO& 11.110 69.10.0 1.001.00 69.10.0 " , 0,00 ,., 0.00 ,., ." ,., , " ,., ." ,., ." ,., , " ,., ." ,., ." ,., , " ,., 0.00 ,., 1.00 ,., , 0.60 30.3 1.01 S9·0 LOO 59.0 ., 0,00 ,.. 0,00 ,., " , , " ., " ., ." ,., , 10,) II." ... " . , 0.25 16.4 0.12 21.' 1.00 21.' " " ,., ." .., ." ,., , '-' 16,t 0.'19 20.3 1.110 20.3 " " ,., 0.00 ., " , , " ,., ." ,., ." ,., , , " ,., 0,00 ,., ." ,., , " ., 0_00 ,., ." ,., , IIOO,H .... 0.029.6 ,000.12 0.013.4 .001.00 013.. , " " ,., 0.00 ,., ." ,., , 1...·------.. AIoalyah Module: 11.000.2] 0 .. " .. " . , 0_112 0.0011 ,., 1.00 ,., , CilpaÇl.ty VOl/Sat: Cr!.tHove., Cree¡¡ Ti...., VolUQIe(Cap, tJday(Veb, LJBer DelAdj AcljDel/Yeh, nCM2k9Sth, ._...f'EI«._.,......ooae ~(.I......-......_... '_J.1.~15 ",-",,"_~_.""".IOIJo ¡ ~t· :aroJo...a..,,_'" T_,. {I!iI' - -Ç:. I 9J 50 U) """3-12 u,S o :SI_ - ~. .. _~zz..,...'""_ .-- ___w ~0I_"""'-1I<opo<1 :/IIOO1""'~fI'''''-''''''- "'- "'--- l....OI_~""" »OO1<OoI_(I'_._-t ""'~I - ...._ l___ ~ J.- +-- r lmer.ec:tiIn 116, Wolfe Road/HfIO $B RtrI'Ipi -- _Vol" ..... Q - ~...{ ¡ ~;.... " lOS. . .,~t~,... 10 > Q 0 o 1Itr"' ~ ....... ,,~. .. .. .~ " \IoII;nIOooI· tJdO'-loKl c....-t_1 -= ~..,,",PoI'"""""1 .....--, - ~'lIiI¡hIo~ .f ~ --+ r -~ ,. ~- ..101_ - ltith>I_llbO¥ ~ J.- +-- r 1<\IeISfICtionf6;Wl)I!eRoad/¡.2ImSBR8IIII'" ... r n.,......_ ....._ 0 ,.u. 0 u_ .;'..{ ¡ }...... ,~ .,~t~,... 00 2 0 I o .....~ 0 ...-..-.........- ..- .. . 0.4" .....1"...1>0«): "'_Vn:, ....CtllPoO_ ....00<0.1>~ v..CftlDno C....T_(ooO~ - ~..."' II.,............ .f ~ --+ r .....Vol ~!'- p, Bound , l-ac S8 RampS EaBt BOund MeRt L T R. L.- _d SOuth BOund L - T . it u_ ....""" 1IOHe No>;th !iI01,IJ\d L - T - it St>;eet Name Approach: MOveme.ot: ..",. velt " l·no ....... , . " ,~d south BOWld L T Wolle Bound , l_. ....V.. . -I , , 1.00 , . , , '" '" , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , " , , , , " " , , , " " , , , 00 , , , , 1.00 1.00 , , , 1.00 1.00 , " m .00 m , no ... ." ..00 '" , ... 1.00 1.00 '" 10 10 , " , , , , 00 " , , , " " , , ,. L '" 1.00 '" . , no 1.00 1.1111 no . no 1.00 1.1111 no [ , " , .. , .. 0.00 0.00 · , , 0.00 0.00 · , . 01415 001.00 01415 · " 0"152 02201 .001.00 .001.00 0<1<101 · . 02201 001.00 001.00 0<1<101 T · · " · · '" '" 0.00 0.00 , · , 0.00 0.00 · , 10.8 1.00 IOU , '" 1757 1.00 1.00 1757 , 17.57 1.00 1.00 1757 T · 00 , , , · " ." · · · '" '" · [ VolW111! Module IIaaeVel: Growth Adj: ID.itialBae: Added vol: App:roved, ¡D.id..l Put: u.er Adj, PKrAo1j, Fill' Volume: Reduct vol, Raduced Vol fCJI Adj: MLr Adj: rind Vol.: G<:een .i. Bound , . · 1.00 · , , · 1.00 1.00 , , · ." .00 , · " , , , · " " , , , " " · L , , " · · · · " " , · · 1.00 1.00 , m ." m · · m 1.00 1.00 '" · m 1.00 1.00 m ... L " --[1--------- « S:JO-6:1OPM II )14 0 .001.001.00 o HI 0 · , . · . . o )14 0 0.011 1.001.00 0.001.001.110 o 31t 0 · . . o 314 0 0001.001.110 0001.001.00 o 314 0 " T n sep<lOI o IUS 1.001.00 o IUS · . · . 01415 1.001.00 1.001.00 01115 · . 014.lS 001.00 001.00 0111.5 ..- " - . " . ,..--- Count pate ~O" 0 1.001.00 IOn 0 · . · . 106& (I 1.000.00 1.000.00 IOU 0 · , on 0 .000.00 .000.00 on 0 North L - [---.- tlln. oreen, 1 -----..·---1·- VellllllB MOdule: u 1I...e Vol, 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 Jnitialll..., II ,o,dded Yol, 0 Pa.8e<:ByVol, 0 Initial Fut, 0 uaer Adj: 1.00 PØP Adj, 1.00 PØP Volu_: 0 Reduct vel, 0 Reduced vel: 0 PCB Adj, .00 MId'Mj, .00 final Vol 0 Streot NUN! Approach: ""vemeD t , L L ,. ,. 1900 0.92 0.00 , 1900 1.00 0.00 . 1.900 0.9:;! 0.00 · 1900 D·') 2.00 3150 19001900 0.1131.00 2.000.00 HSO 0 1900 O.U 0.00 , 1900 0.9$ 3.00 5600 1900 0.~2 0.00 · 1900 0.92 0.00 · ... ., " ., " .. , " ... ." ,.. ." ... . " · ." ,.. ." ... · 0.16 ....... 11.6 0.71 24.7 1.00 H.7 n 0.00 ,.. 0.00 ... " . . " 11.6 0." 19.6 1.00 19.. . 0.00 ... "' .. "' .. · " 0.0 H.4- 0.000.63 0.0 '.7 1.001.00 0'.7 · ., 0.00 " .., 0.00 .. "' .. · . ... ----- -[--..---- Sat\lJ:lJtion rIo... Module Sat{Lane, 19001900 Mjult1lletlt: 0.U1.00 J,mu, 0.002.00 rinalSllt.: 03800 -----------.[-.....--- C. ncity AD.lylb lfOdu: YeIIS.t: 0.0011.46 crit Move.' u". G<:een Tillie, 0.0 H.4 'ó'el\J/!1e/cap: 0.000.74 Delay/veh, 0.0 8.4 Unr nelAdj, 1.001.00 1odjl)el/Veb: 0.0 '.1 BDl2U5tb., 0 0 nOD 0.91 0.00 · , , 19001900 0."'1.00 0.000.00 · , 1900 o.n 2.00 3150 19001900 D.n 1.00 2.000.00 nso 0 1900 0.92 11.00 · 19001900 0.')2 1.00 0.001.00 OS700 1900 O.U 0.00 . 0.00 ... 0.00 ... 1.00 ... · . 0.00.0 0.000.00 0.00.0 001.00 .00.0 · , 0.00 0.0' ".. 0.31 18.7 1.00 18·7 . , .., .00 ... 1.00 ... . 0.10 11.0 0.16 BioI ,." 19.1 . .. ... 0.00 ... " ... · " 0.0 H.O 0.1100.40 0.05.1 .001.00 0.05.. , -. .. " .. ." ,.. 1.00 ... . ....n Mcclule 0.28 :H.O 0.46 " 1.00 '.T , ..n _,.n n Satur.tion Flow _clul., Sat/Lane, 19001900 Adj..at...,nt, O.U 1.00 Lanea, 0.00 2.00 rinal sat.· 03800 ___nun_ ,1___· Cap..cHy,\J dyaia vol/sat, 0.00 c<:tr. ""vea, O¡-een Ti....: 0.0 volu¡ae/cap, 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 UBer DelAdj' 1.00 AdjDeIIV<!h 0.0 JK,'M¡¡k'Sth, 0 ~..FüIO.._."""wU ~1<1:!1111.10000'00--·-- 1,_1.1,OIIS w...-t._..I'UIUl...._ ~«. IIIIO:III-""I__._ 1,_1.1.0.,,, ---- -t.. ~ S' APPENDIX C: APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS /4--;;J..:J.7 TiltMC-1 Pnrnerida. Rnld.ntial TlA ADDrOVild PrDlect TriD GilllilIOItlDn Wililkday AM p..k-Hour Trip, PM Pll8.k-HDUrTrlo, DilVslopment , Land Use SI" ..to ; TrItIS" "to I. : Out : Total: "to ,. Out T...' Aøprove~ ..- _",m -- -t -j -+ ! --+ --f RaskfentlaJ ~¡--;;; , Ãgn~-Ph~5e II ~!1..!l' ."-..~- .m".. ."n_,. .- . - T .__...~,,~. _m'.._ .-,.,---- SingleFamitv ~·d.u: Na '04 1.245 1,529 "" 1,316 56' 1975 --,---,.._~..- ~--·-"-·"-+-·s¡;;~o~~ ""n" nIa! "" ~ ~~ --'? -- ~ -... ..-. N, .._,. 47 -.---Æ'_ .. 3ðOOF'run~ - n~._ -,..--..--" -- " d.u. .?&7. '" 0.1.!! , 25 1.01 21 13 34 ~!!2!!'_e.!'!~!!.~~.(StJnnwale #32\ Sin~!!!T.!!!Y 8d.u. &,:11 " 0.15 2_ -~ --~- 1.01 , 3 -~ !!J..,!,olfeRd.(Sunnvvale#33) -- - . _SingJ~LF;¡mtv ! 8d.u 9.6?._ "r 0.75 I 4 6 1.01 , 3 ~._8 545 E. WeddetU:~.U.~.!:!r'.~~~J - Townhomes ._J.ªº Ø~~'_n - '.66 762. 0.... 10 47 " 052 ... 22 66 :!~:!~~_Oi:...tsunnwaie #38} ----- .T~1)0IIl£!S I SOd.u 5.86 ,.~ _º-:i'!. -. 4 16 22 0.52 17__L~ --~ 624 E. Evelvn Ave, l!?!!~.I:!~_~..~} - Townhomes +-_ .47 d.u,~....__ _9.,eg 275! 0,-44 ~¡17 21 052 181 8 24 :!..~§. SU'!!)~~.sara\oQa Rd. r$unnwale #41) - .,.. ~l!famiJY_.· 2' d.u. 9.57 '30 0,75 5 i 14 19 - 1ß1 1~, . 25 1601 Tenaka PI. ¡sunnvval,!_#4~L__.. --- 'A. rtmE!l1ts 66 ,~.u: ~,72 .... Ô,511--'-r!27 34 0.62 27 14 41 1-14 !!',...E.;:!.1f q!!.~s Ave. ISunnwale #41J --..-.- .-----.,... __~il)iI;m5 166 d.u. '.66 -~- n_.Q:~ ·_..J·H---~ -.-J...~ - _J!:.R .~.3~!L _,~9 ___...R CreSCElntAve_(SI.Ir-nl'!.<!!!!.!5.i3>_ .----- --- .---- TOMlh()(l'l8$ -- ..1.6 Ç,tll' I '.66 94 i 0.... , 062 , 3 . §ªL€:. A_I'B~es Ave. (Sunnwale #54) -- -.- .._-," .m....'_~:::~.._ 54d.u. ì :::{+_._.~~~. ! ...O.~ 4 - 2!t - 24 0.62 " -- ~- .- 2§ ~~~~Iï":1.A~.,1§Hn~1e~55) - 1 0.... , 22 27 0,52 21 " 32 Wolfe and Vallco Part:way {Vallco Res~lIall~ "n__ COndominiums ~~~ ~.~:-_.- rII~t- rIIa - ~, ~, ." 65 ./, ." "'" 62 N, ~_~'!ª..~!!..!I_~ 1.260 (oak F'ar1() Condominiums š:OOI ~.~ ~"~ ---~ __....1L ___,,£Q ~~3?. .-...!! -~ ._~~- ~'!!.!!!_~~.ê!Y<!.JM.o_t1!.Terra~l --A-;rt;;;;t;~= .-."._?-ª ~.JI.___ 6,721 165, 0" 2 ,0 ---1~ +~.~ 9 5 14 R"" 2.-400 ~J. '''-~?"n~r-- 1.º;~j_ 1,03 1 1 2 3.75 41 .5 9 Rainbow Dnve.and 5, De AnUl Blvd. (J-.okJmnos)1 - _.~4!f.aI!!IL -- 53 d,ij. n/a, "" N' .~~a .- nI<Ir n/;' "25 S:o;-M;~-'I?-;'d~plfe g¡lI"IIItat COfV:IOITIiniulTl$ 6d.lJ. '''"-:',~ , ¡¡,:' . - - " ,_.~. e'.. '~ - RetaØ 1.825 d. -~~=~- .~ ...dr':: -~~ ;;,,-s;.;¡¡-: "''', " '-., 'f, .- , ____M.- ~I "'--~ ""'- ' EO, _.. . __'":;:. , ''''' n" "', ---_!'!! ~!I 4__+___--"" n[a nJa~-. 5~. -""~ ."- -- -"¡...." - -- - COf1ml rciilVRetail --- r- -. ??_~ .~ss!pn coaeoe Blvd. (Intel' SC-12b R~~-~'s~'#ir Ofl1Ç_9 - - 100000 s.f. ~~~¡ ryla 131 16 - 147 nfa _~~~ n.!~ Freedom CIn:!!.{lnlel SC-14 . SC #3 . """-' .'_...1OQ,OOO .~.r. nlal nta! "" 406 04 4~~"_ nta _.~ 641 364 '" ~~itálvd. ïÁ~jAtï~ie~ls_ .sc!§t. R&D 840,000 sJ. -- __,_r!!! _m N, 1089 144 1,2331 ;;;'1 '215 963 1 176 1j~!!a.Ji_and l.a'M'ence Exøv. IKalser _ SC f#6)~ ,-- ~pI~ 675.000 s.f ~. ,," "". 1393 447 .-h~O "" .63 J&.~ -3.,~H ~1I!'!!..ç.~,~,:!m:I~,~.!I.!1C8 ~~fHewiett-PaCkard· SC #7}' _. .- R&g. ]27,.500 s,,!. ,," "', n{!i _n~ ....__1_19. ._~2 - --~ __.1Qr ~~ ~ Great Amelica Par1<we.v a~~.':(!fb¡ B.I,I~y.'.!I~.P;¡1 Site - SC #9 ' """ 218,loqO d. nla nta ,," 301 " 33S "" " 254 306 ~t.~Eaf1<waYand Yerba Buena Wav(~ tl1qI_________. ,___...9fIic!__._ 911.000 sj:--,_··t-·-;;;I-~·; ~ ~ 116 1072 "" 162 '94 ~ ~'ª-f.!~~Igr~ns-..§:!!rJmoYele#1\ Ret;;~ 19,20015.1 42.94 824 1.03 12 6 20 3,75 35 " 72 811 E. ArQU8sAve. {Lawe'sSun~~ Retail 141.319 $.f. 29.!!O -.-1,ª--1'ªr-- -L.2Q 92 76 170 2.45 163 '" ". ª-~~~!er Lane (Town Center Mal- Sunnvvale#9\ T~~~e6 292!d.u. '.66 1,111! 0.... 22 _1_08 ..__,1.~~ D.g. 10' 50 __15~ -- .----- ""'" 215,000 ~.!. - 11,01 3026 1.55 ". " '" 1." 70 "0 410 _..",,--- _..,~.,,-_.- --.-. Re ¡ ~ 1.000.000 $.f. 42.94 42.940 ';1 6¡" 40' -1.030 3.75 1,ªºº -"'" ~.!50 ~B camillo~RëaI'Falore $ite- Thealer 16 """'" ." ,," '" '" ~, "" 45.91 40' 331 '" ~~,~~qL._n_.._ , Re ¡ 1I "500 $.1. 42.~ --,,'54 103 33 21 "" 3.75 " 102 197 ~..:!!.'!!.~ttJNe\'M:H1I ApDUance - SunnyVale #2Or R&D 1033.794 sJ. 8.11 a,~ - ~- 91~ 166 1106 ! 0.91 14tr-800 941. ~-SI3!!.:JQ!lvane._~..~Ie#22 Ir.dumal -t-!?§,.~Z.f~l - _...a.91 1.2241 0." 143 1~L. ~~ .+...o~. _21 151 172 De An2a Blvd. and Rodrioue!._~venu~.~ ~æ:rov~:'!.1..ç!!!~.f.l Milled Use ~~.nI.a_,,__ _._~~ -~+- "" "" ntai "" '" "" 250 ~~~9~and Portal Drive (Market Place ExPansion)} _____ -~- I 25500 d. "'a '" "" ~, "', 164 "" N, N, 126 §!~yen!,Ç~.!~.!UJ.~~fe Road lMer\IQ EQUitleS)J conoomin"-.llT!S 107 ~I!: "~ ~ - - - .- - Retail ....00 ~.f. ¡. ~ _I "" -.!!!!, -~' "" ",I 94 "" nil! !!I' -~ YV~ fø andVðIlco F'ar1<waVI~nc'y_olVa~tV!l!~§I?!!.Ç!t_ - Retail 2{JO,OOOsJ ",. "" '" "" nla! 265 I "" '" "" 1093 WolfE! and valrco Pati<.wav N;¡~ Expa"~)~ REltail ; 296,00015.1. - Restaurnnl 32.000 5.1. -,-- -- - Tho'''' 3.500 ~I$- !C:';Ca1__ - '" '" "" '" '" 12T N, "" '" "''' Nolfe and 1--2110 ¡y~i~.Ho~{-·"-· ...- """" 120 - "', "" ofa! "" "" 90 n/a "a ~, 65 Sleven,c~.an.dSt~.~Af\ZaColI"""" Ex ... JrC08 , 709° students 1_"" 10,780 0.1.4 992 66 960 O.1ð 1281 3" 1.120 , , ! NoI.. Trlp~ioM-._rlOtl\lTE'.T",~.1IIIe"dJCtn. , Trlp~n-omOty",~.CI...CJ\\'WI<MTPtVFIX"III_ Trlp~f_rr~m~.rT"""_1IIiII_Ap~IruPh.-JI Orall1tA. ~'v21X1S a,c¡1I"O1:IIII¡I\j,110 3W2A1t2I1.I, wiI~" flddiU"....121.185..t..-=ntII\ /;DIIn_812.1508 IJ. IUDP'anI'IoM. Pølcha<.-....~OÜDn~byC"oIyolCllpotUr.o Trlpa__frcmQll;S, DeA.tIUCoI"EIR(M.,.2002~ Fehr;and Pe~ Assoclates, Inc. ''''' AppO,.,T'""",,.., II ( _....,.., <7 4:09PM8I22t2005 ,_Ç)l.d-Q ApprovedATlSum1.:ds Approved Projocts Cupertino 1016 a/1912OO55:41 PM Approved Projects Intersection: Wolfe Rd. , Homestead Rd. Swlhbwod W61bwod """"""'" Ea'"""",, RT TH LT RT TH LT- RT TH LT RT -----n:¡- LT AM Peak Hour Re5ldenU.l Projects 3600 Prunoridge 1 3 2 1 Sunnyvale Projecls (1132, 41, 44, 53) 4 13 Sunnyvale ProjectS (#133, 35, 36, 38, 47. 54, 55) 47 11 Wolfe Road and Vallee ParXwaY (Vallee Re$ldontial) . 9 N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Park) 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Rainbow Dr. and 5. De Anza Blvd, (MtKanos) S. Do Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) CommMClaVlndustrlal Projects Santa Clara Projects (tI 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) . , 7 3 " , 29 SUnnyvale Projects (# 1, 5, 12, 22) , 11 1 3 22 3 2502 Town Cooter Lane (Town Center Man) 7 7 13 '0 13 11 . 5 495 Java Drive (Network Appliance) 2 3 " 13 Wolfe Road and Valco Parkway (Vallco Expansion and Holel) " 5 . " 3 3 De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (CMc ParkfTown Center) 1 '0 3 3 12 1 Stevens Creek and Portal Dr. (Market Place expansion) 8 2 2 . Stevens Cræk and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo equitieS) 3 1 1 8 2 , Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Occtlpancy of Vacant Retal) 22 7 5 " 5 7 De Anza Blvd. and Stellng (De Anza College Expansion) . Total 2 129 15 2. 24 " 32 128 " 11 .. . Intersection: Wolfe Rd.1 Homestead Rd. Swlhbwod W""""" _bo,"'" Ea"",,,'" ---¡¡'f TH ~ I!!. "E!:! LT RT TH LT RT "E!:! iJ: PM Peak Hour ResIdential Projects 3600 Pruneridge 2 2 1 3 SUmyvõlle Projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) 13 7 Sunnyvale Projects (#33, 35, 36, 3lI, 47, 54, 55) 23 45 Wolfe Road and Vallee Parkway(Vallco Residential) . . 2 3 N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Call Park) 20128 Stevens Cleek BMi (Adobe Terrace) Rainbow Dr. and S. Do ArIza Blvd. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) CommercI~lAlJØus"'al ProJect£ SartaClara Projects (#2,3.5,6. 7,9,10,11) 2 6 37 17 6 2 13 Sumvvale ProjeclS (# 1, 5, 12, 22) 5 37 5 3 25 3 2502.,Town Center Lane (Town Center Mall) 32 33 30 24 30 24 26 27 495 Java Drive (Nel>M)r ( Appliance) 11 11 2 2 WOlfe Road aod Vallco Perkway' (Valco Expansion and Hotel) 108 30 27 100 32 34 De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic ParklTown Cl!ntef) 1 13 3 3 10 1 Stevens Clel!k and Portal Dr. (Markel Place Expansion) 6 2 1 . Stevens Creek and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo Equlies) 6 1 1 5 2 2 Wolfe Road and Vallco Pat1wr.IV (Occupancy of Vacant Retal) 79 26 28 85 28 28 De Anza BlVd. and Steling (De Anza Colego Expansion) 3 1 --- Total .- 321 51 ¡:¡ 7i 83 .. 315 .. ..- 5õ ¡ ~ \ 'D u -Q ApprovedATISum1.xls 2of6 Wolfe Rd. f Prunerldge Ave, s_ Wu""",, Northbo<md Easlbo\.fld RT TH LT RT TH LT- .T -- LT RT -- LT 1 2 47 11 14 3 , 4 17 12 11 22 13 24 2 13 22 22 12 15 10 11 6 9 36 24 4 Total 0 "6 1 3 0 4 17 1T7 0 0 0 0 Wolfe Rd, f Prunerldge Ave. Soo~_ Wu"""", NorthbClund Eu""","" RT TH II R.I T!! !,l R.I TH L1 R.I Tl' li 2 1 Z3 45 13 5 17 2 20 , 6 31 25 56 54 11 2 156 172 '6 12 , , 9 1 131 141 3 1 Total 0 484 ,. ¡ 0 2õ .. 476 0 Õ Õ Õ Approved Projects Cupertino 6/19l2OO5 5:41 PM Approved Projects Intersection: AM Peak Houl Re5/denUal Projøcts 3600 Pruoeridge SUnnyvale Projects (1132, 41,44,53) Sumyvale Project.s (#33, 35, Jð, 38, 47, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and VBflco Parkway (Vallco Resklential) N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Park) 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Rainbow Dr. and S. De Ariza Blvd. (MlSiloos) S. De Anza Btvd. (Wolfe camer.!) CammercIJllltndustrtal Projects Santa Clara Projects (II 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,9, 10, 1 SUMyvale Projects (# 1,5,12,22) 2602 Town Center Lane (Town Center MaM) 495 Java Drive (Network Appliance) Wolfe Road and Valleo Parkway (Va/Jco Expansloo and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic P:;II'1<fTown Center) S1evens Creek and Portal Dr. (Markel Place Expansion) Stevens Creèk and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo Equltlea) Wolfe Road and Valco Parkway (Occupancy of Vacant Retal: De Anza Blvd. and StellIng (De Anza CoIege EKpanslon) Intersection: PM Peak Houl ResldenrJal Projects 3600 PrunerJdge SUmyvaIfl projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) Sunnyval8 projects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and VallCO Parkway (Vallco Residential N. De Anza Blvd. and 1·250 (Oak Park) 20128 Slevens Cleek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) RalnbaN Dr. end S. De Anza Blvd. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe C:õlmera) CommØTC/JllItndustrliJl Projects Santa Clara Pro}ect$ (' 2. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) Sunnyvalo Projects (# 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502 Town Centel" Lane (Town Center Mall) 495 Java Drive (Network Appliance) Wolfe Road and Vallco Paoovay (Valco Expansion and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic ParkfTown Center) Stevens Cleek and Portal Dr. (Marlœt Place Expansion) Stevens Cleek:õlM Wolfe Rd. (Manlo Equities) Wafe Road and Valto Parkway (Occupaocy of Vacant Retail) De Anza Blvd. and Stelling (De Anza College Ðtpansloo) - ...(::: I 9J \j.I G Approved Projects CUpertino 811912005 5:41 PM ApprovedATISum1.KI: , "'6 Approved Projects Intersection: LT Eastbouoo TH RT LT """"""'" TH RT LT HP Dwy.1 Prune ridge Ave. SCXlltlboood Westboond RT TH IT RT TH 2 AM Peak Hour Resident/III Projects 3600 Prunerí1ge SUnnyvale Prqects (#32, 41, 44, 53) SUnnyvale Prc ects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Vatleo Residential' N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak ParK) 20128 Slevens Creek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Ramow Dr. and S. De ArIza Blvd. (Munmos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wdfe Camera) 17 5 Commercl~lIIndustrl~f ProJects Sanla Clara Prqects (# 2, 3, 5, e, 7, 9, 10, 1 SUnnyvale Prqects (# 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502 TaNnCenter lane (Town Center MaU) 495 Java Orlvø (Network Appliance) Wolfe Road and Valco Parkway (Valleo expansion and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic Park/Town Center) Stevens Creek and Portal Dr. (Market Place Expansion) Stevens Creek and Wolfe Rd. (Mento Equilles) Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Occupancy of Vacan1 Retail) De AraB Blvd. and Staling (De Anza College expansion) o o 0 0 0 HP Dwy.1 Prunerldge Ave, Sou\hbouo(I Weslboond RT--- TH IT RT TH 1 Total o 18 o o o o Intersection: LT E~"",""" TH 2 RT LT _boo"" TH RT LT PM Peak Haul Res/dentlal ProjêCl$ 3600 Pruneridge SUnnyvale projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) Sunnyfale Projects(/iI33, 35, 36, 38. 47, 54, 55) Wolfe RDad and Vallco Parkway (V¡dlco Resldenlial) N. De Anza Blvd. and 1·280 (Oak Park) 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Rai'i>ow Dr. and S. De Anla Blvd. (MlJranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wale Camera) . 22 Commerclalllndustrlilf ProjecfS Santa Clara Pro ects(# 2.3, 5,6, 7. 9,10,11) SUnnyvale Projects (# 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502 TOM!: Cøn1er lane (Town Center Mall) 495 Java Drive (NeIWor1t Appliance) woIr. Road Bnd Vallco PBrkway (Vallco Expansion 90d Hetel) De Anza Blvd. and RCdrlgues Ave. (Civic ParkITaMI Cenler) Stevens Creek and PataI Or. (Markel Place Expansion) Stevens Creek and Wolfe Rd. (Mario Equities) Wolfe Road aod Valco Parkway (Occupancy or Vacant Retal: De Anza Blvd. and Stelling (De ArIza College Expansion) o 10 o o o o o 23 o o o o Tetal --- ~ ~ \.)¡ -- Approved Projects Cupertino 8119/20055:41 PM Ap¡rovedATlSum1.xI 4of6 Tantau Ave.! Prunerldge Ave. Soultlbound Westbound RT TH LT RT TH Approved Projects Intersection: LT "''''''',,'' TH RT LT _boo"" TH RT LT 2 3 AM Peak Houl Res/dent'~1 Projects 3600 Prunerldge Sunnyvale Projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) Sunnyvale Projects (#33, 35. 36. 38. 047, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and Vallco Par1(way (Vallco Residential) N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Park) 20128 Stevens Creek Bllld (Adobe Terrace) Ralmow [)(. and S. De Anta Blvd. (MIXaOOS: S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) 13 , 20 2 1 2 7 , 5 , CommerclaVlndustrl¡1/ Projects Sarrt8Clara Projeets{#2,3.6.6. 7,9,10,1 Sunnyvale PrC ects (#1, 5, 12,22) 2502 Town Genler Lane (Town Center Mal) 495 Java Drive (Network AppIIarx:e) Wolfe Road and VaNeo Parkway (Va/lea Expansion and HoIel: De AnuJ Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic ParlclTOMI Cenler) Slavens Creek and Portal Dr. (Market Place expansion) stevens Creek and Wolfe Rd. (Merio EquitieS) Wolfe Raad and Vaßco Parkway (Occupancy orVacanl Reta. De AnuJ Blvd. and StelJng (De Anza College EJcpanslon , fi 13 5 . . 25 7 3 Tantau Ave, J Prunerldge Ave, Southbound Westbound RT TH LT RT TH 5 . Total Intersection: LT Easlbouod TH 2 RT LT _boo"" TH RT n 2 3 PM Peak Houl Resldenfl~' Projects 3600 Pruneridge Sunnvvale projects (#32, 41,44, 53J Sunnyvale Projects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and Vallco ParkWay (Valleo Residential' N. De ArIza Blvd. and 1·260 (Oak Park) 20128 Slevens Cleek Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Ralnb<M Dr. and S. De Anta B/IId. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) 7 ,. 6 . 3 27 2 1 2 16 CommercliJlllndustrl" ProjecJs Santa Cara Projects (#2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 Swmrvale ProjecU¡; <" 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502 Town Center Laos (Town CentBf" Mall) 495 Jav:a Drive (Network Appliance) WOlfe Road and Valle(] Plñway (Val/co expansion and HoteJ) De Anza Blvel. ancl Rodrigues Ave. (CIvic P:arklTown Cenler) Stevens creek and Portal Dr. (Market Place expansion) Slevens Creek and Wolfe Rei. (Menlo Equities) Wolfe Road aOO Vallco P:arkWay (Occupancy of Vacant Retail) De Anza BIv<I. and stellng (De Anza College expansion) 7 3 . . " . 5 5 3 2 34 18 Total ~ \ Çb \..)¡ ~ ApprovedATISum1,xli Approved Prajec1s Cupertino 6/19/2005 5:41 PM 5of6 Approved Projects Intersection: LT .._'" TH RT LT """"boo'" TH 11 14 RT LT Wolfe Rd, J 1-280 NB Ramps Southbound WeslbotJnd RT ï'H LT RT TH 47 AM Peak Hour R~/dentJ~1 Projects 3600 Ptunerldge Sunnyvale Prqects (#32, 41, 44, 53) Sunnyvale Prajects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47, 54, 55) Wolfe Road and Vallco Partway (Val!:O Residential N. De Anu Blvd. and 1·280 (Oak Park) 20128 Stevens Creflk Blvd (Adobe TelTilce) Rainbow Dr. and S. De Anza Blvd. (MtKanosl S. De Anu Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) 2. 22 24 13 22 15 11 . 24 13 7 3 37 7 11 13 2 22 12 I. 6 36 4 Commen:lalnndusfrlóll Projects Santa Clara Projects (#2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1 Sunnyvale Projects (# 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502 Tcmn Center lane (Town Center Mal) 495 Java Drive (Natv.(x'k ApplIance) Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Vallco expansion and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and Rodl1gues Ave. (Civic ParkfTOINI1 Center) Stevens Creek and Portal Dr. (Mar1c:et Place Expansion) Stevens Creek. and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo Equities) Wolfe Road and Valco Parkway (Occupancy of Vacant Ratal) De Ar\Za Blvd_ and Stelling (De ArIza College expansion) . . . . '94 o 60 o 170 0 0 Wolfe Rd. J 1-280 NB Ramps Southbound Weslbound RT TH IT RT TH o Total LT E;!stboond TH RT LT """"boond TH 45 5 RT LT 7 23 13 Intersection: PM Peak Hour Resldenflal ProJects 3600 Prunericlge Sunnyvale Projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) SUl1nyva1e projects (#33, 35,36,38,47,54,55) Wolle Road and Vallco Parkway (Valco Re$ldential' N. De Arua Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Pa-k) 2012& Stevens Creek Blvd (Adobe TtIfIõICe) Rainbow Dr, and S. De Anza Blvd. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wotfe Camera) 14 25 54 2 172 12 6 7 141 1 486 ., 7 132 3T 37 58 11 158 ,. 6 , 131 3 ... Commen:falnndUltrlal Projects Santa Clara Projects (#2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1 Su~ale Pro !tCtS (II 1, 5, 12, 22) 2502TO\W1 Center Lane (Town Center Mall) 495 Java Drive (Network Appliance) Wolfe Road and Vallco Pal1lway (Vatlco Expansbn and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and RocIl1gues Ave. (CMc ParklTown Center) Slevens Cteek and Portal Dr. (Market Place expansion) Slevens Cntek and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo Equllìes) Wolfe Road and VallCa Parkway (Occupancy of Vacart Retail) De Anza Blvd. and 5lenh9 (De Anza College Expaf\Slon) , o o o . 237 o o . o Total 1: \ 9.> 01 \Y ApprovedATISum1.xli Approved Projecls CUpertino 6of6 6/19l2OO5 5:41 PM Approved Projects Intersection: Wolfe Rd, 11-280 SB Ramps """""'""" Westbound """""""" Eastbound RT TH LT RT TH LT- RT TH LT RT ----,¡¡- LT AM Peak Hour ResIdential Projecls 3600 Pruner1dge SUmyvale Projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) Sumyvale Projects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47, 54. 55) .7 11 Wolfe Road al1d VaRco PéII"kway (Vallco Residential; 1 8 23 N. De Anza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Park) 20128 S1evens Creak Blvd (Adobe Terrace) Rainbow Dr. and S. De ArIza Blvd. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) CcmmercIæAndusÞ'/af Pro/eels Santa Clara Projects (Ii 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,9.10,11) 7 29 SU~e Projects (# 1, 5, 12,22) 11 22 2502 Town Center Lane (Town Center Mall) 13 2. 495 Java Drive (Network Appliance) 2 13 Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Valco Expansion and HotBI) 36 13 .. 2. De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic ParklTown Cemer) 12 15 Stevens Creek and Pa1a1 Dr. (Market Place Expansloo) 10 11 Stevens Creek and Wolfe Rd. (MenJo Equities) 9 2 22 . Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Occupancy of Vacant Retan) 73 23 36 22 De An2a Blvd. and Steling (De Anza Colege expansion) . - Total 0 225 0 0 46 252 0 53 0 0 0 0 Intersection: Wolfe Rd.' 1-280 S8 Ramps .- WI11bou1d N"""""'" ES$1bouod RT !!! ['f RT TH LT f!J TH LT RT TH LT PM Peak Hour Res/denUaI Piojects 3tIOOPruræridge Sunnyvale projects (#32, 41, 44, 53) &liYJyvaIe projects (#33, 35, 36, 38, 47,IM, 55) 23 45 Wolfe Road and VaJlco Parkway (Vallco Residential) 20 3 9 9 N. De ArIza Blvd. and 1-280 (Oak Þark) 20128 stevens Creek Blvd (Adobe Teuace) Rainbow Dr. and S. De Anza BlVd. (Muranos) S. De Anza Blvd. (Wolfe Camera) 18 '3 7. 0 2-:¡¡- 0 14 2. 54 2 269 12 6 16 226 1 ii 65 37 37 58 11 263 16 8 13 263 3 752 CommercIalllndustrlal Projects Santa Clara Projects (# 2,3,5,6,7,9,10,1 Sunnyvale projects (III 1, 5. 12, 22) 2502 Town Center Lane (Town Canter Mall) 0495 Java Drive (Network. Appliance) Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Val/cO Expansx ß and Hotel) De Anza Blvd. and Rodrigues Ave. (Civic ParkfTown Center) Stevens Cfeek and Portal Dr. (Market Place Expansion) Stevens C«Iek and Wolfe Rd. (Menlo Equities) Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Occupancy of Vacant Retail De ArIza Blvd. and SteRif1 (De Anza CoIege Expansion) o . 142 234 o o o o o Total - ...ç: I 9J \Y ~ EXHIBIT K fì:- F HI R & P FE RS HAN'ir(l:;:I1.U;HI tON:¡UlTIiI\!T~ MEMORANDUM Date: September 23, 2005 To: Eric Morley, Morley Brothers LLC From: Jason Nesdahl Sohrab Rashid, P.E. Subject: Supplemental Parking Information for the Pruneridge Residential Project SJ05-793A This memorandum summarlzes the findings and conclusions of the parking analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. related to the proposed Prunerldge Residential development project. The Pruneridge Residential project proposes a 130-unit condominium development with a combination of two bedroom stacked flats or condominium style units (80 units) and three- bedroom townhome units (50 units). The project's parking allocations are listed below: Pruneridge Residential Parking Data Parking Requirement: 2.8 stalls per unit (364 stalls) Parking Provided: 3.1 stalls per unit (398 stalls) 260 Stalls 133 Stalls 5 Stalls Garage Parking Private On-site Open Parking Handicapped On-site Open Parking (Per ADA Requirements) Total Parkino Stalls Provided (3.1 stalls/unit) 398 Stalls All units have two car garages with 180 spaces in side by side garage spaces and 80 tandem spaces which are found with the 2 bedroom units. Of the 138 on-site open parking stalls, 47 stalls are located along the shared access drlve with the Hampton's Apartment Homes. Prunerldge Residential owns the property on which the shared access drive is located and provides the Hampton's Apartments with a non-exclusive easement for use of parking on a shared basis. Since completion of the Hampton's Apartment Homes in the late 1990's, these spaces have never been utilized by. either the Hampton's Apartment Homes or the current property owners as the area has been entirely fenced and encumbered by construction staging equipment. This includes time perlods of 100% occupancy of the apartment development durlng the late 1990's. The owner of Hampton's Apartment Homes is expected to remove the equipment prlor to commencement of construction of Prunerldge Residential. At the request of the Planning Department, we have also evaluated parking ratios assigning 24 (50%) of these spaces to Pruneridge Residential. Based on this factor, Pruneridge Residential would provide 2.88 parking spaces per unit, still exceeding City of Cupertino parking requirements. The City of Cupertino has requested additional information related to parking ratios. Fehr & Peers conducted similar studies for the City of Cupertino in 2003 including compilation of residential parking requirements of local jurisdictions and actual guest parking demands at several existing, similar residential developments in the Southern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area. 255 Market Street, Su,e 200, San Jose CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandDeers.com /Lj-dh Eric Morley September 23. 2005 Page 2 of 5 fp FEllrt & p[ER.~ n ¡'NHjJn..n~" (UYH'Hun lonina Ordinance Survey Fehr & Peers conducted a survey of residential parking requirements for jurisdictions in the San Francisco .Bay Area. This survey involved reviewing the zoning ordinances or phoning the planning departments. Table 1 summarizes the results of this survey for sixteen jurisdictions most located in the South Bay or Peninsula Areas. While Pruneridge Residential is predominantly 2 bedroom units, Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements for 3-bedroom residential units and the associated guest parking assuming that each unit has two designated covered spaces or a two-car garage. Most jurisdictions have "Multifamily" parking requirements that include single-family attached, townhouse, condominium, and (often) apartment uses. Some of the jurisdictions include guest parking in these per-unit requirements and some have specific guest parking ratios. For this table we have presented any fraction over 2.0 spaces per unit as the guest parking requirement or the actual guest parking . requirement listed in the zoning ordinance. Guest Parkina Surveys Six existing residential projects were identified for the guest parking survey conducted by Fehr & Peers. Most of the sites had no, or limited, access to anyon-street parking; therefore, it was possible to capture the total guest parking demand at these sites. All six sites provide two-car garages for each unit. Each facility was surveyed on a weekday night after 12:00 am (midnight), Friday evening after 8:00 pm, and Saturday afternoon between 3:00 and 4:00 pm. These time periods were considered to be indicators of peak periods for guest parking demand/use. During each count the number vehicles parked in guest spaces, on driveway aprons (where available), and in any available on-street parking were recorded. Tabie 2 summarizes the results of the parking counts by type of space (guest, driveway apron, or on-street). Table 2 also indicates the number of units in the development, the number of guest parking spaces available on the site, and a guest-parking rate as a ratio of the number of guest spaces used per residential unit. Based on the results of these parking surveys, actual guest parking usage rates at these facilities ranged from a low of 0.11 spaces per unit to a high of 0.83 spaces per unit. In five out of the six locations surveyed the highest guest parking demand was on weekday nights. The lowest parking rate occurred at the facility where there appears to be the strongest enforcement of parking rules - the Waterfalls, which incorporates tandem parking. On average, the actual guest parking demand for the six sites is 0.47 spaces per unit. If the Waterfalls data is not included in the calculation, the average guest parking demand is 0.53 spaces per unit. /L(--að& Eric Morley September n, 2005 Page 3 of 5 tp FnlR & PEERS rh,~SrQfl,.,1[!)1I HIM·'J!¡l.."l~ Table 1 Multifamily Residential Parking Requirements Covered parking provided per Guest Parking 3-Bedroom Required Jurisdiction Description Unit" per Unit Campbell Multifamily 2.0 0.20 Campbell Townhouse/Condo 2.0 1.50 Dublin Condos 2.0 0.50 Dublin Multifamily 2.0 1.00 Foster City Multifamily < 25 units 2.0 0.50 Foster City Multifamily> 25 units 2.0 0.70 Fremont Apartments including Condos 2.0 0.50 Fremont Single Family excluding Condos 2.0 0.50 Hayward Multifamily 2.0 0.10 Los Altos Multifamily 2.0 0.00 Menlo Park R-4 District 2.0 0.33 Palo Alto Multifamily 2.0 0.33 Pleasanton Multifamily 2.0 0.14 Redwood City Multifamily, Townhouse, Condos and 2.0 0.25 Apartments San Carlos Multifamily 2.0 0.50 San Jose Multiple Dwelling Units 2.0 0.60 San Mateo Multifamily 2.0 0.20 San Rafael Multifamily 2.0 0.20 Santa Ciara Single Family, Low & Medium Density 2.0 1.00 Sunnyvale Multifamily, Townhouse, Condos and 2.0 0.50 Apartments Average Rate 2.0 0.39 Pruneridge Residential 2.0 0.88-1.10 % of Zoning Average Provided 100% 226-282% /4 ~d.37 Eric Morley September 23, 2005 Page 4 of 5 fþ ¡:EHI~ & PEERS n"'IiI~'n.1":l~" .lÚYHon~~n Table 2 Survev of Existino Guest Parking Parked Vehicles Observed Demand (Used Day of Guest Driveway Spaces) / Development Date Week Time Spaces Apron On-Street Total Unit Pinntaoe Parkwa ,Cuœrtino, CA Units = 46 Parkino Su ply 42 .- - 42 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 26 0 6 32 0.70 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 19 0 0 19 0.41 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 27 2 0 29 0.63 Waterfalls, Cuaertino, CA Units = 114 Parkinn Su "V 35 .- - 35 Wednesda 4/23/2003 y 12:00 AM 12 0 0 12 0.11 4/25/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 20 0 0 20 0.18 4/25/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 24 1 0 25 0.22 Wildflower Court, Cu""rtino, CA Units = 15 Parklnn Sur ,Iv 14 -- - 14 5/2/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 0 5 0 5 0.36 5/3/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 0 4 0 4 0.26 Birch Green Park, Mountain View, CA Units = 46 Parklnn Sun ,(v 45 -- 45 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 8 1 5 14 0.30 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 8 1 4 13 0.28 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 8 1 4 13 0.28 Rvland Towne Center, Mountain View, CA Units = 60 Parklno sUn "V 42 -- -- 42 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 40 1 9 50 0.83 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 39 0 6 45 0.75 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 37 2 7 46 0.77 ~inslev Sauare, Camnbell, CA Units = 49 Parkin" Sur "V 21 - .- 21 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 20 0 7 27 0.55 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 20 2 12 34 0.69 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 21 0 11 32 0.65 Hamaton Hills Place, San Jose, CA Units = 58 Parkino SUr;,1v 32 -- -- 32 Wednesda 4/23/2003 y 12:00 AM 16 0 0 16 0.28 4/25/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 17 0 0 17 0.29 4/25/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 14 1 2 17 0.29 ~verage Guest-Parking Demand Per Unit ~eekday Night 12:00 AM 0.46 Friday Night 8:00 PM 0.42 Saturday Afternoon 4:00 PM 0.44 (t{ -a.3o Eric Money September 23, 2005 Page 5 of 5 fþ FOIR & PEERS rj;,",.<;'ilnf;íl~" tÚM~J!LTOn Conclusions/Recommendations Based on the parking supply for Pruneridge Residential and the two surveys conducted by Fehr & Peers, the. following conclusions can be drawn related to guest-parking usage and local guest- parking requirements. · Peak guest parking usage at the six sites surveyed ranged from 0.11 to 0.83 spaces per unit. · The average peak guest parking usage for the sites was between 0.43 and 0.47 spaces per unit. · Based on the parking requirements of other local jurisdictions the guest-parking ratios for the proposed development would range from 0.10 to 1.50 spaces per unit. · The average guest-parking ratio for the jurisdictions surveyed is 0.39 spaces per unit. · Prune ridge Residential provides between 2.88 and 3.1 spaces per unit (0.88-1.1 guest parking spaces), all of which exceed City of Cupertino parking requirements and far actual guest parking demand. · Ensuring guest parking use for guests and use of garage spaces for automobile use can best be enforced through strict signage and enforcement via Covenants, Codes & Restrictions (CC&R's). · We recommend strategic signage and CC&R's related to garage and guest space utilization. Based on this information, providing total parking at a ratio of 2.88-3.10 spaces per unit (0.88-1.1 guest spaces per unit) exceeds the city's parking code and would accommodate the projected parking demand. I Lf-d-'Y¡ EXHIBIT L PRUNERIDGE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT MORLEY BROTHERS, L.L.C. FISCAL AND ENROLLMENT IMP ACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: ~ The City of Cupertino Prepared by: TOWN HALL SERVICES 830 Woodside Road, Suite 4 Redwood City, California 94061 (650) 373-7373 FAX 373-7370 www.townhallservices.com Septerrrber 2005 /4 <)(fO Citv of Cuvertino Pruneridlle A vt::nue DeveloDmen! ImDact Analvsis ENROLLMENT IMPACTS Background The City of Cupertino has contracted with Town Hall Services to conduct an objective analysis of the enrollment and fiscal impacts of the proposed Pruneridge Avenue residential development project, a 130 unit single family attached townhouse and condominium development on Pruneridge Avenue, north of Highway 280, east ofN. Wolfe Road. The developer of the proposed Pruneridge Avenue project is Morley Brothers L.L.C. Morley Brothers L.L.c. anticipates that construction of the project will begin between fall and winter 2006. This analysis contains a projection of new students as a result of the project, and an identification of the fiscal impacts of the project on the districts of which the projected students would attend. The proposed Pruneridge A venue project is located within the school district service areas of Cupertino Union Elementary School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The school attendance areas in which Pruneridge Avenue would be located are: Eisenhower Elementary School, Hyde Middle School, and Cupertino High School. Student Generation Rate Analysis A projection of new student enrollment as a result of the Pruneridge A venue project allows the potential impact of development on the three impacted schools, now and into the future, to be considered. Student generation rates (SGRs), the average number of students per new housing unit, are a significant factor for the projection of enrollment into the future. Multiplying the number of new units by an appropriate SGR results in a projection of students from the units. Different housing types generate different SGRs. Our experience is that single family detached units typically generate approximately two to three times the amount of students generated by multi-family apartment units. Single family attached units like the proposed Pruneridge Avenue townhomes generally have an SGR much greater than multi-family apartment units, but they usually exhibit slightly lower SGRs than most single family units. Flats generally have SGRs above the average for multi-family units, but not as much as the townhouse units. Other factors such as the sale price, the location of residential development, and socio-economics are also significant in determining student generation. Recent Residential Development In Cupertino In order to determine an appropriate SGR to assign to the 130 single family attached Pruneridge Avenue units, we identified recently developed residential units within the City of Cupertino that are similar in type and characteristics to the proposed Pruneridge Avenue development. We then utilized address and grade information from the 2004 student file for both CUSD and FUHSD to count students from the units, then calculated elementary and high school SGRs for the various residential developments. Our SGR analysis included site visits to a fairly wide range of single family detached and single family attached projects. It covered 15 residential developments of various types in different parts of the City with an approximate total unit count of 1,723 units, 813 of the total being single Town Hall Services / September, 2005 ft..f-d./-I¡ Citv of Cuoertino Pruneridf!e A v~nue DevelolJment ¡mood Analvsis family. A majority of the housing projects were completed within the last 3-10 years; the exceptions are the DeAnza Oaks, Woodspring, and Seven Springs developments, which we estimate are 15 plus year old developments. It should be noted that the projects were located in various elementary, rrriddle, and high school attendance areas, including the three attendance areas impacted by the Pruneridge Avenue project (Eisenhower Elementary, Hyde Middle and Cupertino High), and in areas outside ofthe attendance areas where the Pruneridge Avenue project would be located. Attached to this report as Appendices A and B are the SGR breakouts by development for elementary (Appendix A) and high school (Appendix B) districts. Tables I and 2 below summarize the SGR findings for both CUSD and FUHSD for the residential projects analyzed (which are shown in detail in the Appendices). Student generation in Cupertino projects varies by housing type more than is usual in similar communities, particularly with regards to the high student generation in single family units, and the low student generation in most apartrrrents. Single family detached (SFD) housing, and a large share of single family attached (SFA) housing (townhomes and condominiums), are targeted towards families with children, with almost all units having three or four bedrooms. This is because there is a very high premium on family housing in CUSD and FUHSD due to families wanting to take advantage of the quality of the district's schools. Thus, student generation is very high for an older suburban area. In contrast, other single family attached units (like the Pruneridge Avenue project) and most apartments are in multi-story buildings and have one and two bedrooms. For young families with children they are more expensive and less satisfactory than other alternatives, so student generation in these housing types is modest. Because the Pruneridge Avenue project has smaller units of the two bedrooms (80 two bedroom flats) and three bedrooms (30 three bedroom townhouse units) variety, and no four or more bedroom types, the SGRs for this project are expected to be less than other similar projects in Cupertino. (It should be noted that only a few condominiums and apartment projects are included in the housing sample; as a result the sample size is too small to generate reliable SGRs.) Table 1 Average SGRs by Housing Type Cupertino Union School District Housing Type A.g. SGR by Units' A.g. SGR by Projecf SFD 0.487 0.537 SF A (newer) 0.528 0.369 SFA (older) 0.180 0.190 Condo./ApL 0.162 0.186 'The total number of students divided by the total number of units; this measurement tends to be highly influenced by the largest projects and its particular characteristics. lThe average of the SGRs for each project; this measurement reflects a broader range of projects, with a smaller project being weighted equally to a larger one. Source: Town Hall Services and CUSD studen/file. Town Hall Services 2 September, 2005 11 - ;)L{-a Citv of Cupertino Pruneridfle .Ii vc:nue Develovmen/ Imoac/ Analvsis Table 2 Average SGRs by Housing Type Fremont Union High School District Housing Type Avg. SGR by Units' Avg. SGR by Project' SFD 0.228 0.205 SF A (newer) 0.125 0.089 SFA (older) 0.115 0.117 CondoJApL 0.016 0.027 lThe total number of students divided by the total number of units; this measurement tends to be highly influenced by the largest projects and its particular characteristics. lThe average of the SGRs for each project,. this measurement reflects a broader range of projects, with a smaller project being weighted equally to a larger one. Source: Town Hall Services and FUHSD student file. Ofthe projects we analyzed, the projects with similar housing characteristics were the Travigne Villas and Astoria projects (102 total units), all completed within the last two to six years. Although the Astoria development is of the single-family attached townhouse type, it was designed with enough space to house families with school-aged children, as are the Pruneridge Avenue single family attached units. The relatively high elementary SGR (0.607) indicates that at its pricing level and location, the units are attracting families with school aged children who desire to live within the boundaries of the City of Cupertino, the Cupertino Elementary School District, and the Fremont Union High School District. Thus, the single family attached townhouse housing type with these characteristics actually generates students at a rate representative of the single family detached type. The condominium Travigne Villas project exhibited a lower elementary SGR of 0.239, a reflection of this project being closer to the multi- family housing type, similar to the Pruneridge A venue flats type. When the units are new, younger families tend to be over-represented .and student generation is generally greater at the elementary school level. As new units begin to age, the students present in those subdivisions begin to enter the higher grade levels and eventually high school. Thus, with their families aging, they are not replaced by new students at the same rate. A more stabilized SGR occurs as the subdivision ages, with the spreading of students amongst the elementary, middle, and high school being more equally apportioned. Pruneridge Avenue SGRs The Morley Brothers Pruneridge Avenue project proposes 130 single family attached townhouse and condominium units. The proposed project has two major plan types with seven categories of units that fit into either one of the plan types. Plan types I, lA, 2, and 2A are one-story, two bedroom, two and two and one-halfbatbroom "flats". Plan types 3, 4, and 5 are two-story, three bedroom, two and one-half bathroom townhomes. Table 3 shows the current Pruneridge Avenue development product composition which was provided to us by Eric Morley of Morley Brothers, L.L.C. Town Hall Services 3 September, 2005 14 -;)43 Citv of Cuvertino PruneridQe A~c;nue Develovment Imvact Analvsis Table 3 Pruneridge Avenue Development Unit Composition Square Estimated Plan Units* Bedrooms Bathrooms Footage** Sales Price I-Flat 9 2 2 1,188 $695,000 lA-FlarlOne Story 23 2 2 1,397 $745,000 2-FlarlOne Story 9 2 2.5 1,629 $755,000 2A-FlarlOne Story 25 2 2 1,452 $769,000 3-Townhouse/Two Story 9 3 2.5 1,486 $840,000 4-Townhouse/Two Story 22 3 2.5 1,532 $856,000 5-Towhhouse/Two Story 13 3 2.5 1,680 $888,000 BMR Units-Median Income-2 Bedroom 7 2 2/2.5 N/A $208,000 BMR Units-Moderate Income-2 Bedroom 3 2 2/2.5 N/A $269,000 BMR Units-Median Income-3 Bedroom 7 3 2.5 N/A $238,000 BMR Units-Moderate Income-3 Bedroom 3 3 2.5 N/A $306,000 Total Units 130 Source: Town Hall Services, Morley Brothers, L.LC., and the City of Cupertino's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program. *The City of Cupertino's BMR (for sale) program requires that 15% of total units be below market rate. Of which, the BMR must be evenly divided (500/0/50%) between median and moderate income levels, and must be apportioned according to the number of bedrooms contained in the total projects unit composition. **Squarefootage varies by unit income restriction (median or moderate) and by unit plan type(PlanI,IA, etc.). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the average single family attached SGRs by project for CUSD and FUHSD were 0.37 and 0.09, respectively. It is our judgment that the SGRs used to calculate new student enrollment 3-10 years after this single family attached project is constructed should be below this level in order to reflect the unique nature of this project and the likelihood it will result in slightly fewer students coming rrom these units. In addition, the SGRs were based on a small representative sample in various attendance areas with different housing unit type characteristics like average square footage (higher on average) and number of bedrooms (projects like Astroia have four bedroom units). Although the demand for CUSD and FUHSD schools is high, the location of this project in a predominately non-residential area, the relatively small unit size (and small lots without yards for children to play), and the projects open space areas (relatively small open space area for a 130 unit development) will reduce the student generation characteristics of this project, especially for the flat units. The SGRs chosen for the Pruneridge Avenue project are shown in Table 4. Although the Astoria and Travigna Villas developments are not within the same attendance boundaries as the Pruneridge development, the type of development, unit sizes, and anticipated price points are relatively similar to that of the Pruneridge development, and therefore are particularly relevant choices as representative SGRs for use in enrollment projections. The SGRs in Table 4 are supported by the SGRs for the Astoria and Travigne projects (The Astoria project has a higher CUSD SGR of 0.607, and a lower FUHSD SGR of 0.143.) and the Travigna Villas project (The Travigna Villas has a CUSD SGR of 0.239 and a lower FUHSD SGR of 0.065.) Town Hall Services 4 September, 2005 /4 - d.Lf4 Citv of Cuvertino Pruneridf!e 'b<nue Deve/ovment Imvact Ana/vsis Table 4 Pruneridge Avenue Development SGR Assignments E/ementary (K-5) SGR Middle (6-8) SGR Total Elementary SGR Pruneridge Avenue Development Single Family Attached-SFA Townhomes 0.25 0.15 0.40 Pruneridge Avenue Development Single Family Attached-SF A Flats 0.20 0.10 0.30 High School SGR Source: Town Hall Services 0.15 0.10 Enrollment Impacts A detennination of appropriate SGRs to be used for the Pruneridge Avenue project allows us to proceed with the calculation of the enrollment generated from the project. We can also describe how those SGRs change over time, and more importantly, to assess the impact of that development on the current enrollment at the impacted schools: Eisenhower Elementary, Hyde Middle, and Cupertino High. Table 5 shows the calculated student enrollment impact resulting from the project. Table 5 Estimated Enrollment Impact* Pruneridge Avenue Development Eisenhower Hyde Cupertino Elementary Middle High SFA Townhouse Units 50 50 50 SGR 0.25 0.15 0.15 Students Subtotal 13 8 8 SF A Flat Units 80 80 80 SGR 0.20 0.10 0.10 Students Subtotal 16 8 8 Total Students 29 16 16 Students Per Class 4.83 5.33 4.00 *Three to ten years after construction of the units. Source: Town Hall Services Total 29 32 61 A total of approximately 61 students are projected to be generated as a result of the Pruneridge Avenue development, and will impact the three schools whose attendance boundaries include the project area. It is anticipated that of those 61 students: 29 will attend Eisenhower Elementary School, 16 will attend Hyde Middle School, and 16 will attend Cupertino High School. Capacity Town Hall Services 5 September, 2005 q-J,Lt') Citv of CUDertino Prunerid~e h. .nue DeveloDment Imvact Analvsis issues at each campus will determine if all of these students will be housed at their "home" school, or whether sorrre will need to be sent to another school out of their attendance area as a result of capacity limitations. An examination of the enrollment capacity at each of these schools is discussed in the next section. Enrollment impacts at these schools occur not only immediately upon completion, but also into the future as well. As stated previously, the elementary student generation is generally greatest the first few years after project completion, then begins a period of time when those students progress through the grade levels. The students at the elementary (K-5) grade level will progress into middle school in the next one to six years, and then progress into the high school in the next four to nine years. In short, the 16 high school students generated as a result of the project will progress through high school and, in the next few years, gradually be replaced by the 45 elementary district students as they progress through the high schools. Given the larger number (per grade) of elementary district students, the high school enrollment will increase slightly above its initial level during this period. Eventually the students coming from the Pruneridge A venue project will tend towards a long tenn "steady-state" or "plateau," with enrollment at a level moderately below this initial period after construction. Enrollment Capacity At Impacted Schools Enrollment from the addition of new students as a result of the Pruneridge A venue project directly impacts capacity at the affected schools. In order to evaluate the impact, the capacity of the affected schools must be calculated. Table 6 shows the enrollment capacity at Eisenhower Elementary, Hyde Middle, and Cupertino High. Table 6 Theoretical Enrollment Capacity At Impacted Schools Classroom Number of Classroom Total CBEDS Capacity Type Classrooms Loading Factor Capacity 20041 Surplus (Deficit) Eisenhower K-5 23 23' 529 Eisenhower Severe SDC 1 8 8 Eisenhower Non-Severe 1 12 12 SDC Total Eisenhower Capacity 549 570 (-21) Hyde 6-8 34 25' 850 Hyde Severe SDC 1 8 8 Hyde Non-Severe SDC 1 12 12 Total Hyde Capacity 870 1.003 (-133) Cupertino 9-12 56 27.5' 1,540 Cupertino Severe SDC 2 8 16 Cupertino Non-Severe SDC 1 12 12 Total Cupertino Capacity 1,568 1,542 +26 J CBEDS 2004 represents the enrollment count taken in October, 1004 for the 2004-2005 school year. 1 Classroom loading/actors/or Eisenhower Elementary (K-3 at 20 per class, 4-5 at 31 per class, and 6-8 at 25 per room) and Hyde Middle provided by CUSD staff. 1 The number used by the District for planning purposes, based on 32 students per class, with adjustments for teacher prep and meeting Source: Town Hall Services and CUSD and FUHSD data. 6 September, 2005 14 -Jlf0 Town Hall Services Citv of Cuoertino Prunerid¡ze A ",nue Develooment ¡moael Analvsis CUSD staff provided Town Hall with existing loading standards: kindergarten to third is loaded at 20 students per classroom (Class Size Reduction Program-CSR), fourth to fifth is loaded at 31 students per classroom, and sixth to eighth is loaded at 25 students per room (thus allowing for teacher preparation period). The 23 students per class used in Table 5 to calculate capacity at Eisenhower Elementary is a weighting of the 20 CSR students in kindergarten through third, and 31 students in fourth and fifth grades. The number of classrooms used in our calculations include all clas'srooms, including those used for regular instruction, plus those classrooms used for special purpose instruction (music, art, drama, resource specialist program, etc.). Thus, the classrooDl count assumes maximum classroom usage. At the standards shown in Table 5, CUSD has a capacity for 549 students at Eisenhower Elementary, and 870 students as Hyde Middle. As a point of reference, the total 2004 District emollment for CUSD is 16,285 students. More complexities are involved with high school classroom loading and scheduling standards. Currently, the majority of Cupertino classes are loaded at 32 students per class. The District considers this an educationally undesirable ratio, and has operated at a lower ratio in the past. Some classrooms are loaded at lower rates due to policies and programs at FUHSD schools that affect average class size, and some rooms are not available for regular class loading due to the following principal factors which affect FUHSD classroom loading: FUHSD is reinstating the ninth grade math and English class size reduction program (CSR) in Fall 2005. Ninth grade CSR programs, which limit ninth grade math and English classes to a maximum of 20 students, are subsidized by the State. About 10% of high school students are in these classes at any time. Special use classrooms such as science labs, music, art, culinary arts, and industrial arts etc., are classrooms that are difficult to utilize every period. Also, per FUHSD policy, teachers use their classroom one period per day for teacher preparation and meetings. On the other hand, at any given tiDle approximately 10% of the students are assumed to be in Physical Education (P .E.) class, and thus do not require classroom space on a regular basis. The result of all these programs is that the effective loading is about 27.5 students per classroom (for non-SDC classes), the figure the District uses for facilities planning. Finally, as shown in Table 6, Special Day Class (SDC) students at Cupertino High occupy classrooms at 12 students per classroom for non-severe SDC classes, and 8 students per classroom for severe SDC classes. The State maximum for SDC classroom loading is 13 student per classroom for non-severe SDC classrooms, and 9 students per classroom for severe SDC students. Given these assumptions regarding classroom loading, Cupertino High has a capacity of 1,568 students, even with most classes having an average of 32 students. This capacity is approximately equal to (greater by 26 students) the current Cupertino High 2004-05 emollment of 1,542 students. Our analysis of capacity at the three schools indicates that at the present time a capacity deficit exists at Hyde Middle school, with Eisenhower Elementary and Cupertino High approximately at capacity, as it is shown in Table 6. This information is consistent with the perspective of staff at Town Hall Services 7 September, 2005 H -aL{-1 Citv of Cunertino Pruneridfle .I1~Çnue Deve/anmen! ImlJac! Ana/vsis CUSD who indicated that at present Eisenhower Elementary and Hyde Middle are currently at capacity. However, CUSD has completed modernizations and renovations to many of its campuses. In particular, both Eisenhower Elementary and Hyde Middle have recently completed their facilities improverrrents and will, as a result, be creating new attendance boundaries and moving the sixth grade into the middle school grade level (sixth grade was previously part of the elementary grade level). Therefore, both Eisenhower and Hyde will have significantly different enrollments next year. In short, although both CUSD schools are showing capacity deficits in Table 6, recent and near- term facilities improvements and boundary changes will reduce, and likely eliminate, that capacity deficit. It is the District's assertion that, given the SGRs used in this report, the two CUSD schools affected by the Pruneridge Avenue project should be able to accommodate the new students, either through the existing improvements to the two facilities and the attendance boundary adjustments, or by adding classrooms to the facilities. Overcrowding exists at several FUHSD schools. At a 2004-2005 enrollment of I ,542, Cupertino High is near theoretical enrollment capacity. FUHSD has recently conducted a residency verification of all its students. As of May, 2005 the District estimates that approximately 250- 300 students will be "dis-enrolled" for the 2005-2006 school year as a result of being ineligible due to residency. The initial estimate is that approximately 30-50 of these students will be ITom Cupertino High. As it stands now, an estimated net capacity gain of250-300 for the District, and 30-50 students for Cupertino High, will create additional capacity, but again will not alter the near capacity situation that currently exists district-wide. However, Table 6 shows that at Cupertino High there is currently excess capacity of 21 students, enough to house the 16 projected high school students as a result of the Pruneridge Avenue project. It should also be noted that in the next four to five years there will be a gradual passing of the baby boom echo generation from high school age which will cause a significant reduction in FUHSD's total enrollment. (The District currently has a study underway to forecast future enrollment, including the effect of this demographic transition.) CAPITAL COST IMPACTS Residential Development Impact Fee Revenue Both CUSD and FUHSD are eligible to levy Level I development impact fees on new residential and commercial/industrial development. There is currently a development impact fee revenue sharing agreement between FUHSD and its elementary feeder districts. The maximum Levell residential fee that CUSD and FUHSD are allowed to levy is $2.24 per square foot of residential development. Per the existing fee revenue agreement between the elementary and high school districts, FUHSD is allowed to collect 40% of$2.24, or $0.90, per square foot of residential Town Hall Services 8 September, 2005 f 4 - 'd.4 r Citv of Cuper Ii no Pruneridfle h>¿nue Developmenl Impact Analvsis development. CUSD is allowed to collect 60% of $2.24, or $1.34, per square foot of residential development. Both District's are still collecting at rates based on the previous 2004 maximum fee level of $2.14 per square foot, but are in the process of bringing their fees up to the maximum allowable. As stated previously, Morley Brothers L.L.C. has provided Town Hall Services with tentative site plans that show the breakout ofuoit types and sizes for the Pruoeridge Avenue project. Table 7 shows the development impact fees that would be generated by the Pruneridge Avenue project. Table 7 Development Impact Fees Number of Square Feet Total CUSD CUSD FUHSD FUHSD Total Units Per Unit Sauare Feet Fee Fee Total Fee Fee Total Fees Plan 1 Type 13 1,188 15,444 $1.34 $20,695 $0.90 $13,900 $34,595 Plan lA Type 27 1,397 37,719 $1.34 $50,543 $0.90 $33,947 $84,490 Plan 1 Type 13 1,629 21,177 $1.34 $23,377 $0.90 $19,059 $42,436 Plan lA Type 27 1,452 39,204 $1.34 $52,533 $0.90 $35,284 $87,817 Plan 3 Type 11 1,486 16,346 $1.34 $21,904 $0.90 $14.711 $36,615 Plan 4 Type 24 1,532 36,768 $1.34 $49,269 $0.90 $33,091 $82,360 Plan 5 T"ne 15 1680 25 200 $1.34 $33 768 $0.90 $22 680 $S6 448 Total 130* $252.089 $172 672 $424761 Source: Town Hall Services "'This total unit count does not include the breakout of the BMR units, which do not impact the amount of development impact fees the developer will pay. Commercial/Industrial Development Impact Fee Revenue Under California law, both districts are eligible to levy development impact fees on commerciallindustrial development in addition to the fees being levied for residential development. The districts are each in the process of bringing their fees up to the maximum allowable $0.36 per square foot of commercial/industrial development. Currently, they are together levying $0.34 per square foot. The fee sharing agreement also govems the split of fee revenue trom non-residential development. Of the $0.36 maximum commercial/industrial fee, CUSD is allowed to collect 60%, or $0.22, per square foot, and FUHSD is allowed to collect 40%, or $0.14. Commercial/industrial fees generated within the districts have averaged four percent of residential fees through the last three years. The commercial/industrial fee revenue is sufficiently small, and associating a portion of it with the Pruneridge Avenue project would not change the magnitude of the facilities costs impacts to either CUSD or FUHSD. On the other hand, currently there are existing commercial/industrial buildings on the site where the Pruneridge A venue project is proposed. When the developer applies for building pennits for the Town Hall Services 9 September, 2005 I Lf -dJ-I c¡ Citv of Cuoertino Pruneridrze /i."nue Develooment Imoact Analvsis Pruneridge Avenue project, they will be given a credit for the demolition of the existing cODlIllerciallindustrial structures at the current cODlDlerciallindustrial fee rate. This will reduce slightly the fee the developer will be charged for the creation ofthe new 130 residential units. In relationship to the new residential fees (Table 7) for the Pruneridge A venue units, the coDlIllercial/industrial demolition credit will also be comparatively insignificant. Facilities Cosfs The cost for housing additional students at each of the impacted schools comes ITom each District's existing Levell Development Impact Fee Justification Report. FUHSD's Fee Justification Report was completed in 2001 by Town Hall Services. CUSD's Fee Justification Report was completed in 2000 by School Facility Consultants. (Town Hall Services is now in the process of preparing an updated fee justification report.) Each of those reports identifies a per student cost to house enrollment generated as a result of new development. Because each of these reports is quite old, we haýe applied an adjustment of 21 % to the costs enumerated in those reports to bring the costs up to date. (At the time of both reports the Class B Construction Cost Index was 1.40. The State Office of Public Construction's current Class B Construction Cost Index is currently 1.70, 21 % higher.) Table 8 shows the calculation of the difference between the development impact fees likely to be generated by the Pruneridge Avenue projects given the current project proposal and the Construction Cost Index adjusted facilities costs per student for each of the districts. The table shows negative capital cost impacts for both districts. Table 8 Facilities Fees Versus Facilities Costs Fee Revenue Per Student F aci/ities Cost Per Student' Per Student Cost Difference Students Total Facilities Cost Impact CUSD $5,602 $9,317 -$3,715 45 -$167,175 FUHSD $10,792 $24,478 -$13,686 16 -$218,976 *FUHSD fee report completed by Town Hall Services In 1001, CUSD fee report completed by School Facility Consultants in 1000. Source: Tow" Hall Services and existing CUSD and FURSD Fee Justification Report. It should be noted that the residential development impact fee levels used in Table 7 to calculate the facilities fee revenue is based on the current $2.24 level. By law the California State Allocation Board (SAB) adjusts the development impact fee level every two years. In January, 2006 the SAB will adjust the fee upwards to reflect the changes in the Class B Construction Cost index (similar to what was done for the Facilities Cost Per Student column in Table 8) ITom 2004 to 2006. It is likely that when the Morley Brothers, LLC pays the new higher development impact fee (anticipated sometime in late 2006), the fee revenue will result in a slightly reduced Total Facilities Cost Impact deficit shown for both Districts in Table 8. Town Hall Services 10 September, 2005 /4 - ;),,50 Citv of Cuoertino Pruneridf!e A. ,..flUe Develooment Imoact Analvsis OPERATIONAL REVENUE AND COST IMPACTS Operating Revenues The Pruneridge Avenue proj ect will affect the revenues and costs for the two districts, however, in very different ways. CUSD is currently a "revenue limit" district. Like the overwhelming majority of revenue limit districts in the state, its property tax revenues are not sufficient to reach the per student" amounts guaranteed under the State of Califomia school funding program. Therefore the State supplies the additional funds necessary to fill the gap up to the guaranteed level. The result is that the revenues from property taxes plus the revenue limit program funding increases proportionately as emollment increases. Another reality for a revenue limit district is that the increase in property tax revenue from new homes is offset by a comparable reduction in the money from the State. The "revenue limit" total for CUSD for 2003-2004 was $70,863,543, or $4,351 per student. The State and the Federal Government also supply other funding, generally for categorical programs, and these also tend to increase as emollment increases. The operating revenues from these sources totaled $1,336 per student in CUSD for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Thus, the per student revenue impact coming from sources that will increase approximately proportionate to the addition of new students resulting from the Pruneridge Avenue project is $5,687. Local revenues (other than the property tax) constitute a far smaller source of funds; they totaled $8,783,260 or $539 per student. Some examples oflocal revenue sources are interest income and rental/lease income. These revenues are not likely to increase with additional emollment. FUHSD is one ofthe relatively few districts in the state that is not a revenue limit district. The District's per student property tax is moderately above the amount of per student revenue limit funding guaranteed by the State. State revenue does not increase when additional students are emolled. However, new homes generate additional property taxes, increasing the District's revenues. Table 9 shows the calculation of the assumed assessed valuation and property tax calculation for the proposed Pruneridge A venue project, based on tentative estimates trom Morley Brothers L.L.C. It should be noted that actual market prices paid for the units will determine what the final assessed valuation for the 130 Pruneridge units will be. Table 9 Estimated Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Pruneridge Avenue Development Number of Estimated Assessed Units Sales Price Valuation Plan 1 Type 9 5695,000 56,25S,000 Plan lA Type 23 574S,000 517,135,000 Plan 1 Type 9 5755,000 56,795,000 Town Hall Services 11 September, 1005 ( 4-d,5/ Citv of Cuoerlino Prnneridrze A\I~nue Develooment ImDact Analvsis Plan 2A Type 25 $769,000 Plan 3 Type 9 $840,000 Plan 4 Type 22 $856,000 Plan 5 Tvpe 13 $888,000 BMR Units·Median Income-2 Bedroom 7 $208,000 BMR Units~Moderate Income-2 Bedroom 3 $269,000 BMR Units-Median Income-3 Bedroom 7 $238,000 BMR Units-Moderate Income-3 Bedroom 3 $306,000 Total 130 $19,225,000 $7,560,000 $18,832,000 $11,554,000 $1,664,000 $1,076,000 $1,190,000 $918,000 $92,204,000 Property Tax Rate (1.0%) FUHSD Share of Tax Rate (17.6%) FUHSD Share of Tax Rate per FUHSD Student Source: Morely Brothers estimate of unit sales prices and the City of Cupertino's BMR housing program $iandards. $922,040 $162,279 $10,142 In November 2004 voters in the Fremont Union High School District approved Measure L, a parcel tax of$98 per parcel. The 130 Pruneridge Avenue horrres will generate $12,740 in additional funds per year for the approved duration of the parcel tax. As with the CUSD, local revenues (other than the property tax) constitute a far smaller source of funds; they totaled $5, I 05,264 or $530 per student. In general, these revenues are not likely to increase with additional enrollment. Thus, the per student revenue impact is calculated to be the $8,048 per student received from property and parcel taxes. Table 10 shows the operational revenue anticipated for additional students as a result of the Pruneridge A venue project. Given recent information about home sales in the District, it is likely that when the units are completed and ready for sale, the estimated per unit sales price will be higher than the figures indicated in Table 9. Therefore, we are providing an estimated assessed valuation in Table 10, and subsequent operational revenue and cost calculation, for a "higher estimated sales price", should real estate market conditions in the District continue strong growth. Table 10 Higher Estimated Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Pruneridge Avenue Development Number of Higher Estimated Assessed Units Sales Price (+15%) Valuation Plan 1 Type 9 $799,250 $7,193,000 Plan 1 A Type 23 $856,750 $19,705,000 Town Hall Services 12 September, 2005 I L{ -';¡5~ City of Cuoertino Pruneridrze A vénue Develovment Imnact Analvsis Plan 2 Type 9 $868,250 Plan 2A Type 25 $884,350 Plan 3 Type 9 $966,000 Plan 4 Type 22 $984,400 Plan 5 Type 13 $1,02i,200 BMR Units-Median Income-2 Bedroom 7 $208,000' BMR Units-Moderate Income-2 Bedroom 3 $269,000' BMR Units-Median Income-3 Bedroom 7 $238,000' BMR Units-Moderate Income-3 Bedroom 3 $306,000' Total 130 $7,814,000 $22,109,000 $8,694,000 $2i,657,000 $13,276,000 $1,664,000 $1,076,000 $1,190,000 $918,000 $105,296,000 Property Tax Rate (1.0%) FUHSD Share of Tax Rate (17.6%) FUHSD Share of Tax Rate per FUHSD Student Source: MOTely Brothers estimate of unit sales prices. *The BMR units are price restricted and may not appreciate without adjustments to the City's affordability index. $1,053,000 $185,328 $11,583 As stated previously, there are existing conunercial/industrial buildings on the proposed Pruneridge A venue site. The current property owners are paying property tax on that existing property. When the property changes ownership and subdivided into 130 residential properties, there will be a significant increase in the assessed valuation of the land and the new residential properties that will exceed the amount of property tax lost fÌ'om the current conunercial/industrial buildings assessed valuation. In relationship to the new Pruneridge development, any loss of currenl property taxes fÌ'om the commercial/industrial property will be comparatively insignificant. Operating Costs Almost all operating cosls tend 10 increase with enrollmenl if educational standards are maintained. These costs include personnel costs like salaries and benefits for certificated and classified employees, which generally comprise a large majority of a district's budget. Therefore, the cost per student is simply a calculation of the revenue available for operating expenditures divided by the number of students. Table 11 shows the operational costs anticipated for additional students as a result of the Pruneridge A venue project. Table 11 Operational Costs Versus Operational Revenues CUSD FUHSD Current A V FUHSD Higher A V Assumption Students 45 16 16 Town Hall Services 13 September, 2005 /i-!-d.C¡3 Citv of Cupertino Pruneridee A lI<fnue Develooment Imoact Analvsis Revenues State and Federal Funding Per Student FUHSD Share of Property Tax FUHSD Measure L Parcel Tax ($98) Total Revenues Costs Average Cost Per Student Total Costs $5,687* $162,279 $185,328 $12,740 $12,740 $255,915 $175,019 $198,068 $5,687 $8,048 $9,105 $6,226* $7,804** $7,804** $280,170 $124,864 $124,864 -$24,255 $50,155 $73,204 -$539 $3,135 $4,575 Revenue Per Student Net Fiscal Impact Total Impact Per Student Impact *Revenues and costs derived/rom the CUSD Second Interim Budget June. 2004 report; expenditures per student are assumed equal to total current revenue per student. **Current average cost per student for Cupertino High provided by FUHSD staff. Source: Town Hall Services Net Operating Impact There is a net fiscal loss (-$539 per student) for CUSD as a result of the additional students from the Pruneridge Avenue project. This reflects the assumption that state and federal revenues will increase along with the increased enrollment, but revenues from local sources in general will not. In addition, the current operational cost assumption of $6,226 per student is an average cost per pupil for all expenditures. At current estimated assessed valuations there is also a net fiscal gain of $3,135 per student for FUHSD in providing services to an additional 16 students as a result of the Pruneridge Avenue project. If real estate market costs continue to increase as project completion gets nearer, it is likely that a higher per unit sales price will result in the creation of an actual benefit of perhaps $4,575 per student as a result of the 16 additional students from the Pruneridge Avenue project. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The projected enrollment and fiscal impacts resulting from the development of 130 single family attached housing units (Pruneridge Avenue) have been analyzed. These impacts were analyzed using current enrollment and financial information data for CUSD and FUHSD in general, and the affected schools, specifically, Eisenhower Elementary, Hyde Middle, and Cupertino High. Town Hall Services 14 September, 2005 /4-),5"4 Citv of Cuvertino Pruneridee A H::nue Develovment ImDact Analvsis The enrollment impacts analyzed in this report describe the expected impact within three to ten years of the Pruneridge Avenue development completion, generally assuming current conditions. However, conditions will change and influence student generation in CUSD and FUHSD. In particular, changes in demographics can impact enrollment capacity within the Districts. For instance, we are currently nearing then end of a period commonly referred to as the "baby boom echo" period, whereby some of the children of the baby boom generation are still enrolled in high school. High school enrollment will decline in a few years as the end ofthe baby boom echo graduates. Shifts in the birth rate can also impact future enrollment. The State of California Department of Finance predicts a moderate increase in the birth rate in the coming years. The capacity issues facing each of the three affected schools as a result of the Pruneridge A venue project will change in the future as demographic shifts occur in the districts. Changes in policies within the districts can also affect enrollment into the future. Again, due to capacity concerns and the amount of inter-district transfers at the high schools, FUSHD is currently in the process of a residency verification process. Because of the desirability of FUHSD schools, some students rrom outside of the District attend FUHSD schools. Therefore, there will be a reduction in total enrollment at FUHSD schools in the near future as a result of the enrollment verification process, thus impacting enrollment capacity. Below is a summary of the significant findings contained in this report. o An analysis of recent single family housing in the Cupertino area (Table I and Table 2) indicates that appropriate SGR's for the Pruneridge Avenue 130 unit development are; 0.30 for the flats (80 units) and 0.40 for the towhnhomes (50 units) for the CUSD, and 0.10 for the flats (80 units) and 0.15 for the townhomes (50 units) for the FUHSD. The SGR's are shown in Table 4. o Based on the SGRs, an enrollment impact of 61 total students is estimated as a result of the Pruneridge Avenue project: 29 students at Eisenhower Elementary (4.83 students per grade), 16 students at Hyde Middle (5.33 students per grade), and 16 students at Cupertino High (4.00 students per grade). The projected enrollment is shown in Table 5. The current CBEDS enrollment, the calculated school capacity, and the current capacity surplus/deficit for each impacted school are shown in Table 6. o A capacity deficit would exist at Hyde Middle (133 students). At Eisenhower Elementary and Cupertino High, enrollment is approximately at capacity. CUSD has completed or has planned near-term modernizations, renovations, and boundary adjustments that will result in adequate capacity for the Eisenhower and Hyde students. For FUHSD, the District as a whole is overcrowded and is operating at a student per class ratio that is educationally undesirable, and the Cupertino campus likely had a historical students per class ratio far less than the current student per classroom ratio of32:1. Capacity calculations are show in Table 6. Town Hall Services 15 September, 2005 14-d5S- Citv of Cuoertino Pruneridze A ,enue Develooment Impact Analvsis a Facilities costs per student are anticipated to exceed facilities fee revenue per student at CUSD (-$3,715 per student) and FUHSD (-$13,686 per student), or a total facilities cost deficit of (-$167,175) for CUSD and (-$218,976) for FUHSD. a Operational costs are anticipated to exceed operational revenue at the impacted CUSD schools (Eisenhower and Hyde) by -$539. At the impacted FUHSD school (Cupertino High) there will be a net benefit of $3,135 per student using current assessed values, and under higher assessed valuations the impact becomes $4,575 per FUHSD student if real estate market conditions continue to rise as the proposed project nears completion. Total operational costs are projected to be a deficit of -$24,255 for Eisenhower and Hyde combined, and a surplus of$50,155 (current assessed values), and $73,204 (higher assessed values) for Cupertino High if real estate conditions continue to improve. Town Hall Services 16 September, 2005 14 -;}.5"fp Ci1yofCllj e Avenue ImpaJ:t Analysis SGR Analysis Appendix A Student Generation Rates-Sample New Development Cupertino Union School District Number of K-5th 6th-8th Total Total Development Address Housin2 Type Units Grade Grade Students SGR SFD Seven Springs Several SFD 4.8 117 83 200 0.490 0.211 0,203 Covently 21820-21915 Eaton Place SFD 23 6 7 IJ 0.565 0,261 OJ", Macadam Lane 10152-10198 Macadam Ln SFD 24 9 3 12 0.500 0,]75 O,IlS Orion Lane 7825-7851 Orion Ln. and 1066-1072 Wallin CI SFD 8 2 3 , 0.625 - O,HO O,37S - - SFA-(older) DeAnza Oaks· Several SFA 211 27 9 J6 0.171 0.12B 0,043 Woodspring· Several SF A 67 7 7 14 0.209 0,104 0.104 - - - SFA-(ncwcr) Astoria 10072.IOI92lrnperialAve SFA 56 21 13 J4 0.607 0.37S 0,232 Stanley Wong 10010-10060 S. Stelling Rd. SFA 8 3 1 4 0.500 0.375 0125 Lozano Lane and Rodrigues Lane 10328-10388 and 20128/20138 SFA 8 0 0 . 0.000 '.000 '.000 - - - CONDOMINIUM Tnvigne Villas 19999 Stevens Creek Blvd. SFA 46 9 2 II 0.239 0.196 0,043 Monte Bello 20488 Stevens Creek Blvd. SFA 207 I' 3 17 0.082 O.06B 0.014 - - - APT AriosoApts 19608 Pruneridge Ave. APT 201 19 , 24 0.119 0.09:1 0,025 Forge Homeslead 20631-20691 Forge Way APT 196 26 9 " 0.179 0.133 0.046 AviareApts 20400-20440 Via Paviso APT 140 " 6 41 0.293 0,250 0,043 City Center II 20380 Stevens Creek Blvd. APT 12. 17 , 21 0.175 0.!42 0,033 - - - - Total 1,723 467 SGR by Housing Type Avg. SGR by Units Avg. SGR by Proj. SFD 0.497 0.545 . DeAnza Oaks and Woodspring are approximately 15-20 years old; the others are newer developments. - SFA-(older) 0.180 0.190 -C::., SF A-(newer) 0.528 0.369 1 Condo/APT 0.164 0.18 Y.> ~ Town HaJI Snl!ica AUgUSl, 2005 -..J EXHIBIT M THE LETITIA BUn.DINO 70 S FIRST STREBT SAN JOSE, CA 95113-2406 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1469 SAN JOSE. CA 95109-1469 ß HOPKIN5erCARLEY TELEPHONE: (408) 286-9100 FACSIMILE: (401) 991·4790 www.hopkiJUlçarley.com A LAW CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Eric Morley, Morley Bros., LLC Joan R. Gallo August22,2005 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Morley Bros., LLC, in conjunction with Sobrato Development Companies, is proposing to redevelop an 8.5 acre property at 19310-19320 Prune ridge Avenue into a 130 home residential community by replacing a 128,500 square foot functionally obsolete office/R&D building. Based on the proposed development program, you anticipate payment of approximately $431,480 to the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Unified High School District combined, minus a credit for existing industrial square footage to be demolished as school mitigation fees pursuant to Government Code §65995. This state law authorized fee is the oniy allowable charge or requirement that can be imposed on a residential Development. Section 65995(a) specifically states:, "Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 17620 of the Education Code, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities may not be levied or imposed in connection with, or made a condition of, any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073." (Emphasis added.) Subsection(e) further reads:, 437665.1 H-d'J7f "The Legislature finds and declares that the financing of school facilities and the mitigation of the impacts of land use approvals, whether legislative or adjudicative, or both, on the need for school facilities are matters of statewide concern. For this reason, the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of requirements related to school facilities levied or imposed in connection with, or made a condition of, any land use approval, whether legislative or adjudicative act, or both, and the mitigation of the impacts of land use approvals, whether legislative or adjudicative, or both, on the need for school facilities, to the exclusion of all other measures, financial or nonfinancial, on the subjects." The California Supreme Court (Grupe Development Co. v. Superior Court, (1993) 4 Cal.4th 911, 844 P.2d 545, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 226 ) upheld this absolute preemption of local efforts to address school impacts. Government Code §65996 (a) specifically addresses the fact that the school mitigation fees fully satisfy the impacts of housing development on schools for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (a) "Notwithstanding Section 65858, or Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, or any other provision of state or local law, the following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073." Therefore, by payment of the statutorily required fees, the project will fully meet the requirement to mitigate school impacts and no further requirements, through CEQA or otherwise may be imposed, Please contact me if you have any further questions about this matter. -2- 437665.1 14-~5C¡ TREE SURVEY Submitted To: Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 270 San Jose, CA 95113 Project Location: 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Submitted By: McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC John H. McClenahan Certified Arborist, WE-1476A American Society of Consulting Arborists June 17, 2005 ©Copyright McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 2005 EXHIBIT N /4-d..&O - McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC June 17, 2005 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 720 San Jose, CA 95113 RE: Tree Survey 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino, California Dear Mr. Morley: Assiqnment As requested, our firm inspected all significant trees to determine species, size, and condition. The inspections occurred on February 9, 2003 and June 16, 2005 for trees 791-802. Methodoloqy For purposes of identification, tree numbers in this survey correspond to existing tree tags and numbering on site plan enclosed. No tissue analysis or climbing inspection was utilized in the performance of this survey. In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: Rate of growth over several seasons; Structural decays or weaknesses; Presence of disease or insects; and Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. o - 5 Years = Poor 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair 10-15Years = Fair 15 - 20 Years = Fair to Good 20 + Years = Good 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 @Copyrighl McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 2005 WIN'N.SPMCClENAHAN,COM (Lf- ::JJiJ r Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 2 June 17, Z005 #640: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 22.8" DSH (diameter standard height) Height: 45' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree is one-sided. Minor decay at root crown was observed. Sidewalk and street create a limited root environment. #641: Coast live oak 23.0" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Bifurcation at a 10-foot height is an inherent defect. Sidewalk and street create a limited root environment. #642: Coast live oak 22.0" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree has a slight easterly phototropic lean. Minor decay of northerly buttress roots was observed. Sidewalk and street create a limited root environment. #643: Chinese elm (Ulmus parv/folia) 6.9" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree competes with adjacent Live oak. #644: Chinese elm 12.5" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAO. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (650) 854·1267 14 -:J.{¡;¡d-. Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 3 June 17, 2005 #645: Chinese elm 13.9" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #646: Chinese elm 15.3" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #647: Chinese elm 15.1" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Large low scaffold limbs were previously removed. #648: Chinese elm 13.7" DSH Height: 32' Spread: 18' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Canopy has developed one-sided. Excessive heading cuts on southerly side were observed. #649: Chinese elm 17.6" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 fLI- ~(P3 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 4 June 17, 2005 #650: Chinese elm 16.7" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Large low scaffold limbs were previously removed. #651: Chinese elm 16.1" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Large low scaffold limbs were previously removed. #652: Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) 17.4" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Scaffold bifurcation creates an inherent defect. #653: Black locust 17.0" DSH Height: 50' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Scaffold bifurcation creates an inherent defect. #654: Evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii) 12.5",8.7" DSH (low branching) Height: 18' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Excessive pruning includes low scaffold limb removal. Girdling wire in low scaffold limb was observed. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (6S0) 326·8781' FAX (850) 854-1267 r L{--d.0Lj Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 5 June 17, 2005 #655: Evergreen pear 11.0",12.3" DSH (low branching) Height: 20' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Parking lot at Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Excessive crown reduction pruning was noted. Tree has a slight westerly lean. #656: Evergreen pear 10,8" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Parking lot at Pruneridge frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Excessive crown reduction pruning was noted. Tree has a slight westerly lean. #657: Evergreen pear 14.6" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Front of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Excessive crown reduction pruning was noted. Tree has a slight westerly lean. Pruning also included removal of 4 scaffolds on main trunk. #658: Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 15.5" DSH Height: SO' Spread: 16' Condition: Good Location: Front of building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #659: Evergreen pear 11.4" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Front of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Substantial crown reduction and old pruning wound at a 4-foot height were observed. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 8S4·1267 ILf-,;).(P5' Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 6 June 17, 2005 #660: Evergreen pear 6.5",5.7",8.7" DSH (multi trunk) Height: 20' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: Parking lot at front of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Excessive thinning and crown reduction were noted. #661: Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) 28.5" DSH Height: 45' Condition: Location: Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse with minor accumulation of deadwood. Tree was recently pruned. Sequoia pitch moth is present. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Spread: 40' Poor to Fair Parking lot at front of building #662: Monterey pine 18.2" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: Between building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Recent heavy pruning will result in exposure to environmental stress. Extensive surface rooting was observed. #663: Monterey pine 23.0" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: Between building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Recent heavy pruning will result in exposure to environmental stress. Extensive surface rooting was observed. #664: Coast redwood 7.2" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Between building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree is limbed to 6 feet. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 /4 -d,0fÞ Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 7 June 17, 2005 #665: Evergreen pear 10.4" DSH Height: 22' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair Location: Between building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree is one-sided. #666: Evergreen pear 9.1" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: Between building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree is one-sided. #667: Flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford') 7.3" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Between building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #668: Flowering pear 7.6" DSH Height: 25' Condition: Location: Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Spread: 12' Fair to Good Between building #669: Flowering pear 8.2" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Between building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 ¡c-f - 'JJo 7 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 8 June 17, 2005 #670: Black locust 16.7" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Between building pathway island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Numerous scaffolds have been previously removed. #671: Coast redwood 22.4" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Good Location: Between building pathway island Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #672: Monterey pine 21.6" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: West of building 1 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay, although extensive heading cuts were observed. Sequoia pitch moth and red turpentine bark beetle infestation of trunk is treatable. Girdling wire at a 10-foot height has not compromised structural integrity. #673: Monterey pine 19.7" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor Location: West of building 1 Observation: Foliage is sparse and lacks sustained vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Active red turpentine bark beetle and sequoia pitch moth infestation were observed. Long-term health is questionable and removal is recommended. #674: Chinese elm 12.8" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAO. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAA (650) 854·1267 ¡q-d-{P'ð Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 9 June 17, 2005 #675: Chinese elm 14.1" DSH Height: 32' Spread: 24' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #676: Chinese elm 15.6" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #677: Chinese elm 14.4" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #678: Chinese elm 10.6" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #679: Chinese elm 13.7" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 / Lf -;).0/ Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 10 June 17, 2005 #680: Monterey pine 26.5" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree was recently pruned. Bifurcation at a 5-foot height is an inherent defect. Extensive buttress rooting on southerly side was observed. #681 & #682: Chinese elm 9.7",10.0" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: West parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Inherent defect at bifurcation will require eventual bracing. Scarring of failed limb on easterly trunk has not compromised structural integrity. #683: Chinese elm 12.6" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: West property line Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #684: Chinese elm 7.7" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: West property line Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #685: Chinese elm 11.6" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: West property line Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 (4 -;;270 Morley Bros., LLC Ätte!\tiOfY. Mr. Eric Morley Page 11 June 17, 2005 #686: Chinese elm 12.1" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: West of building 2 Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #687: Coast redwood 6.9" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 8' Condition: Good Location: West of building 2 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #688: Coast redwood 7.5" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: West of building 2 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #689: Coast redwood 6.1" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 8' Condition: Good Location: West of building 2 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #690: Chinese elm 16.2" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: West of building 2 parking island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 f 4 -é).. 71 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 12 June 17, 2005 #691: Chinese elm 17.4" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: West of building 2 parking island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #692: Chinese elm 5.6" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: West of building 2 parking island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #693: Chinese elm 5.7" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #694: Chinese elm 6.1" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #695: Chinese elm 5.8" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 Ii.{ -d-7d-. Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 13 June 17. 2005 #696: Chinese elm 5.7" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #697: Chinese elm 5.4" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #698: Chinese elm 5.6" DSH Height: 18' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #699: Chinese elm 6.2" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #700: Chinese elm 5.5" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-6781' FAX (650) 854-1267 I '-I-d.- 73 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 14 JUlìe H, 2005 #701: Chinese elm 5.2" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #702: Chinese elm 5.1" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #703: Chinese elm 3.7" DSH Height: 12' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #704: Chinese elm 5.5" DSH Height: 16' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #705: Chinese elm 3.8" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 (4 -;;27.( Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 15 June 17, 2005 #706: Chinese elm 4.6" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #707: Chinese elm 5.6" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited robt environment. #708: Chinese elm 5.5" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #709: Chinese elm 5.9" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. #710: Chinese elm 5.3" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: South parking lot Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree has limited root environment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 /4-;)75"' Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 16 June 17, 2005 #711: Coast redwood 15.5" DSH Height: SO' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Bordering 280 Observation: - Canopy is sparse in upper canopy_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Buttress roots have upheaved existing curb_ #712: Coast redwood 4.6" DSH Height: 15' Spread: 8' Condition: Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #713: Coast redwood 22.5" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #714: Coast redwood 15.1" DSH Height: 3S' Spread: 15' Condition: Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #715: Coast redwood 15.8" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 15' Condition: Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is sparse indicating a lack of sustained vitality_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #716: Coast redwood 14.4" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 8S4·1267 i4 -:J. 7(¡7 Morley Bros., LLC Attet\tior\'. Mr. Eric Morley Page 17 June 17, 2005 #717: Coast redwood 17.3" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay, although top was previously broken at 30 feet. #718: Coast redwood 9.5" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #719: Coast redwood 9.7" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 10' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Bordering 280 Observation: Foliage is sparse, indicating a lack of sustained vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #720: Coast redwood 20.7" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Wolfe Road off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #721: Coast redwood 10.2" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 12' Condition: Good Location: Wolfe Road off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 14-:;271 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 18 June 17, 2005 #722: Coast redwood 13.2" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 16' Condition: Poor Location: Wolfe Road off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Bifurcation at 8 feet into 3 codominant leaders is an inherent defect. Cankers at base of tree have not compromised structural integrity. #723: Coast redwood 11.7" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #724: Coast redwood 22.1" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Burl at low trunk was noted. #725: Coast redwood 7.4",9.2" DSH (low branching) Height: 40' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Bifurcation at a 2-foot height into codominant leaders is a significant defect. #726: Coast redwood 11.7" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 16' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAO. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 /4-d.-75' Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 19 June 17, 2005 #727: Coast redwood 11.7" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 16' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #728: Coast redwood 13.0" DSH Height: 50' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #729: Coast redwood 13.8" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #730: Coast redwood 11.3" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species indicating normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Top was previously broken. #731: Coast redwood 6.2" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 8' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and indicates a lack of sustained vitality. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 H -;;OCJ Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 20 June 17, 2005 #732: Coast redwood 21.2" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: - Foliage is sparse and indicates a decline in tree vitality_ Bifurcation at 35 feet creates an inherent defect. #733: Coast redwood 12.3" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 16' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #734: Coast redwood 13.7" DSH Height: 38' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #735: Coast redwood 8.1" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #736: Coast redwood 21.9" DSH Height: 75' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ #737: Coast redwood 13.9" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species_ Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay_ McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 )L(-;)ð'O Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 21 June 17, 2005 #738: Coast redwood 25.9" DSH Height: 70' Spread: 30' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: . Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #739: Coast redwood 32.9" DSH Height: 80' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Bifurcation at 25 feet into codominant leaders creates an inherent defect. #740: Coast redwood 16.1" DSH Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Tree is overshadowed by adjacent Redwood. #741: Coast redwood 34.8" DSH Height: 75' Spread: 35' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #742: Coast redwood 7.2" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 8' Condition: Poor Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Tree is completely overshadowed by adjacent Redwoods. #743: Coast redwood 17.4" DSH Height: 65' Spread: 20' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (650) 854·1267 /4 -?-f( Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 22 June 17, 2005 #744: Coast redwood 18.9" DSH Height: 50' Spread: 25' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #745: Coast redwood 6.6" DSH Height: 18' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #746: Coast redwood 8.0" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #747: Coast redwood 17.6" DSH Height: 65' Spread: 25' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #748: Coast redwood 15.8" DSH Height: 55' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse in upper canopy. #749: Coast redwood 10.8" DSH Height: 28' Spread: 16' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Cankered trunk at 12-foot height at bifurcation of secondary leader creates an inherent defect. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781· FAX (650) 854·1267 /Lf-;:J.Ý;;;l.. Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 23 June 17. 2005 #750: Coast redwood 16.4" DSH Height: 46' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #751: Coast redwood 7.2" DSH Height: 28' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #752: Coast redwood 16.4" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Bifurcation at 16 feet into codominant leaders is a significant structural defect. #753: Coast redwood 21.2" DSH Height: 60' Spread: 28' Condition: Fair Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Irregular top growth at 45 feet is prone to failure. #754: Coast redwood 16.0" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 18' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #755: Coast redwood 9.0" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 (if-d.?3 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 24 June 17, 2005 #756: Coast redwood 28.9" DSH Height: 65' Spread: 30' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #757: Coast redwood 6.5" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #758: Coast redwood 17.2" DSH Height: 60' Spread: 22' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #759: Coast redwood 11.2" DSH Height: 50' Spread: 18' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #760: Canary island pine (Pinus canariensis) 15.3" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree was recently pruned. #761: Canary island pine 13.0" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Good Location: 280 off ramp Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree was recently pruned. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 N - ;;;;.gLf Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 25 June 17, 2005 #762: Flowering pear 5.8" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #763: Flowering pear 4.8" DSH Height: 17' Spread: 8' Condition: Good Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #764: Flowering pear 5.0" DSH Height: 17' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #765: Flowering pear 5.3" DSH Height: 18' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #766: Chinese elm 13.0" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Location: East of building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 N -d'05" Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 26 June 17, 2005 #767: Black locust 17.4" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay, although tree has a slight easterly lean. Basal mushrooms indicate positive root rot infection. #768: Black locust 18.8" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor/Hazardous Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Westerly scaffold atta.chment at a 5-foot height is weak and prone to failure. Recommend tree removal. #769: Flowering plum (prunus ceras/fera) 4.7" DSH Height: 18' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree has slight westerly lean. #770: Flowering plum 5.1" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #771: Flowering plum 6.2" DSH Height: 25' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 It{ -Ðo(P Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 27 June 17, 2005 #772: Chinese elm 14.7" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Parking lot and sidewalk provide limited root environment. #773: Tristania (Tristania laurina) 4.9",4.4" DSH (low branching) Height: 18' Spread: 12' Condition: Good Location: East of building Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #774: Black locust 14.9" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Broken limbs at top were observed. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #775: Black locust 18.3" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality, although canopy is one-sided. Tree grows to an easterly lean. Bifurcation at an 8-foot height is an inherent defect. Decay of old wounds indicates poor compartmentalization. Recommend tree removal. #776: Black locust 19.3" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows to an easterly lean. Bifurcation at a 5- foot height provides an inherent defect. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 /4-:4'7 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 28 June 17, 2005 #777: Flowering pear 7.5" DSH Height: 30' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Narrow crotch angles at a 7-foot height are considered an inherent structural defect. #778: Black locust 15.1" DSH Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor/Hazardous Location: East of building Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Canopy is one-sided. Trunk bifurcation at a 6-foot height is an inherent defect. Buttress root and low trunk deterioration on westerly side weakens structural support and anchorage. Recommend tree removal. #779: Chinese elm 14.9" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #780: Chinese elm 15.8" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #781: Chinese elm 16.0" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 14--& Ór Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 29 June 17,2005 #782: Chinese elm 16.7" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #783: Chinese elm 15.4" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #784: Chinese elm 15.3" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #785: Chinese elm 7.5" DSH Height: 20' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Location: East parking lot in drive island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. #786: Chinese elm 15.9" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 It.{ -:J- '1'1 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 30 June 17, 2005 #787: Chinese elm 14.6" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #788: Chinese elm 15.3" DSH Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #789: Chinese elm 12.3" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Ridgeview Court frontage Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #790: Chinese elm 14.6" DSH Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Entry parking island Observation: Uniform budding indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows on raised berm between street and parking lot. #791: Chinese elm Diameter: 5.5" Height: 25' Spread: 22' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. This is a young establishing tree. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAO. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (650) 854·1267 /4-::lCJo Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 31 June 17, 2005 #792: London plane tree Diameter: 3.8" Height: 16' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. This is a young establishing tree. #793: London plane tree Diameter: 4.7" Height: 20' Spread: 15' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. #794: London plane tree Diameter: 4.2" Height: 16' Spread: 9' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. #795: London plane tree Diameter: 1.8" Height: 15' Spread: 5' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Newly planted tree with two stakes. #796: London plane tree Diameter: 3.5" Height: 16' Spread: 9' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRAOERO ROAO, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (650) 854·1267 /r..{ -).'1 { Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 32 June 17, 2005 #797: London plane tree Diameter: 5.1" Height: 20' Spread: 16' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood and grows to a slight phototropic lean. This is a young establishing tree. #798: London plane tree Diameter: 3.5" Height: 15' Spread: 12' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. Large surface root visible on east side of flare. #799: London plane tree Diameter: 4.5" Height: 22' Spread: 12' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood and grows to a very slight southerly lean. This is a young establishing tree. #800: London plane tree Diameter: 3.9" Height: 12' Spread: 9' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. Tree is untagged. #801: Chinese elm Diameter: 3.5" Height: 10' Spread: 10' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal tree vitality. Tree grows to a slight southerly lean. Tree is untagged. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (6S0) 854-1267 ft-( - dH d. Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 33 June 17, 2005 #802: London plane tree Diameter: 5.0" Height: 20' Spread: 12' Condition: Good Location: Southeast portion of parking lot at 19310 Pruneridge Observation: Foliage exhibits minor damage from mildew, anthracnose and scale. Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of interior deadwood. This is a young establishing tree. Tree is untagged. Conclusion At the time of this survey, plans for possible site improvements were not available. An additional site inspection may be required to determine impacts to individual tree environments for those trees retained on site. To assist in site planning, guidelines for tree preservation are included in this survey. TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Tree Preservation And Protection Plan In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we recognize that injury to trees as a result of construction include mechanical injuries to trunks, roots and branches, and injury as a result of changes that occur in the growing environment. To minimize these injuries, we recommend grading operations encroach no closer than five times the trunk diameter, (i.e. 30" diameter tree x 5=150' distance). At this distance, buttress/anchoring roots would be preserved and minimal injury to the functional root area would be anticipated. Should encroachment within the area become necessary, hand digging is mandatory. Barricades Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barricades should be installed around all trees in the construction area. Six-foot high, chain link fences are to be mounted on steel posts, driven 2 feet into the ground, at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees or as close to the drip line area as practical. These barricades will be placed around individual trees and/or groups of trees as the existing environment dictates. The temporary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from mechanical injuries, will inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or debris within the sensitive 'dripline' areas and will prevent soil compaction from increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. Designated areas beyond the driplines of any trees should be provided for construction materials and on site parking. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326-8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 14 -dq 3 Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 34 June 17, 2005 Root Pruning (if necessary) During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree's dripline, should any roots greater than one inch (1") in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line within twenty-four (24) hours. Pruning Pruning of the foliar canopies to include removal of deadwood is recommended and should be initiated prior to construction operations. Such pruning will provide any necessary construction clearance, will lessen the likelihood or potential for limb breakage, reduce 'windsail' effect and provide an environment suitable for healthy and vigorous growth. Fertilization A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended for all trees retained on site and impacted by site improvements, with applications in spring and summer. Such fertilization will serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset shock/stress as related to construction and/or environmental factors, encourage vigor, alleviate soil compaction and compensate for any encroachment of natural feeding root areas. Inception of this fertilizing program is recommended prior to the initiation of construction activity. Irrigation A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for all trees (exc/uding coast live oaks) and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the period of May 151 through October 31st. Irrigation is to be applied at or about the 'dripline' in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of water for each inch in trunk diameter. Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, 'soaker' or permeable hose. When using 'soaker' or permeable hoses, water is to be run at low pressure, avoiding runoff/puddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soil to feeder root depths. Mulch Mulching with wood chips (maximum depth 3") within tree environments (outer foliar perimeter) will lessen moisture evaporation from soil, protect and encourage adventitious roots and minimize possible soil compaction. Inspection Periodic inspections by the Site Arborist are recommended during construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading operations. Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan and to provide recommendations for any additional care or treatment. McCLENAHAN CONSULTING. LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781' FAX (650) 854·1267 Iq -:;¡qcf Morley Bros., LLC Attention: Mr. Eric Morley Page 35 June 17, 2005 All written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of the Arborist and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Arboris/. We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concerns. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these concerns, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, By: JHMc:smg McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854·1267 ¡t-f - d. c¡ '7 - McCL~NAHAN CONSULTING, LLC ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. Arborist: fiJ.li# - Date: June 17, 2005 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028·8012 . TEL (650) 326·8781 . FAX (650) 854-1267 WWW.SPMCCLENAHAN.CQM /t-{-d-'1(¡; '" Siliœn \ "-;.V811111 Leadership Group ~ 224 Airport P81l<way, Suite 620 San Jose, CaUfomia 95110 (408)501·7864 Fax (4081501-7861 httpi/www.svlg.net CARL GUARDtNO Presiderìt & CEO AART J. OE GEUS Immediate Past Chair, SVLG Syoopsys Board Officers: WILLIAM T. COLEMAN tII Chair Cassatt Carporanon MICHAEL CANNON VìœChaÎr Solectron Corporation ROBERT SHOFFNER SecretaryfTre8surer Ciübank Board Members: JOHN ADAMS Wells Fargo Bank NED BARNHOL T Agilent Technologies CRAIG R. BARRETT Intel Corpofaüon RAY BINGHAM Cadence Design Systems, Inc. PETER CARTWRIGHT Calpine Corporation DENICE DENTON University of California, Santa Cruz RAQUEL GONZALEZ Bank of America BRIAN HALLA National Semiconductor JEANETTE HORAN IBM Corp_on LEONARD KWIA TKOWSKI Lockheed Marlin PAUL LOCA TELLI, S.J. Santa Clara University JUN NARUSE Hitachi Global Storage Technologies LEN PERHAM Opümal KIM POLESE SpikeSourc&, Inc. BYRON SCORDELlS Greater Bay Bancorp DAVIO J. SHIMMON Celerity Group, Inc. MICHAEL SPLINTER Appled Materials LINDA SULLIVAN NBC 11 JOYCE M. TAYLOR sac BOB WA YMAN Hewlett·PackE~'d Company KENNETH WILCOX SiHcon Valley Bank DAVID WRIGHT EMC Corporation JOANN ZIMMERMAN Kaiser Permanents Working Council Chair NANCY NOE Aile Corporation Founded In 1977 by DAVtDPACKARD ~~\\ìbì"hß··\ October 4, 2005 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to express our support for a residential development proposal by the Morley Bros called Pruneridge ResidentiaL The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), fOrDlerly known as Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG), founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, represents 195 of the Silicon Valley's most respected employers. SVLG merrrbers collectively provide nearly 250,000 jobs, or one of every four private sector jobs in Silicon Valley. SVLG continues to hear directly from member company CEOs that housing remains a top impediment to recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce. As a result, we use a a set of criteria to evaluate residential development proposals. This proposal clearly meets our criteria for endorserrrent. One of the biggest challenges to meeting that need is finding land suitable for additional homes. Fortunately, the site in question is ideal in that it is close to major bus routes and services. And, it will provide a new customer base to support the soon-to-be revitalized Val1co Mall. Gvien the need for housing and the scarcity ofland, it is incredibly important that opportunities such as these be maximized. We strongly encourage your support of this development proposal for 130 homes. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, ß~L3 Carl Guardino President/CEO 14 -é)C¡7 (:, ~~~¡~~ The Forum for Commercial Real Eslote October 4, 2005 The Honorable Patrick Kwok Mayo; City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino. CA 95014-3255 RE: Pruneridge Residential Development at 19310..19320 Pruneridge Avenue Dear Mayor Kwok: On behalf of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Silicon Valley (NAIOP) I am writing in regard to the redevelopment of industrial properties in the City of OJpertino as you consider the Pruneridge Residential Development project. Founded in 1967, NAIOP is a trade association with over 11,000 members who are deveiopers, owners, investors and related professionals in industrial and office real estate in 49 Chapters across the U.S. and Canada. NAIOP Silicon Valley represents over 126 Commercial Real Estate Companies located throughout the south bay region. NAIOP Silicon Valley supports public policy decisions that faciiitate improved economic development opportunities that will help insure the long term fiscal soundness of the local community. As cities across Silicon Valley reassess their land use policies, the issue of how and where to redevelop existing vacant and underutilized industrial properties to create new economic opportunity continues to be discussed. As a representative of the industrial real estate market, it has become clear to our members that we need a balance of iand uses to ensure continued prosperity in Silicon Valley. NAIOP Silicon Valley strongly encourages the strategic redevelopment of properties where new residentiai opportunities can be supported by nearby support services and requisite public infrastructure. The Pruneridge Residential project fits this model. The project allows for the removal of functionally obsolete office buiidings while creating the opportunity for much needed infill housing that will be available for future Silicon Valley workers. The utilization of the City of Cupertino's economic development strategy of pooling square footage from demolished obsoiete non-productive buildings for reallocation to established or emerging companies ensures that there is no resuiting loss of jobs or industrial square footage to the City. We believe that with this strategy and an updated General Plan, Cupertino can achieve an improved supply of available housing for future workers with no negative impact to its industrial base. Thank you for your attention to this matter. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 294 5682. Sincerely, Patricia E.Sausedo Executive Director NAIOP Silicon Valley chapter I L.f -;;I c¡ Õ 10600 NDrth De Anza Blvd. Suite 200 Cupertino, CA 95014-2075 408.446.D700 Facsimile: 408.446.0583 www.&obram.com ~ ~ October 3. 2005 SOBRATO I DEVElOPMENl' COMPANIES Chainnan Gilbert Wong Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Residential Development Proposal-19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue Dear Chair Wong: On behalf of Sobrato Development Companies, I am writing to request that you approve the 130 unit condominium deveJopment proposed on the 8.5 acre property referenced above. As the single largest owner of real estate in Santa Clara County, and headquartered here in Cupertino, we hold the long view for Silicon Valley and our portfolio in the region. AE. one of the leading providers ofOfficeIR&D and other commercial space to Silicon Valleys leading high tech complmies, we recognize that the single greatest barrier to creating jobs and retaining workers it) Cupertino and Silicon Valley is the aVililability and affordabi1ity of housing. We hear time and time again wm high tech CEO's that bOU$ing is the single most critical factor in maintaining Silicon Valley's competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. Despite millions of dollars we have invested in lobby and laudscaping upgrades and massive efforts to present the buildings to the market, the existing buildings, on pruneridge Avenue which we own, are functionally obsolete and have rettnained vacant fur years. The buildings are no longer suitable, appropriate or marketable for the types of driving industry and support indusUy companies the City of Cupertino is trying to retain and attract. The floor plates, ovetaJl building layout, floor to ceiling heights, natural light, internal Ïnftastructure and architectJrrc are not functional for toC!ay's businesses and companies of the future. We· also maintajn substantial holdings of commercial, retail and residential property in the City of Cupertino. Residenti al and business uses have coexisted in this well established mixed use neighborhood for years. New homes at this location are both appropriate and beneficial to both the existing neighborhood and employment base. J4 -óZCf1 This proposal provides workforce housing and at the same time, promotes economic development, which, as evidenced hy the project, are not mutually exclusive. The project complies with criteria for maintaining cohesive co=ercial centers and office parlcs; locates housing next to jobs and transit options; is well served by more than 90 resident serving retail and commercial businesses in walking distance; resulta in no loss in jobs Or industrial development potential because the development rights from this property will be transferred to other sites where they can be utili2:ed sooner in smart locations; pays for itself and is a net fiscal benefit to the General Fund; provides a 1 acre turn key park and ollie"(" public improvements; and includes almost $500,000 for school facilities. For these reasons, we m-ge you and your colleagues to approve the Pruneridge Residential proposal as proposed. cc: City Council City Manager Plannmg Director Eric Morley /4-300 ~ Santa Clara County Bousing Action Coaliüon fleiA1It. The Santa Clara County Housing ACDon Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuafs who have, as a common goal. the vision of affordable, welf-constructed and appropriately located housing October 3, 2005 Merrrbers of the Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 TorœAve Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to express our support for Pruneridge Residential by the Morley Bros. located at 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue. By way of background, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC include the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association Tri- County Division, and the Affordable Housing ~etwork. Silicon Valley and the region continue to see a dire need for housing, particularly within the market segment targeted for first-time homebuyers. In Cupertino, the need for entry-level housing is even more pronounced with the difference between a single family home and a townhome/condo at almost $400,000. In August, according to the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, only 21 townhomes/condos were listed for sale in Cupertino while the single family listings were closer to 60. Clearly, Cupertino has a need for exactly the type of homes being proposed by the Morley Bros. The Housing Action Coalition supports this proposal for 131 new homes. Our only wish is that the proposal would provide more homes at higher densities. Given the need, it is very important to identify sites, such as this one, where increased density is appropriate-where the direct impact to immediate residential neighbors is minimal. The Housing Action Coalition urges the City's approval of this development proposal. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, ~e-¿J~ Lee Wieder Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Access Land Development Tim ieuwsma Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Synergy Properties (4 - 3D! t~ THE IRVINE COMPANY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES liECE1'vED Ocr 1. 1 2005 September 29, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Rêsidential Developinent Proposal-1931 0-19320 Pruneridge Avenue On behalf of Irvine Apartment Communities, the owners of the Hamptons Apartment Homes, we are writing to express our support for Pruneridge Residential proposed by The Morley Bros and Sobrato Development Companies at the address listed above. As you may know, Irvine Apartment Communities, an affiliate of The Irvine Company, is one of the largest apartment owners and developers in California. The Hamptons community is directly adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed use and architectural design are complimentary to our community and integrate well with the existing tnixed-use neighborhood. The new public park will be an asset to our residents as well as the surrounding neighborhood and city in general. The development will also provide direct, convenient and safe access through the site for our residents to walk to the public park. We have met the developers regarding the project. They have agreed to work with us to coordinate on construction related issues and logistics to ensure that we and our residents are informed of key milestones during the development of the project. Again, we encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to approve Pruneridge Residential adjacent to our apartment community. Please forward this letter to both the Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, The Irvine Company Apartment Communities :!:;::--!C¡",L President MG/as /L(~30d-. 110 Innovation Drive, Irvine, California 92617 (949) 720-5600 JI ARIOSO CUPf:KTlNO September 21, 200~ Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developll1~l1( COmIDWlity Development Department City of (,Ìlperf.ino 10300 TOITe Avenue Cup~rtino, CA 95014-3255 RE: PIWNERlDGE A VI!:NUE RESIDENTIAL l>ROJECT Dear Mf. Piasecki: On behalfoftbe Stoncsíirlr Management LI,C:, r am writing to YoU in rc8"~ to the Morley Bros., Ll,(] proposcd Pruneridge Avenue RCllidcntiu1 Project. I have spoken with Cynthia Jumes of Morley Bros., U,c about the project. As you know, Stonosfair Management LLC is the management company for the 201 Ul)it Adoso Apurtment Communityloeated at l'runerid~e Avenue and Wolfe Road. We have no objection to the Morley Bros. project, and lo.ok forward to It moving forward. New for-sale residential units wm be II weleorrre compliment to the SUlTOUIlding neighborhood. Thank you for your time. aa: Mayor City Council 19608 Pruncrldgc Avenue Cupcrtfna, CA !i~OI4 (1U8) 873- 9090 !i08) 873-7377 fax e-mAil: .¡¡:..¡050@rtouuf:1lr.cc)m /4 - 303 August 25, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing in support of residential development on Pruneridge Avenue. As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential. Many of the retail services in walking distance would greatly benefit ftom additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. Thank you for your consideration of my support for IIlOre residential in our area. Sincerely, . þ¡"((...~~ . ]..0] If' VI ~ l'orrc'Ft NO _, Cú TiNO (jft7ftl.{- ~ City Council . , r L( -3Dt( August 25, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNE RIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing in support of residential develoP!llent on Pruneridge Avenue. As a business owner in the immediate vicinÎty of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential. Many of the retail services in walking distance would greatly benefit fÌ'om additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. Thank you for your consideration of my support for more residential in our area. Sincerely, ~7~· cc: Mayor City Council /4 -3°Ç' ¡ ~ " ram Town .OMMY YI 10123 N. Wolfe Ad #2142 Cupertino. CA 9S014 (408) 296·2422 Valleo Fashion Park (Between Maey's & J.C Penny) Over Cross Bridge Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing to express my support for the P~eridge Avenue residential development proposal. . As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proPosal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential since housing exists adjacent to the site. The project also will assist in tying existing residential areas together by providing a new public park on Pruneridge. There currently are a number of retail services in walking distance that would greatly benefit fÌ'om additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. It provides much needed housing opportunities near jobs, provides a new park in the neighborhood, and additional residents to support our small businesses and ensure the economic vitality of the area. I respectfully request your support for the Pruneridge Avenue Residential project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, cc: Mayor City Council ~ b 14 -30rp .' . ""'" dds f¡Jj11fffeles$ \.....:---/ V8f'Î2!l!IwiraleSS June 29, 2005 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Community Developrrrent DepartDlent City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: SUPPORT FOR PRUNERIDGE A VENUE RESIDENTIAL J c 1§!)/j6 SALES RE RES~~TATIVE DSWI",NI8II,lnc. 10883 NorthWol1ø Road Cupønlno,CA95014 p 408.117.1228 4Oð.771.1217 ------- ---- ____ ______ _n___ Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing to express my support for the Pruneridge A venue residential development proposal. - As a business owner in the immediate vicinity of the proposal, I support more residential in the area. The Pruneridge Avenue site is an ideal location for more residential since housing exists adjacent to the site. The project also will assist in tying existing residential areas together by providing a new public park on Pruneridge. There currently are a number of retail services in walking distance that would greatly benefit ftom additional residents in the area. This proposal for 131 new homes will be a welcome addition to our community. It provides much needed housing opportunities near jobs, provides a new park in the neighborhood, and additional residents to support our small businesses and ensure the economic vitality of the area. I respectfully request your support for the Pruneridge Avenue Residential project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mayor City Council (4-367 Page I of I Colin Jung From: Kiersa Wit on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Friday, September 30,20058:11 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: FW: Tree removai at 19310 Prune ridge -----Original Message----- From: zahra pavlovic [mailto:ztalieh@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 200S 6:01 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Tree removal at 19310 Pruneridge Honorable members of the Cupertino Planning Commission, We recently received a notice of hearing to consider developement at 19310-19320 Pruneridge ave. While we do not have objections to the developement plans, we are very concerned about the fate of the beautiful trees that line Pruneridge ave. Those of us who live or work close to this area have come to appreciate the tree lined portion of Pruneridge ave. as uniquely beautiful and a tremendous asset to the city of Cupertino. The removal of any trees at this site must be done in such a way as to maintain the character of Pruneridge ave. Given the recent blunders of De Anza College and other developers in Cupertino with regards to tree removal and the strong public outrage, We would like to ask the planning commission to pay very close attention to the fate of the trees at this site. Hundreds, if not thousands of employees of companies such as HP, etc... pass through this beautiful tree lined street. Many of us are Cupertino residents and we strongly urge the planning commission and the city council to maintain the tree lined character of Pruneridge Avenue. Sincerely, Zahra and Juraj Pavlovic Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. /4 -300 11/2/2005 Page 1 of2 Colin Jung From: Steve Piasecki Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:22 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Response to your email regarding the Moreley Bros. project Paulette. The Moreley Bros. are proposing to remove what they contend are two functionally obsolete industrial buildings consisting of about 126,000 square feet and to replace that space with 130 two-three story residential condominiums, with at-grade parking (meaning they are not proposing parking garages). As part of the public review process they must demonstrate why the buildings are functionally obsolete and no longer leasable. The site is located across from the Hewlett Packard campus on Pruneridge adjacent to the Hamptons Apartments near the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Wolfe Road. Their proposal includes a one-acre park on the Pruneridge Avenue frontage that will become a fully improved public park. The proposed residential buildings are about 35 feet tall. The proposal appears to be consistent with the measures on the November ballot in terms of height and density. Remember that the ballot measures provide an exception for the Vallco Park area to allow up to 45 feet in height and 30 units per acre. The proposal is under the 45 foot height limit and about half of the density allowed by the measures. For your reference, the density is about the same as the Glenbrook apartments located behind the Oaks Shopping Center next to Memorial Park. Applicants are required to pay for a traffic study by a traffic engineer, retained by the city, for any new larger development. The preliminary finding of the traffic engineer is that the new project will generate less traffic than the existing industrial buildings, when those buildings are fully leased. Hopefully this helps your understanding of the project. The City Council has extended noticing to city-wide notices to raise public awareness and invite all residents to participate in the public hearing process. We are glad that you responded and appreciate your comments. You are welcome to view the plans by coming into the Planning office located in the lower level at City Hall and you are encouraged to attend the public hearings to voice your concerns. I will forward your email to the Planning Commission and the City Council so they have the benefit of your views. Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development (408) 777-3218 direct line -----Original Message----- From: paulette altmaier [mailto:paltmaie@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 200S 2:56 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: yet another monstrosity ok, I've had it! I just received in the mail notice of yet another dense developrrrent - this time for 130 units on 8.5 acres. That is about *fifteen* units per acre. What in the world is wrong with Cupertino? Do you think we are New York or Hong Kong? If even one of these is approved (the other 2 horrors are proposed for the Vallco area) I am definitely voting for the CCC amendrrrents. 11/2/2005 /4 -50C¡ Page 2 0[2 This is completely out of control Paulette Altmaier 22605 Salem Ave Cupertino 95014 1112/2005 ILl ~3/0 Page I of2 Colin Jung From: Steve Piasecki Sent: Friday, September 30,20052:29 PM To: 'spotforsue@comcast.net' Cc: Ciddy Wordell; Colin Jung; David Knapp Subject: Information on the Sobrato site development proposal Susan, The Morley Bros. are proposing to remove what they contend are two functionally obsolete industrial buildings consisting of about 126,000 square feet and to replace that space with 130 two-three story residential condominiums, with at·grade parking (meaning they are not proposing parking garages). As part of the public review process they must demonstrate why the buildings are functionally obsolete and no longer leasable. The site is iocated across from the Hewiett Packard campus on Pruneridge adjacent to the Hamptons Apartments near the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Wolfe Road. Their proposal includes a one-acre park on the Pruneridge Avenue frontage that will become a fully improved public park. The proposed residential buildings are about 35 feet tall. The proposal appears to be consistent with the measures on the November ballot in terms of height and density. Remember that the ballot measures provide an exception for the Vallco Park area to allow up to 45 feet in height and 30 units per acre. The proposal is under the 45 foot height limit and about half of the density allowed by the measures. For your reference. the density is about the same as the Glenbrook apartments located behind the Oaks Shopping Center next to Memorial Park. Applicants are required to pay for a traffic study by a traffic engineer, retained by the city, for any new larger development. The preliminary finding of the traffic engineer is that the new project will generate less traffic than the existing industrial buildings, when those buildings are fully leased. Hopefully this helps your understanding of the project. The City Council has extended noticing to city-wide notices to raise public awareness and invite all residents to participate in the public hearing process. We are glad that you responded and appreciate your comments. You are welcome to view the plans by coming into the Planning office located in the lower level at City Hall and you are encouraged to attend the public hearings to voice your concerns. I will forward your email to the Planning Commission and the City Council so they have the benefit of your views. Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development (408) 777-3218 direct line -----Original Message---n From: Susan [mailto:spotforsue@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:09 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: NO,My husband and I have lived here 30 years and are seeing Our Once Beautiful City Turn Ugly and too Crowded,We have been embarrased When Our Guests saw that Huge Ugly thing on Stevens Creek and DeAnza. No more building We would definitely protest the Sobrato Development.We cannot attend the Oct 11th 11/2/2005 /4 - 3// Page 2 of2 meeting.Thank You ,Susan and Henry Buffalow ref -3/ éJ.. 11/2/2005 pc IDj¡ljc,Ç ~ :z:+~ No,.í &\~\,¡\-- c-( 1LuNcwoIrrH&1IoDKJN,1Ne. I'''. Acoustics· Air Quality ."11 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, California 94952 Tel: 707-766-7700 www.Illingworthrodkin.com Fax: 707-766-7790 illro@illingworthrodldn.com October 4, 2005 Eric Morley Morley Bros., LLC. 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 720 San Jose, CA 95113 VIA EMAIL: eric@rrrorleybros.com Subject: Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA -- Air Quality Assessment of 1-280 Traffic on Planned Residences Dear Eric: An assessment of Interstate 280 (1-280) traffic on planned new residences at the Pruneridge project was conducted and this letter summarizes those results. The focus of the study was to evaluate the level of inhalation health risk from 1-280 traffic diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would occur at the Pruneridge Project site. In summary, these emissions would pose a less-than-significant health risk. This analysis involved the development ofDPM emissions for traffic on I-280 using the latest version of the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2002 emission factor model with defaults for Santa Clara County. The EMF AC results were then adjusted to the traffic mix on 1-280 reported by Caltransl. Emission factors were developed for 2010 and 2020, using the calculated mix of diesel-fueled vehicles. Dispersion modeling was conducted using the CAL3QHCR model that is acceptable to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for this type of analysis. A 5-year set of rrreteorological data for San José International Airport obtained from the BAAQMD was used in the modeling. Other inputs to the model included geometry (based on site plans that you provided), current traffic conditions reported by Caltrans for I-280, and the DPM emission factors. The plan view showing the project and 1-280 are attached. Results of the modeling along with the inputs are provided in the attached sheet. Maximum concentrations ofDPM would occur at the first row of proposed residences closest to 1-280, where annual concentrations are predicted to be 0.014 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) or less. The maxirrrum individual cancer risks were computed using the BAAQMD recommended cancer risk factor of3 x 10-4 cancer cases per µg/m3 of diesel particulate matter, which are based on "best estimates" of plausible cancer potencies as detennined by the California Office OfEnviromnental Health Hazard Assessment. Over the course of a 70- year lifetime exposure, the incremental risk is calculated to be less than 4 excess cancer cases per rnillion people at the first row of proposed residences. The DPM concentrations decrease at positions further from the 1 -Based on 2004 Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic on the California Slate Highway System- http://www.dot.ca.govlhq/traffopslsaferesr/trafdatal /4-315 Eric Morley October 4, 2005 Page 2 freeway. Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, an increrrrental risk ofless than ten cases per million at the Maxirrrally Exposed Individual or MEI (in this case being proposed residences near Interstate 280) would result in a less-than-significant impact. * * * This concludes our assessment of air quality impacts to the Pruneridge Project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, t \( ~oigoOdbyJII...""f\o'yW DN'CN.........ÞcRoyll.C. us,a.~and_ ,- _'_11>00._"_ - a..:2005.10,0!!'HÞDo13.o7'ocr J arrres A. Reyff Project Scientist Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Attachments: Pruneridge Residences DPM Modeling 1-280 DPM Risk Modeling Inputs and Results 05-111 /4 - 5/if 4131800 4131700 4131600 586800 586900 587000 587100 587200 587300 587400 587500 587600 587700 587800 UTM Easting (meters) Pruneridge Residences DPM Modeling 4132400 4132200- 4132100 4132000 4131900 4132300 (j) ~ OJ - OJ .s OJ .5 .s:: t o Z ~ I- ::;¡ --- ~ J. --. \Jt 1-280 DPM Risk Modeling at Proposed Prune ridge Residences Using Ca\3qhcr Average Hourly Traffic Volumes Roadwav Information Number of Lanes = Lane Width = 8 12 (4 each direction) feet Daily Traffic Volume LDA LDT MHT HDT Total CAL30HC Link/Source Information Num of Links = 2 Link Length = variable Link Width = 68 Source height = 0 Diesel VehclesJhour = 39 2010 2010 2010 2020 2020 2020 Vech/Day % Diesel No. Diesel Vech/Day % Diesel No. Diesel 99,435 0.17% 168 99,435 0.00% 0 46,793 0.72% 338 46,793 0.68% 318 2,298 2.44% 56 2,298 1.14% 26 2,474 52.00% 1286 2,474 59.09% 1462 151,000 1.22% 1,849 151,000 1.20% 1,806 DPM Emission Factors Model EMF AC2002 County Santa Clara feet feet per link 2010 Average Emission Factors Speed DPM EE (glmi) (mph) LDA LDT MHD 55 60 0.029 65 0.088 0.042 HHD 0.138 Veil. Weighted Average 0.0958 0.0009 0.0157 0.1123 <--Total 2020 Average Emission Factors Speed DPM EE (glmi) (mph) LDA LDT MHD 55 60 0.028 65 0.061 0.038 HHD 0.076 Veil. Weighted Average 0.0615 0.0004 0.0067 0.0686 <..Total Receotor Information Number of Receptors Receptor distances = 46 variable, minimwn distance approx. 150 ft. Meteorol0l~ica1 Conditions San Jose Airport 1992-1995 & 1997 Hourly Met Data Stability class = variable Wind speed = variable Wind direction = variable Surface roughness = 150 cm Cancer Risk Calculations Maximum Minimum DPM Concentration Meteorological DPM Concentration (uglm3 (uglm'¡ nata Year 2010 2020 2010 2020 1992 0.0132 0.0085 0.0427 0.0029 1993 0.0148 0.0086 0.0046 0.0027 1994 0.0147 0.0090 0.0047 0.0029 1995 0.0140 0.0091 0.0044 0.0028 1997 0.0139 0.0081 0.0047 0.0026 Average 0.0141 0.0086 0.012 0.003 Cancer Riska 4.2 2.6 3.7 0.8 70-yr Cumulative RiskÞ 2.8 1.2 Notes; Maximum concentrations occur at Receptor No.1 (closest to highway, southeast comer of residences) Minimum concentration occurs at Receptor 34 (northeast comer of residences) Receptor Height.. 1.8 m a Cancer risk calculated assuming constant 70-ycar exposure to concentration for year of analysis. b CumuJaûve cancer risk calculated assuming variable exposure over a 70-yaer period due to decreased concentrations over time. (<I - 3/0 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEI\11NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. !.i 0-- Agenda Date: November 15, 2005 \ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR , Application: GP A-2005-0l, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03 Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLC/Sobrato Development Companies Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue A supplemental report has been prepared for this project to present late-arriving relevant information and to address a Council member's request for additional information. Staff Report A question was raised about the format of the previously submitted City Council report and the location of the project information and staff analysis. The report follows the tTaditional format staff has used for projects reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Briefly, the report headings are as follows with additional explanatory information included: 1) Main application information-- (file numbers, applicant names, property owner, property address/location. 2) Recommendations-- Staff reports the Planning Commission recommendations with the vote. If the staff recommendation differs from the Commission, this is usually reported in the Background Section. 3) Proiect Data - Project site information of interest to decisionmakers 4) Application Summary-Specific actions requested by the applicant to entitle the development of his project 5) Background - A general summary of the Planning Commission hearing. Historical project-related information is provided in the Planning Commission staff report attached to the Council report. 0.- \ii-( Background iIÚormation on planning issues and staff recorrunendations were located in the back of the report because of the complexity of the project and the seven separate applications required to entitle the project. To highlight the planning issues and staff recorrunendations, they are repeated below and expanded upon in the attached Planning Commission staff report. The Comffiissioners were supportive of the design and site layout of the Pruneridge residential development proposal, but there were larger, unresolved General Plan policy issues having to do with additional residential development in Vallco and the conversion of officejindustTialland to residential use that had not be decided on by the City Council through the General Plan update. Rather than assume what actions the Council may take on the General Plan, the Corrunission asked the applicant to take a continuance until after the General Plan adoption. The applicant elected to accept negative recorrunendations from the Corrunission in order to move his project forward for Council consideration. Staff had recorrunended approval of the project to the Planning Corrunission. The draft approval resolutions with the conditions of approval are attached to previously submitted Council staff report. Other Information Additional information is attached that was missing or arrived after the initial Council report was prepared. · Mitigated Negative Declaration · DRAFT Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 11, 2005 · Letter from the Cupertino Union School DistTict dated November 11,2005 · Letter from the Fremont Union High School DistTict dated October 21, 2005 Both school distTicts reviewed the project plans and enrollment and fiscal analysis of the project. Both agencies concur with the analysis and can accorrunodate the new students generated by the project. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~ ¿¿-~ Enclosures: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/11/05 Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 11, 2005 Letter from the Cupertino Union School District dated November 11, 2005 Letter from the Fremont Union High School District dated October 21, 2005 G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ GP A-2005-01 cc supplement.doc £L /4-.;L r' .\ \ .\J\ I D! .^.\ r:ì\ 1:-\ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: GP A-2005-01, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR- 2005-06, EA-2005-03 Agenda Datè: October 11, 2005 Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLCjSobrato Development Companies Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GPA-2005-0l) to allocate 130 residential units for a proposed townhome and condominium development REZONING (File no. Z-2005-02) of an 8.96-gross acre site from Planned Industrial Park Zone P(MP) to Planned Residential Zone P(RES) USE PERMIT (File no. U-2005-03) to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,528 square feet and construct a 130-unit townhome and condominium development with about a one acre public park, and allow tandem parking garages for a portion of the units TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-2005-07) to subdivide an 8.5 net acre property into 31 lots for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-2005-05) for the design of a 130- unit townhome and condominium development TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-2005-06) and replacement of 90+ trees for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approvals of the: Mitigated Negative Declaration (File no. EA-2005-03) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GP A-2005-01) per the model resolution. REZONING (File no. 2-2005-02) per the model resolution. Rezone from P(MP) to P(RES) and PR. USE PERMIT (File no. U-2005-03) per the model resolution. t!- Il{- .3 File No. GPA-200S-01, Z-200S-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-:LùOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 200S Page 2 TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-200S-07) per the model resolution. ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-2005-05) per the model resolution. TREE REMOVAL (File nO. TR-2005-06) per the model resolution. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Net Site Area: Gross Site Area: Existing Land Use: Building Sq. Ft. (to be demolished): Proposed Land Uses: Proposed Net Residential Density: Proposed Net Residential Density (excluding 0.937 acre park): Proposed Gross Residential Density: Proposed Gross Residential Density (excluding 0.937-acre park): Dwelling Unit Summary: IndustTial/ Residential P(MP) - Planned Industrial Park Zone PIRES) - Planned Residential Zone 8.5 acres 8.96 aCTeS Office/IndustTial 126,528 square feet (two buildings) Residential (130 dwelling units) & Publiè Park 130/8.5 = 15.29 dwellings/net acre 130/7.56 = 17.20 dwellings/ net acre 130/8.96 = 14.S1 dwellings/ gross acre 130/8.02 = 16.21 dwellings/ ¡;Toss acre Plan # of # of Beds # of Unit Sq. Ft. Unit Type Garage Units Baths Type Plan 1 13 2 2 1,188 Flat Tandem Plan 2 13 2 2.5 1,629 Flat Conventional (HC) Plan lA 27 2 2 1,397 Flat Tandem Plan 2A 27 2 2 1,452 Flat Conventional Plan 3 11 3 2.S 1,486 Townhome Conventional Plan 4 24 3 2.5 1,S32 Townhome Conventional PlanS 15 3 3 1,680 Townhome Conventional Total 130 Units Parking: Parking Required (Townhouse): 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU) Parking Supplied-- Garage: 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces) Open (He): 5 stalls Open (other): 110 stalls Total: 375 stalls CL. ) l( -l( File No. GPA-2005-01, Z-L005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-0?, ASA-LÙ05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 3 DISCUSSION Noticing. This project was the subject of a citywide postcard noticing. . Site Description, The 8.5 acre property fronts on Pruneridge Avenue and abuts the Hamptons Apartment complex in what is commonly known as Valko Park North. The property was developed in 1974 with two industrial office buildings: a 2-story 86,338 square foot building toward the center and rear of the property and a smaller 3-story 40,190 square foot building toward the front. The buildings were previously occupied by HP Company and vacated sometime between 1992 and 1999 and have not been occupied since. Vehicular access from Pruneridge Avenue occurs at two locations: 1) An unsignalized driveway entrance on the adjacent westerly Irvine Co. property (The Hamptons Apartments) and the main signalized entrance located on Ridgeview Court (a private street). In addition, along the rear property line, there is an ingress/ egress and parking easement for the benefit of the Hamptons Apartments property. There are about 162 trees on the property and in the public right-of-way fronting the property. There are three specimen size Coast Live Oaks located in the right-of-way landscape strip and a row of tall Coastal Redwoods along the highway. The other trees, both native and non-native, are mainly smaller diameter, and appear to have been planted when the property was developed. The property is immediately surrounded by the Hewlett Packard industrial office campus to the north across Pruneridge Avenue, industrial/ office buildings to the east, U.S. Highway 280 and its Wolfe Road off-ramp to the south and the 342-unit Hampton Apartments to the west. At further distances, industrial and office uses characterize the areas north and east, the Vallco Regional Shopping Center is to the south across Highway 280, and a wide mixture of land uses: single-family residences, apartments, hotels, banks, restaurants, a church and numerous local-serving commercial uses, occupy the areas to the east across Wolfe Road. Project Description, The applicant is proposing to demolish the office buildings and construct a 130-unit, for-sale condominium development and a 0.937-acre improved, public park. The development is a combination of townhouse and stacked flat style residences. The 130 attached dwellings are organized into 20 building clusters with each cluster having 5 to 8 dwellings. Two stacked flats are located on each end of a building cluster with one flat entrance oriented toward the side of a cluster. The other flat and townhouse entrances are oriented toward the front. The garages are on a depressed grade and tucked under the building such that the Cl- l'f-) File No, GP A-2005-01, Z-2005-03, U-2005-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-200S-0S, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 4 buildings are three stories in height from the driveway side of the building cluster and two stories in height from the front, pedestTian entTances. All perimeter dwellings are designed to fTOnt on Pruneridge Avenue, the public park, Ridgeview Court or the Hampton Apartments. All of the dwellings are connected by a network of driveway segments with the main driveway midpoint on the property and aligned wit):l a main driveway that enters into the Ridgeview industrial park to the east. A network of landscaped pedestrian walkways connect all of the dwellings with the open parking, the private recreation area, the industrial park, the Hampton ApaTtments, the public park and sidewalk. The proposed public park is located at the fTOnt of the pTOperty on the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Ridgeview Court. The park design is conceptual in nature and will need to be reviewed and approved by the City at a later time if the development is approved. All dwellings have a 2-car garage. The 40 smaller, 2-bedroom flats have a tandem (one vehicle behind the other) garage and the 90 other units have side-by-side garage spaces for a total of 260 enclosed parking spaces. In addition there are 115 open parking spaces distTibuted aTOund the development with a portion of them within a convenient walking distance of the pTOposed public park. General Plan Land Use Policy. Although the general plan land use designation for this pTOperty is "IndustTial/Residential", the applicant does not have an inherent development right to redevelop this pTOperty into a residential pTOject. One major amendment to the adopted 1993 General Plan provided for the metering of residential development in historically non-residential areas through a development allocation system. "Pots" of potential residential units, commercial and office/ industrial square footages were allocated to different geogmphic areas or project types in the City. Developers applied on a first come-first served basis for "development allocations". Presently all of the residential development allocation that could have been assigned to Valleo Park was exhausted by the Hamptons, Arioso, Menlo Equities and Vallco/Rose Bowl residential pTOjects. Valleo Fashion Park is a special case where development potential is contTolled by the Valleo Development Agreement, not the general plan development allocation system. With the General Plan residential development allocation for Valleo Park exhausted, the applicant has applied for a General Plan amendment to obtain an allocation of 130 dwelling units for his project, which may be granted on a discretionary basis by the City if decisionmakers believe it is wise land use policy to change the land use of this property. The City-initiated general plan update, currently under review by the City Council, would provide for additional residential development in Valleo Park North, "'- {~-& File No. GPA-2005-01, Z-:z.005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2.V05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 5 but those city-initiated amendments have not been adopted yet. Overall, the General Plan balances potential levels of residential, commercial and office/industrial development to ensure over the long-term that the City's transportation system stays within acceptable levels of traffic congestion. As will be discussed under the Traffic section of this staff report, a 130-unit residential development generates far fewer peak hour vehicular trips than 126,500 square feet of office use, so the change in land use will not negatively impact the City's long range balancing of land uses and traffic congestion as long as the industrial office potential is traded out for the residential potential. Staff believes the proposed residential project complies with the proposed General Plan language regarding Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks, which was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission and is currently under review by the City Council. The following sections present the applicant's justifications in support for the general plan residential development allocation of 130 dwelling units. Obsolescence of Existing Office Buildings. The applicant has commissioned a physical assessment of the buildings prepared by FaciliCorp, a facilities management consulting firm, dated August 31, 2005 (Exhibit A). The report concludes that the inefficient floor plan, low floor to ceiling heights, poor day lighting & artificial lighting, outdated mechanical and electrical infrastructure and lack of loading dock facilities make the building obsolete and highly difficult to lease. Letter fTom five different commercial real estate brokers (Exhibit B) basically echoed the building deficiencies described by FaciliCorp and the very poor marketability of the buildings. Letters in Support of the Proiect. The applicant met with numerous groups of residents and businesses located near the proposed project site and received letters of support from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition, ds Wireless, business owner Philip Tam, Pinky & Winky retail store, and Tiara Town, a Vallco Mall business (Exhibit C). Fiscal Impact on the City. The applicant commissioned a fiscal impact analysis of the project on City revenues and expenditures. The study was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems and dated September 2005 (Exhibit D). Estimating factors weTe derived from the 2004-05 Cupertino Adopted Budget. The report concluded that the project would generate taxes and fees of $115, 129 and expenditures of $82,884 for a net fiscal surplus of $32,245 per annum. Cost savings will come from privately maintained project roads and the proposed Landscape and Lighting Assessment District on the future homeowners to fund the maintenance cost of the proposed public park. '^- /l{-l File No. GPA-2005-Ol, Z-L005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2U05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 6 Proiect Consistency with Cupertino Initiatives: Measures A, B & c. Should the Cupertino Initiatives, Measures A, B & C, be passed by the voters in the November elections, the proposed project would conform to the possible residential' density limitation (30 dwellings/net acre); the maximum height restriction (45 feet); and the minimum street setback (1:1 setback to building height ratio) for the "Valleo Park" Exception Area. This is confirmed by the law firm of Hopkins and Carley in an opinion dated August 22, 2005 (Exhibit E). Staff has checked the plans against the proposed initiative development restrictions and makes the same conclusion, also noting that the net density of the project is about half of what would be allowed under Measure A if it was passed. Rezoning, The applicant proposes rezoning the property from P(MP)- Planned Industrial Park Zone to P(RES)- Planned Residential. Staff recommends that the proposal be modify to rezone the proposed public park and associated public right-of- way to PR- Public Park not P(RES). Zoning plat map and legal description will need to be revised and this condition is incorporated in the model resolution. Tentative Subdivision Map. The applicant proposes subdividing the property into 20 "building cluster" lots (numbered 1 through 20), 10 private common area lots (labeled A through J) and a parcel to be improved as a park and conveyed to the City (labeled K). According to the applicant all of the parcels, except K, will be owned in fee title by the homeowners' association with the units in each building cluster to be sold as "airspace" condominiums to individual homebuyers. According to the applicant the parcelization of the common areas is needed to meet State Department of Real Estate (DRE) requirements for project phasing. According to the applicant, DRE requires building access and the installation of the surrounding improvements before homebuyers can move in. Staff does not have a problem with this approach, but needs assurances that common areas remain under the ownership and maintenance responsibility of a homeowners' association. A condition has been placed in the tentative map resolution. Hazardous Materials. The property was previously in agricultural uses and for the last 30 years in industrial office uses. Use of haZardous materials associated with those land uses may have contaminated the soil and a change of land use to residential would expose those future residents to potential hazardous materials. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property was conducted by Lowney Associates in reports dated May 17, 2005 and August 31, 2005 respectively (Exhibit F & G). The Phase I Study involves historical research of aerial photographs and other records, and public agency regulatory records to identify past land uses and potential hazardous materials used on the property. The Phase II Report involves boring into the ground to collect soil samples for chemical testing. The soil analysis found minute quantities of Ð.-. I <i-f File No, GP A-200S-01, Z-LOOS-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-LUOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 7 agricultural pesticides commonly used in the Santa Clara Valley's agricultural activities. Studied chemicals were determined to be in concentrations below California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), which are the cunent regulatory standards for direct exposure. Arsenic levels exceeded the CHHSL, but because naturally-occurring arsenic concentration in the Bay Area commonly exceeds the CHHSL standard, remediation is not required by regulatory agencies according to the consultant. The consultant concludes that further evaluation of soil quality does not appear warranted at this time. Noise, Highway 280 generates noise that would impact any potential residents living on the southern portion of the project site. A noise assessment was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated August 8, 2005 (Exhibit H). An addendum to the report, dated September 21, 2005 (Exhibit I), address project mitigations. The report concluded that the southern portion of the site would be subject to "clearly unacceptable" noise levels of 81 to 84 dBA Ldn. Ground level noise at the southerly patios/ decks could be reduced to 75 dBA Ldn with a sound wall of 11 to 13 feet in height. Upper level balconies adjacent to Highway 280 will need enclosures composed of solid materials to alleviate noise impacts. (See Figure 1 of Sept. 21, 2005 œport). A condition has been added to the resolution(s) requiring a sound wall and noise barriers at a number of balconies. Final design should be accomplished at the building permit stage as staff will need to analyze the sound attenuation wall location to make sure it does not harm the existing grove of redwood trees. Traffic, A traffic report was prepared by Fehr & Peers, TranspoTtation Consultants, to analyze potential traffic impacts of the project (Exhibit J). The report studied a proposed project traffic of 139 residential units, slightly larger than the present proposal, and compared it to the traffic generated by the existing offices when occupied. The reported looked at future traffic and analyzed the effects on sunounding signalized intersections and their levels of service. The report concluded that there will be a net decrease of 769 daily vehicular trips, of which there will be 162 fewer AM peak-hour trips and 144 fewer PM peak-hour trips. The pattern of traffic is of course different from an office project so an intersection level of service analysis was completed on surrounding signalized intersections, which demonstrated no significant impact at the studied intersections. Parking. The Cupertino parking ordinance requires 2.8 parking stalls (2 enclosed + 0.8 open stalls) for each townhouse unit. Although this project has a combination of townhouse and condo flat housing styles, the higher townhouse parking requirement was applied to all units. Below is the breakdown of required and supplied parking: Parking Required (Townhouse): 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU) 0.- [l{-1 File No. GP A-200S-OI, Z-200S-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-0?, ASA-LvOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 8 Parking Supplied-- Garage: 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces) Open (HC): 5 stalls Open (other): 110 stalls Total Provided: 375 stalls parking ratio: 2.88 Transporation consultants, Fehr & Peers, also conducted a parking survey of the parking requirements of some sUrTounding jurisdictions for attached housing units, and a guest parking survey of six residential developments that had 2-car garages for each unit (Exhibit K). The average guest parking increment of the surveyed cities was 0.39 and guest parking usage of the six surveyed sites ranged from 0.11 to 0.83 spaces per unit. The applicant's provision of 0.88 guest spaces per unit will exceed actual guest parking demand. A condition has been added to the resolution requiring the CC&R's to state that the garages shall be used to park cars. School Emollment & Fiscal Analysis. The City commissioned a fiscal and emollment impact analysis of the residential project on the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The consultant, Town Hall Services, in a report dated September 2005 (Exhibit L), determined that the project would generate about 61 students (29 of which would attend Eisenhower Elementary School, 16 would attend Hyde Middle School, and 16 would attend Cupertino High School). The elementary and middle schools are over-capacity, but Tecent and near- term facility improvements, attendance boundary changes or adding new classroom facilities will reduce, and likely eliminate, that over-capacity condition. Cupertino High School has excess capacity of 21 students, enough to accommodate the 16 high school students generated by the project. In addition, the District's new residence verification progTam is expected to dis-emoll about 30 to 50 students from Cupertino High alone. Taking into account new operational revenues and costs, the study concluded there would be a net fiscal loss of $539 per student for CUSD as a result of the additional students from the development and a net fiscal gain of $3,135 to $4,575 per student for the high school district. Plans and the study were submitted to both school districts for comment, but responses were not received by the time of this report preparation. Staff will pursue comments from the school district prior to the hearing. The applicant will pay statutorily required school impact fees, which, according to state law, fully mitigates school impacts. Other requirements or fees may not be imposed. The applicant has provided a legal opinion (Exhibit M). The City Attorney concurs with this opinion. Tree Removal & Replacement. There are about 162 trees on the property or in the adjoining public right-of-way (Exhibit N). All appear to be planted as part of the office development with the exception of three specimen size oak trees in the street planting 0\.... Il( -fÓ File No. GP A-2005-01, Z-L005-03, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-LV05-05, TR-2005-06 October 11, 2005 Page 9 strip at the northwest corner of the property. Seventy trees are proposed for retention, including the redwood grove along the highway, the Chinese Elms and Coast Live Oaks along the public right-of-way and the trees located in the proposed park. The full list is shown on sheet C7 of the plan set. 92 trees are proposed for removal- none of which are considered specimen trees by the City. The applicant proposes to mitigate the tree removal by planting about 500 new trees as part of the development. Architecture. The applicant has worked with staff for several months on the design of his project and City Architect, Larry Cannon, has provided input into the design. The project has adopted a Craftsman style of architecture to complement the existing Hampton Apartments. Within the Craftsman theme, the project has three different architectural styles, four different building sizes and six different color and material combinations, which include variations on roof, trim, gable siding, stucco, fascia, entry and garage doors and stone elements. Each entry way is personalized with gable, shed, column and trellis elements. A wide variety of exterior finishes are used to individualize the units and the each building cluster-shingle, stone, board and batten and horizontal siding consistent with a Craftsman architecture. The walkways are accented with picket fencing, period lighting and other decorative features. Staff would like to shorten a north/ south running driveway that faces Pruneridge Avenue. This is easily accomplished by flipping one of the park-facing units and orienting it toward Pruneridge A venue. Staff will illustrate this design change at the hearing. A condition of approval has been added to the resolution to accommodate this design change. Public Park. The applicant is proposing to convey a 0.937-acre, improved public park to the City of Cupertino and enter into an assessment district to levy fees to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the park. Based on an estimated residential population of 308 persons the estimated park acreage need is 0.924 acres. General Plan policy #5.53: New Residential Development in Non-residential Areas encourages the provision of public park space as opposed to private recreational space. The public park should be oriented to the street and easily accessible to the public. The siting of the proposed park is on the corner of Pruneridge Avenue and Ridgeview Court and has nearby parking which is consistent with general plan policy. General Plan policy #5-47: Park Minimum Acreage encourages the acquisition of parkland of at least 3.5 acres, but that acreage is disproportionate to the park need generated by this development. Policy #5-47 further provides that smaller parks may be considered as a high priority in neighborhoods which have no park or recreation areas, which is the case for the Vallco Park North area. tL- [l( -It File No. GPA-200S-01, Z-LlJOS-03, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-L.vOS-OS, TR-200S-06 October 11, 2005 Page 10 The park is shown conceptually on the plan set. Its ultimate design would require future city review and approval. Submitted by: Approved by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner <::::" 6 _ Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolutions ERC Recommendation & Initial Study Exhibit A: Facility Assessment prepared by FaciliCorp, dated August 31, 2005 Exhibit B: Letters from five commercial real estate brokers Exhibit C: Six letters in support of project Exhibit D: Pruneridge Residential Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc. dated September 2005 Exhibit E: Memorandum from Hopkins & Carley regarding the Cupertino Initiatives dated August 22, 2005 Exhibit F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, California prepared by Lowney Associates, dated May 17,2005 Exhibit G: Soil Quality Evaluation, Pruneridge Avenue, CupeTtino, California, prepared by Lowney Associates, dated August 31, 2005 and revised September 20, 2005. Exhibit H: Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA - Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated August 8, 2005 Exhibit I: Response to Noise Comments, Pruneridge Avenue Residential, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated September 21, 2005 Exhibit J: Draft Report- Transportation Impact Analysis, Pruneridge Residential Development, prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated August 2005. Exhibit K: Supplemental Parking Information for the Pruneridge Residential Project prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated September 23, 2005. Exhibit L: Pruneridge Avenue Development, Morley Brothers,L.L.c., Fiscal and Emollment Impact Analysis, prepared by Town Hall Services, dated September 2005. Exhibit M: Memorandum from Hopkins & Carley, regarding school impact fees, dated August 22, 2005 Exhibit N: Tree Survey for 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, prepared by McClenahan Consulting LLC, dated June 17, 2005. Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcGPreports \ GP-2005-01.doc 0- fl{ -{ ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on November IS, 200S. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-200S-03, ASA-200S-0S, GP A-200S-01 Z-200S-02, TM-200S-07, TR-200S-06 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC) 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue Applicant: Location: DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,S28 square feet and constTUct a 130-unit townhome development and a .937-acre park. Architectural and Site Approval for a l30-unit townhome development. General Plan Amendment to allocate 130 residential units for a proposed townhome development. Rezoning of an 8.5-acre site from Planned Industrial Zone to Planned Residential Zone. Tentative Map to subdivide an 8.5-acre parcel into 31 lots for a l30-unit townhome development with a public park. Tree Removal and replanting of approximately 81 trees. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant envirorunental impacts. Mitigated conditions are: The soils report and a proposal to reduce traffic noise needs to be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on 0....- Il{ -{ ~ City Clerk g/ercjnegEA200503 l\.... (I..{ -fLf Motion by om, Chen, second by Com, Saadati, to postpone Applications U-200S-lS, -200S-0S, Z-200S-06 to the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission me Cupertino Planning Commission Z-200S-06 Rockwell Homes, 10716 Stevens anyon Road Motion: ORAL COMMUNICATION: 2 October II, 2005 construct 15 townhomes. Tentative Map to subdivide a l.l-acre parcel into 15 lots plus one lot held in common. Rezoning of a I. I-acre Parcel from Apartment (R3) to Planned Development Residential (P Residential) for 15 townhomes. Tentative City Council date: November 15, 2005. Request postponement to the October 25,2005 Planning Commission meeting. Dennis Whitaker, Cnpertino resident, an resident of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, Save Our City: · Respectfully requested the citizens of Cupertin to have their vote before any other General Plan exceptions or amendments can be made. T have been waiting since April/May of 2004; the initiatives were filed September 2004. · Requested that the Planning Commission table anything t t takes a General Plan amendment to be tabled until the election is completed. Mr. Piasecki: · Commented that relative to tonight's agenda, there was a General Plan endment but it is not affected by the three November ballot measures. It is a request to refill on of the buckets for some residential units in the Valleo area; the zoning is an action to put the ap riate zoning designation on the property. The election will have no impact on whether that is roved or not; otherwise the project confonns to the measures. Relative to Valleo Fashion k, the tentative map and the development agreement; one might argue that the develop ent agreement is impacted by the measures; which can be discussed when that item comes up. CON~ENT {'~T J¡'NnAR· Nnne PUBLIC HEARING 1. U-200S-03, ASA -2005-05 GP A-200S-01, Z-200S-02, TM-200S-07, TR-200S-06 (EA-200S-03) Eric Morley (Morley Bros. LLC) 19310-19320 Pruneridge Avenue Use Pennit to demolish two office buildings totaling approximately 126,528 square feet and construct a 130- unit townhouse development and a .937-acre public park. Architectural and Site Approval for a 130-unit townhome development. General Plan Amendment to allocate 130 residential. units for a proposed townhome development. Rezoning of an 8.5-acre site from Planned Industrial Zone to Planned Residential Zone. Tentative Map to subdivide an 8.5-acre parcel into 31 lots for a 130-unit townhome development with a public park. Tree removal and replanting of approximately 81 trees. Tentative City Council date: November 1, 2005. 0..- {l(-{ J Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October II, 2005 Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for General Plan amendment, rezoning, Use Permit, Tentative Map, architectural & site removal, and tree removal request to pennit the demolition of two office buildings in the Vallco Park area, and allow the construction of 130 residential units in a proposed townhouse/condominium format, as outlined in the staff report. · Briefly reviewed the background of the 1993 General Plan because of its bearing on the Generaf Plan amendment request. · He said the current General Plan under review now would fill up that pot for Vallco as well as other parts of the city; that are still under review by the City Council. The applicant has provided a number of justifications for the General Plan amendment, among including documents in the staff report that document the obsolescence of the existing office building. The applicant has met extensively with local neighborhood and business groups surrounding the property and has received a certain number of letters of support, not only from local people but from those who have a regional interest. The applicant has also submitted a study prepared by a rea] estate consulting group as well as an economic consulting group, which used data from the city's adopted budget, its factors, census data and other sources of infonnation and concluded that given the amount of taxes that wou]d be generated by this proposa] and the expected general fund expenditures in terms of staffing, staffing costs and maintenance costs, that there would be a positive net outcome to the city's budget of about $32,245. · Reviewed the project data as outlined in the staff report, Pages 1-3 to 1-5. Environmental Review and Hazardous Materials: · Mr. Piasecki reviewed the data relative to the environmental review and hazardous materials. The building was formerly used for agricultural putposes and industrial office uses. Phase one and phase two studies were conducted which concluded that any levels of residual hazardous materials a potential resident would be exposed to were well below California State hea]th standards. Details of the studies are outlined in the staff report, Pages 1-6 and 1-7. Noise: · It was determined that there were noise impacts because of the close proximity to Highway 280. The applicant would be required to erect a sound wall and staff would prefer to ]ook at it during the construction phase to address it in terms of screening it which is a General Plan policy as well as where it is placed so that it does not harm the redwood trees that also border that area. Also solid materials p]aced on the upper balconies of the southerly most units would mitigate noise; and the interior noise can be mitigated with construction materials that have a higher sound transmission quality. Detai]s are out1ined in the staff report, Page 1-7. Traffic: · Residentia] generates less traffic than the industrial development; there is going to be significant1y less trips on the order of 600 to 700 trips on a daily basis during the peak hour, upwards of 150+ in the morning and the peak hour which wi1\ have an improvement on the level of service which is the city standards for how signalized intersections perform in and around there. School Enrollment And Fiscal Analysis: · Schoo] emollment and fisca] analysis with respect to how the project might affect the fiscal health of the school district was reviewed, as outlined in the staff report, Page 1-8. "'--' II.( -( Ie Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 11,2005 Tree Removal And Replacement: · He reviewed the trees proposed to be removed and those proposed to be retained as outlined on Pages 1-8 and 1-9 of the staff report. Air Quality Study: · An air quality study was prepared by an air quality consultant, addressing the DPMs relative to the diesel particulate matter and based on the modeling that was done for this project. The concentfations of those hazardous air pollutants would be below California health standards, as documented. Project Description: · He reviewed the existing and proposed site plans as outlined in the staff report, Page 1-3. · Reviewed the architecture of the units, which included two story buildings, with individualized entrances for each unit; two other building entrances on the sides, two stories when facing the front; parking is tucked underneath, from the garage side you will see three stories with the garage at the basement or ground floor, with two living floors above that. The development varies in height, from about 30 to 38 feet, depending on the architectural style of the building itself and what they wanted to do with the roof pitches. · Reviewed the proposed landscape plan as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends that the PlaDning Commission: · Grant a mitigated negative declaration for the project. · Adopt a General Plan amendment; the recommendation is slightly modified from the applicant's proposal; where in addition to allocating the 130 residential units for the project, staff is recommending to change the General Plan land use designation of the proposed park from its current industrial/residential to parks which is a designation for all parks. · Rezone the property, from planned industrial park to planned residential and a park zoning for the proposed public park. · Approve the Use Permit to demolish the buildings and construct the 130 unit townhome condominium development. · Provide for the provision of a one-acre park and allow the tandem parking spaces for a portion of those units. · Approve the Tentative Map to subdivide the property into 31 lots for the condominium development. · Approve the architectural and site approval. · Approve the tree removal request to remove and replace 90+ trees with about 500 more new trees. A video was shown which illustrated the applicant's proposal. Staff answered Commissioners' questioDs: · The project will provide 15% BMR units, 19 units. · Some of the buildings have been vacant 5 to 10 years; Hewlett Packard was the last tenant and likely had a long term lease. · Accept the concept that the building is a functionally obsolete building and the square footage goes back into the officelindustrial pool to be used in the future when the market demands are there for a brand new class A office or industrial building that fits the market needs. · A discussion ensued regarding the school enrollments and fiscal analysis wherein staff answered commissioners' questions. lL {L{~{Î Cupertino Planning Commission 5 October 11,2005 Chair Wong: · Said the capacity of students at Cupertino High School was at 21, and he expressed concern that they were building so much housing in the city, yet not collaborating well with the schooi district. · Said he was hesitant to vote in support of it if the data they received at the meeting did not include the two items Com. Chen brought up earlier. Ms, Murray: · Said that the application could be continued until they find out from the school district; the concern would be traffic mitigation, not the school impact. · Said she concurred with the opinion that school impact has been preempted by the state. It is covered by the charge per student and it is very specific in thé state law that it is the only impact fee that can be charged. It has been discussed several times, and is difficult to accept, but if you want to look at traffic and other issues that are more of the city's purview, the state has used the words "preempted" and there will be no other fees charged for school impact. · Pointed out that if the city was over-built and the schools had not caught up with it, it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, but is a school district and state concern. The schools have been notified of each of the developments and since it is their responsibility, it is assumed they are handling it and are comfortable with it and that the impact fees will cover the impact. · She said that traffic and public safety is the concern of the Planning Commission. Chair Wong: · Expressed concern about the quality of education if the school put the students in modules. · Asked staff to comment on the sentence on Page 1-4, General Land Use policy paragraph, the first paragraph says that "although the general plan .... The application does not have an inherent right to develop this property into the residential project". Mr. Jung: · The longer term land use plan for the city states industriallresidential; to build the housing in that location you have to have both the General Plan and the zoning that says it is residential. In the past there were pots of residential assigned to different geographic areas, different types of projects throughout the city, and an applicant could apply. They didn't need a General Plan amendment, and could apply for a rezoning if needed and a Use Permit, and if the project was approved an allocation would be assigned to them. What has happened in Valleo, is that there was an allocation some time ago, with a certain number of units assigned to Vallco Park with the Heart of the City running along the front of Vallco Park where Menlo Equities is; and some other things where you could dip into the undesignated units. By and large everything that could possibly have been assigned to Valleo that an applicant could apply for, has been exhausted. · That is why the applicant is making his General Plan amendment request for you to fill the pot per se, so that he can do a residential redevelopment properly. Eric Morley, applicant, reviewed a slide presentation: · Morley Brothers and Sobrato are proposing to redevelop the site that currently has 127,000 square feet of functionally obsolete office space into a new for-sale condominium and townhouse community including a one-acre turnkey park it its existing mixed use neighborhood. · Concurs with the staff recommendation to approve the project. · Showed the site, said it was included in a mixed use neighborhoods in the North Valleo a....- (l( ~( f Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 11, 2005 planning area and as staff indicated, the land use plan and General Plan designation for the site already provides for residential use on the site. As discussed, the City Council is currently considering up to 400 units in the north Valleo area and at the October 4 meeting the Council preliminarily recommended a 400 unit allocation to this area. The area is distinctly different from the south Valleo area in the General Plan planning process which is south of280 o As staff indicated, if the City Council doesn't adopt the new General Plan and includes units in the area, the applicant will withdraw the General Plan request. o The neighborhood has a mix of uses including a residential retail employment and other uses. The project is also buffered from existing non-residential uses by use of public and private roads, landscaping and parking areas. In addition, no heavy industrial uses are in the area. o The site is extremely well served by existing commercial and retail tenants; list of tenants. o The building was constructed in the mid 70s and has become functionally obsolete; vacant for a number of years, it is no longer suitable, appropriate or marketable. Sobrato has invested millions of dollars in renovations to the building and made every effort to market the property to the commercial real estate industry; however, there are intrinsic aspects of the building which have concluded that they are functionally obsolete. The overall building layouts, the internal infrastructure which is mostly original, the outdate infrastructure as well as floor to ceiling heights that are extremely low, limited glass and limited natural light, lack of dock loading and grade level loading; no warehousing or forklift availability has all contributed to the building's condition. o FaciliCorp provided a physical assessment of the building confirming the conclusions, and five major real estate brokerage firms toured the buildings and provided their assessment, which concurs as well. o The commercial real estate community has stopped showing the buildings because of their condition. o The project complies with the comprehensive General Plan elements, proposed growth control initiatives and also the criteria for maintaining cohesive commercial parks recommended by the commission. o The homes orientation, park location, architecture and other elements of the project have all been carefully executed and designed with all the guidelines in mind. The plan was previously proposed for 139 units, and subsequently reduced to 130 units at the request of staff through multiple site plan revisions. o Reviewed the architectural details; the project also includes a one-acre turnkey public park which will provide a gathering place for the neighborhood and create a sense of identity for the neighborhood, which will be funded by the residents of the project through a landscape and lighting district with no cost to the City's general fund. o The project complies with more than 75 stated goals, plans and policies of the existing and draft General Plan and complies fully with the spirit letter intent of the proposed initiatives in terms of height, density and setback. o The project will pay for itself and will also add approximately $32,000 annually to the city's general fund. o There will be 20 BMR units integrated throughout the project priced between $208,000 and $306,000. o Proposing to retain the green veil of trees along Pruneridge Avenue and Highway 280 and propose to plant in excess of 500 new trees on the site. o Residential in this location will result in less traffic than the office use; the school study commission indicated that the schools will have capacity for the students. o We have done comprehensive community outreach and community outreach and community meetings with our immediate neighbors, surrounding property owners and businesses. Letters of support are in your possession. tL- [l{-(1 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October II, 2005 Mr. Morley responded to earlier questions from the commissioners: · Discussed the potential of a community room, swim pool and/or Jacuzzi on the premises. He said from a market prospective, historically the for-sale environments differ from the rental environments; and they found they are under-utilized in a number of communities. HOAs once they take over the project will seek to remove them or fill them in and create passive and active open space areas. Pools and other water features such as Jacuzzis, often become significimt liability issues in tenus of maintenance, insurance and security coverage. · Recreation room is 50/50; most developments of this size, if they have one, it is typically smaller in nature and has a kitchenette, a smaller gathering area. If there were one to be located on this site, it would most likely be located in or around the half acre private recreation area. · Relative to Com. Giefer's concem regarding site circulation and access, ingress/egress, the site has the three points of access - Pruneridge, Ridgeview Court, extension of Ridgeview; in addition to access for the Hamptons. We do not have, and we are confident that we could not obtain access through the Hamptons' development. Mr. Morley: · There was also a question regarding the organization and the layout of the parlor. By way of background, SB 1225 was enacted into law last year and came into effect earlier this year, which requires that the 10% of the units, the ground floor units in any development have access available to the handicapped, and that means not only those who reside there, but someone who may visit there. It requires that there be a space for someone to go sit and also use the facilities. · As it is not set up for a bedroom, the space is 12-1/2 feet by 8-1/2 feet; the area that was perceived as a closet is a way to walk into the bathroom. Had we intended that to be a bedroom, we would organize that substantially different. It has more value as a bedroom and it would also include a full bath. Com. Giefer: · Would that legislation preclude you from having a ground floor bedroom with those amenities. The reason why I am bringing this up as a difference, is I believe it will be used as a bedroom; it looks like a bedroom and it impacts our child generation numbers for the schools. I think we need to count it as a bedroom and increment our child head count for the school systems. Mr. Morley: · Said the space could conceivably be a bedroom. · Said if it was considered a bedroom, there would be approximately 13 additional bedrooms of a total of 310 bedrooms in the development. The child count is based partially on bedroomlbathroom count and square footage count and the two projects identified by the consultants and utilized had larger square footages than this development and had more bedrooms than this development as well. Chair Wong: · Questioned if the survey took into account that Fremont Union High School District and Cupertino Union School District are two growing school districts. While other school districts are going down in enrollment, people are moving to Cupertino because of the schools, with four excellent high schools in the district. · Said he respectfully disagreed with the report because people want to live in Cupertino because of the school districts. Developers would not be coming into the city of Cupertino if they could not see that they can look at the bottom line to build the houses. 0..... 14-)....0 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October II, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: · Said it would be a good idea to have Town Hall Services come and talk about their studies and how they do this. They are retained by the school districts as well. Mr. Morley: · Clarified that Town Hall Services was engaged by the city for the high school district. They utilize a1l of the enrollment data and projections that were provided by both school districts in the analysis. All of the data included in the report is for those two school districts' specifics. It is average-cost based vs. marginal cost base, which addresses the question about why the discrepancy. The report is overly conservative; if you look at the two districts' actual student generation rates that they have published today, the project would generate about 41 students. We recognize that it is conservative in tenns of student generation and also in tenns of the physical components of that, and we concur with you that the schools are wonderful. · As staff noted, there are 56 to 76 student capacity increase as a result of both the existing capacity in the FUHSD as noted in the report. · Relative to considering locating the public park near Highway 280 to provide additional sound buffer from the housing units, he said they looked at a number of locations on the site and evaluated that. The location was identified in coordination with staff primarily because it is an important recreational and public policy objective to make sure that for this neighborhood which doesn't currently have a park, both office users and neighbors would have the ability to access and see and use that park from a very prominent key comer. Our concern about putting it in other locations, is that it would have been further away from the major public roadways; · The homes and buildings located at the corner will have sound attenuation and mitigation; in addition, they also serve as a sound attenuation buffer for the remainder of the site. Those are the reasons we felt it was important to have that out on the comer so that it could be maximally visible and accessible to the public, not just our residents and/or the Hamptons. Mr. Piasecki: · Said an open space feature in the area wouldn't diminish the sound impacts from the freeway, and he agreed that they wanted to showcase the open space to the public · He cited Memorial Park as an example of a showcase of open which reduces the appearance of density in the community. Mr. Morley: · Said they proposed a clear glass backboard for the basketball court to direct the ball so that it would not go into the street. Chair Wong: · Commended Mr. Morley for following staffs direction by showing the excellent and infonnative video presentation. It helps the community and the Planning Commission to see what the project is about. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Shiloh Ballard, representing Silicon Valley Leadership Group: · Said at the beginning of the year a survey of members, specifically at the CEO level, was conducted asking what were the biggest impediments to doing business in Silicon Valley were and they responded housing, which is a key issue for recruiting and retaining a quality work force in Silicon Valley. "'- (L(-..21 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October II, 2005 · In addition, recently at the annual projections conference, the sole focus of the panel was housing; and the fact that we need housing to continue to make Silicon Valley a great place to live, work and do business. · We reviewed this proposal recently and from the group's perspective, some of the key issues for us are, when are you converting industrial land to residential, and what do the neighbors think, especially the neighboring businesses? We are pleased that the developer/applicant informed us that the neighbors are either neutral or are supportive of this in terms of the compatibility of the uses there. · Said that the group supported the proposal and encouraged the support of the Planning Commission. Mark McKenna, representing the Cnpertino Chamber of Commerce: · Said the Chamber was opposed to the proposal as it takes 127,000 square feet of commercial office space out of use. · A big concern is if it goes into a pool, where is the pool built? · The city keeps rezoning land and making it residential; there are building heights and other restrictions that they cannot build out other areas of the city, which is the major concern. · The Chamber has a no net loss policy; it doesn't like business going out of Cupertino whether it generates tax dollars or not. They feel that any business is a good business because it supports other businesses in that their employees need services and their businesses use retail. Dennis Whitaker, resident of Cnpertino: · This is a well designed complex especially in relation to the location of the Hamptons. With Vallco, Menlo Equities, Adobe, the possible future additional Vallco housing, the Toll Brothers, the concerns of traffic and schools arise. · Recently had a discussion with a neighbor about how important it is to have housing near your place of work, but with the Town Center project there, where all the housing is coming in and all those businesses have gone out, and then by the removal of more business sites, you are taking away a variety of stock for large and small businesses in the future; and you are eliminating potential job sites for the people who live in Cupertino. · One of the biggest concerns I have is in general you have the Hamptons, the two hotels, the shopping center, and now you have more housing, and you say another park. Mr. Piasecki and I have gone back on forth on this, it is less than an acre of park but thankfully there is some green space around it; but you cannot guarantee that with everything around it, the green space will be as large as the other parks that Cupertino has. This area deserves the same. You cannot use schools as an excuse for not allowing something to go in, but you can use a valid infrastructure or a lack thereof. · Go back to the General Plan; the majority of the General Plan task force passed by a vote of 65 vs. 35% to emphasize more on commercial and less on housing. Abide by the rules and let the vote happen November 8th and use the General Plan of 1993 until the new General Plan is in place. · Said he supported housing, but asked where the studio, one bedroom units and handicapped housing was. They by themselves will allow affordable housing to occur without having to use the BMR fake proposition of getting affordable housing because with those types of things you get equity in your house and you are not obligated to anyone else. I have' yet to see an emphasis on studios and one bedrooms so my kids can come back and live in Cupertino. That is affordable housing. tL [ L{ - ::LL Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October II, 2005 Lynn Salazar, Cupertino resident: · When they purchased their home 22 years ago, they moved to the east side of DeAnza Boulevard because they could not afford to live on the west side; they did not expect the City of Cupertino to provide them affordable housing or work. · Questioned where all the single detached homes were; there is so much cramping together. She said she was not trying to degrade certain housing, but said she looks at the concepts a.s glorified apartments vs. the traditional home with it still being built in outlying areas. · Expressed concern about the quality of life in Cupertino with the multitude of projects. They may look good independently, but they are too concentrated with some green and trees tossed in; but she would like to see a little more of the home environment and less density. Jennifer Griffin, Cnpertino resident: · Does not feel it is appropriate to convert technology parks into housing units; Cupertino needs to have its tech parks protected and there is no need for further housing in this area. Is Cupertino going to become a bedroom community? There is a big push to convert tech land into housing; San Jose has built condominium units in every conceivable open space · Said she was surprised at the number of housing units built in the last six months near Curtner and Highway 87. She said that Mountain View has had so many requests for condominium complexes in their tech parks that they have had to protect certain tech park areas that have traditionally been tech areas in Mountain View. · I believe the new ABAG numbers coming in the next year, are going to indicate that there is no need for additional housing; I don't see a lot of the population of San Jose or Cupertino going up; Cupertino has increased because of annexation but those were homes that already existed in the area. I believe San Francisco has lost a tremendous number of people and I don't think San Jose's population has increased, so who is going to live in those condominium complexes. · She expressed concern about the section of Cupertino becoming a concrete jungle, and also about the number of students who are supposed to be going to Cupertino High School. She said she was planning on having a family and was not willing to give up places in her school district for other people's children; it may require the city to build more high schools because of the new complexes being built. · I am also concerned about the number of trees lost at this property. · I hope that you will not have this tech land converted into housing. Pat Sausedo, Executive Director, National Assoc. of Industrial and Office Properties of Silicon Valley (NAIOP): · Urge you to favorably consider the request before you. We support public policy decisions that facilitate improved economic development opportunities that will provide for the long tenn fiscal soundness of the local community. · NAIOP encourages the conversion of obsolete office and industrial properties where redevelopment can be supported by nearby support services and the requisite public infrastructures such as schools, traffic, parks, water and sewer. · The Pruneridge residential projects allows for the removal of functionally obsolete office buildings while creating the opportunity for much needed infill housing that will be available for potential future Silicon Valley workers, a critical objective Silicon Valley companies look for in making the decision whether to increase their jobs opportunity in the local community or expand their employer base. · The utilization of Cupertino's economic development strategy and General Plan policy of pooling square footage from demolished, obsolete, non-productive buildings for reallocation to establish emerging companies and those that wish to grow within the local community is a CA...- ll{ -2:) Cupertino Planning Commission Jl October II, 2005 very pro-active positive economic development strategy by the city of Cupertino and one that is also being studied by several surrounding communities. o In summation, the proposed development furthers Cupertino's economic development, housing and smart growth objectives by recycling obsolete industrial property, locating new housing close to jobs in established mixed used neighborhoods with adequate city services and public infrastructure. A proactive land use answer for the conversion of obsolete industrial properties within your community. oWe ask that you consider the request before you and find favorably on their behalf. DenDis Martin, LaDd Use and Public Analyst for Home Builders Assoc. of No, California: o Said he supported the project because it is consistent with prior H Bank positions on industrial residential conversion that we have iterated to the city of Cupertino and the Cupertino City Council in relation to the General Plan updates that are now under consideration. o H Bank encourages the city of Cupertino to adopt industrial land use conversion as a policy to enable the productive reuse of land in location where infrastructure for housing already exists. We believe that an adequate housing supply for Cupertino's workers and their families is the lynch pin of dynamic economic growth for the community. Presently there is a positive convergence of economic and community forces which support industrial/residential land use conversion in Cupertino; demand for housing is high and people are desirous to live close to where they work. Interest rates for both builders and buyers are low. Homebuilders are willing to construct infill housing; communities are benefiting from more productive reuse of land in locations like Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose. o H Bank's position is that housing here in Cupertino is essential to the community's economic growth; that with an adequate supply of housing, new businesses will be encouraged to locate in the community. With an adequate supply of housing, the community benefits, and families benefit because workers commute shorter distances where housing is available nearer jobs; and as a result economic prosperity and the community are improved through the conversion of industrial land to housing. o Please consider approval of the project. Ned Britt, Cupertino resident: o Recalled a statement from Councilmember Chris Wang some time ago who pointed out when the development is completed in that area from Wolfe Road to Tantau, there will be 5,000 people living there and 10% of the population if all projects under consideration go through. o He asked when looking at schools, to take the entire picture into account; perhaps allocate some more residential units for this particular development and amend the General Plan o Said he heard at another Planning Commission meeting some discussion that the infrastructure including the sewers in that region is inadequate and would likely have to be. rebuilt. The issues should be considered in life cycle costs; the cost to build up infrastructure and supply services for new residents as well as the loss of opportunity for other tax if we get rid of the commercial property, and that some square footage returned to the pool is really only a bookkeeping move; the actual land is gone. This should be done with great care. o If they do build the project, and you are not a member of the housing unit and you want to use the park, where would you stop if you drove down the street; there doesn't seem to be any place to park and go into the park. If they do, I hope they leave it open for dogs. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Com, Saadati: o The project has a lot of positive aspects to it, considering there is no four bedroom proposed; tL- i l{ -2~ Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October II, 2005 just two and three bedrooms which in my view is positive. If this project is approved, my preference would be the park would be situated where shown, because in the back it is closer to noise. o Traffic aspects of this project as far as the impact is less than an office building, and the school is not in our purview to comment on because that is dictated by the State. o One aspect of this that I consider positive is that the buildings have been vacant for five years. There are some other buildings down Tantau that are posted for lease. Based on that one would think this is a good project to move forward with; but on the other hand we need to look at the overall residential allocation in North Valleo; and if this project is approved we need to take the reduced numbers down. o One option that would be possible is to continue the item for two weeks to get more infonnation so that we can reach a consensus. Com, Giefer: o Concur with most of Com. Saadati' s comments; however, I do have a different view on the public park which is also different than staffs suggestion. When walking the site from Pruneridge toward the freeway, it was noisier by the freeway and if additional housing is considered, it is a sensitivity receptor and there would be a noise issue with the project that can be mitigated. o Said consideration should be given to reducing some of the noise impacts by heavily planting on the northeast edge of the project and moving the units closer together. o I fully support and understand that having the park up in front on Pruneridge, there is a nicer greenbelt fill with the benns across from Hewlett Packard. I understand design-wise why it was put there and it makes sense; but from a common sense perspective, the people visiting the park are visiting the park; the people in the condos, flats, townhouses, live there. You may not go to the park every day; that is one issue I have with the project. o The biggest issue with the project is that we are so close to finalizing the General Plan, I find it difficult to understand why we would move forward on this project instead of continuing it at least until City Council has made their final votes and decisions and reconsider this even perhaps before the final reading of the General Plan. oWe are so close at this point and I would like to understand where the housing is going to be because we will have a collective issue if we are adding too much housing in the North Valleo and the South Valleo area. We need to think about those densities and where we are going to put the housing because it will have a cumulative effect on traffic and although ruling on schools is not part of our purview, I think we need to understand what is going to happen with CUSD and FUHSD. o She said that CUSD's advisory committee several years ago did not anticipate the present and for 20 years they were able to forecast per student. They anticipate they will all work through our school system within the next 8 years but I am worried about that and I am worried about many of the cumulative factors between this project and other projects, and I would feel much more comfortable once we have Council's final comments. Com. Chen: o Complimented Morley Brothers and Sobrato Development for bringing forward such a well designed project. o I concur with all the good reasons for supporting the project, but do share Com. Giefer's major concerns about the General Plan being so close to being finalized. Until it is finalized, we cannot address the cumulative impact of all the issues brought up. Even if the General Plan is finalized which allows the 200 residential units for the area, without the master plan we are still going to be puzzled as to where to put the 200 units that would be added to lots of values ~ fu..-¿( Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 11, 2005 and the quality of life to the Cupertino residents. · For those reasons I don't think I Can support the project. Vice Chair Miller: · Concurred that it was a well designed project /Tom an architectural standpoint, from a flow standpoint it is very nice. It is also nice /Tom the standpoint of being across the street /Tom a major employment center. If there was every an opportunity to reduce traffic by having employees live within walking distance, this is it. · However, there are as stated, some key issues. The first is that the Planning Commission only suggests 200 allocations in the new General Plan and the City Council has not made a decision on what way to go, whether that should be the right number or not. The other issue is the Council has yet to make a decision on conversion policy; therefore because of those issues, I also concur that it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to be making changes to a General Plan that is about to go out of existence until we hear some direction /Tom the City Council. · In reviewing the General Plan it was suggested that during the review of the Plan that it would be the appropriate time to do some forward planning and look not only at the applications as they come in, but try to do more forward planning in terms of what overall applications are going to come forward and how they fit into a larger scheme of things before moving ahead with projects like this. · For those reasons, I cannot support this project at this time. Chair Wong: · Complimented the applicant on their presentation and good outreach toward the community, and working closely with city staff in implementing all the things staff was looking for. · I understand where Ms. Salazar was coming from, is that in the good old days, there are a lot of single family homes that are around Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley and the trend is to have high more density housing because we don't have that much space to grow. Mr. Morley is just following smart growth principles and I think that the park and greenspace you offer and the type of variety of housing is a good start. · Said he would support the project if it was at a different location, as he has supported other high density projects, but has concerns about this particular one. As echoed by Com. Giefer, relative to the General Plan; we are in the process of reviewing our General Plan, and the Council has not taken a certain direction. Regarding the conversion policy, I don't see eye to eye with Mr. Whitaker or the CCC, but agree with the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce that the no net loss of commercial property is a huge concern to me. · We did pass a Planning Commission suggestion on a conversion policy and I would like to see what the City Council has to say about it before I can rule regarding conversion. I am open to conversion, it is based on the location, but again I want the City Council's direction on that. · I know it is not within our purview regarding the quality of life at schools; I believe that this is something we need to work in collaboration with the school district and the city. We are definitely growing, it is direction on how do we want to grow. We need to engage more with the school district; I am disappointed we did not get a good feedback /Tom the school district, and I hope the staff can be more aggressive with them. · Having a master plan will help developers and applicants in the future know what is on the minds of the Planning Commission and City Council relative to whether they want mixed use, straight housing or shopping. What is driving it now is market force factors, and Shiloh Ballard had a good point, that housing is the number one concern in our valley and how we get to that goal is a huge question mark. · There are other impacts regarding traffic; it goes beyond the project, but through the city of 0....- [l{ ~L~ Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 11,2005 Cupertino; and as we address those concerns within the General Plan, hopefully we will get answers. · At this time, it is difficult for me to support the project. Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested asking the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance assuming that it will help with the decision making; they would probably need at least a month if they wait for the City CoUncil to resolve the numbers and make a decision on the Plan. The applicant mayor may not be able to do that, it may ask that a decision be made, either positive or negative. · Commented on the master plan concept because it came up in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council in June. He said that three months ago the Commission decided it would be good to have a master plan. He pointed out that some of the applicants have been in the pipeline for nine months or a year. He said it would be fine to have a master plan on the books, but to stop now spend a year developing a master plan, is unfair to them. For anybody else who comes into the pipeline should the Council adopt your strategy, it is a good idea. It would be catching some people short who have been working under the old plan and have been trying to bring projects forward under that concept and/or asking for amendments. Mr, Morley: o Said they were not in a posItIOn to have a continuance on the item; they recognize the comments and appreciate them, but request a vote on the project this evening. Motion: Motion by Com, Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application No, 1. (Vote: 5-0-0) The item is scheduled for the City Council on November I, 2005. Chair Wong declared a short recess. Chair Wong noted that Items 2 and 3 would be discussed together. parcel into two lots. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from September 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Aki Honda, Senior Plan resented the staff report on Item 2: o Reviewed the application for a 've Map to subdivide a 6.93 acre parcel into two lots at the Vallco Shopping Center, to create a parcel for a future hotel site. o Applicant submitted an updated Tentative hich more clearly delineates the underlying boundaries of the parcel to be subdivided and exclu t C. Penneys parcel which is not part of the application. o She reviewed the project description as outlined in the staffreport. Ms. HODda: o The applicant has submitted to us this afternoon a copy of the Certificate of Compliance . ch they believe shows that this is one entire parcel; however, the Public Works Department has reviewed the Certificate of Compliance and there is some discrepancy as to what the existing F':U:~",l r-nnciitc of From the C:lty's standpoint UfP hglie~.~ dud t11~':) palGd IH8.J be B. Je}3Mate ~ (t{ -L 7 Nov 09 20 05:41p BUSINESS SERVICES DEPT. (408J 253-5061 p.2 Cupertino Union School District Superintendent WilJiam E. Bragg, Ph.D. Board of Education Pearl Cheng Ben Llao Josephine Lucey Gary McCue George TY50n 10301 Vista Drive . Cupertino, California 95014-2091 (408) 252-3000 Fax (408) 255-4450 November 9, 2005 Colin Jung, Senior Planner Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Pruneridge Residential Project Dear Colin: The district has been asked to comment on the Fiscal and Enrollment Analysis for the referenced project conducted by Town Hall Services. The district concurs with the calculations and analysis as presented. The ultimate availability of space at the current schools of attendance will depend on the timing and cumulative effects of additional planned development impacting these same schools, This would also be true for the adequacy of developer fees for this project. Sincerely, Rick Hausman Chief Business Officer RH:lc 0...... [L{ -.Lð' 11/14/2005 14:21 FAX 4082455325 FREMONT UNION HS i¡ì] 002 FREMONT UNION HlGlI SCHOOL DrSTRlCT . Cup¡::itÎno, FTcmont, Home:stead., Lynbrook, Moma Vista High Scpools and Adult/Community EduC"...tio~1 Steph", R. ROwley, Ph.D:, Supsrintenden' DJ &h",,¡.· October 21, 2005 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Aveno.e Cupertino, CA 95014 . Response to Morley Brothers L.L.C. Pruneridge Ave.nne Development Fiscal and Enrollment Impact Analysis Dear Ms. Wordell and the Cupertino Planning Commission: I have reviewed the Town. Hall Services report on the Morley Brothers Pruneridge Developroent's fiscal and enrolhnent itnpacts and now provide you with a response from the Fremont Union High School District. '--../ We agree with the high school student generation rate (SGR) proj ections for this project. The projected SGR producing 16 additional students will create a net facilities funding deficit of . $13 ,686 per student, which converts to an additional unfunded facilities cost of nearly $218,976. Regarding the itnpact to the general operating fund ofFUHSD, the projected net positive per student iropact of$3,135 is based on current assessed value. The addition of16 additional students to Cupertino High School will have no appreciable effect on its capacity. ..... As a reminder, high-density projects such as the Pruneridge Avenue Development provide a positive fmancial bènefit to OUT general fund while creating a relatively minor itnpact on student dñrõÜnÍentwè1 schoolcapacitÿ. ëöropåÏed töfue high SGR of single-family developments, the" . low SGR of high-density developments in Cupertino assUTes that the financial stability of FUHSD and the school capacity of Cupertino High School will not be threatened. -,"~,.,.... The Fremont Union High School District will continue to cooperate with the City's staifto evaluate each new development proposal based on the impact to OUT general fund, school capacity, and physical facilities. We will.do so on a proposal-by-proposal basis, as well as by assessing the cumulative effect of new d,<velopmerits over time. , . . . .;.~., S~ Step~~ ~ cy . Sl1P=te~d:1;Ycy '--.--i C: FUHSD Board ofTI1.LStees CupertinoHiI!h School Principal CaryMatsuoka BOARD DF"7RUSTEES: /:D.th1"Jl1l Ho, Auie Katz, "Nancy A. Nt!W.ton, Barbara F. Nunr:s, Homer H~C. 70"1 '. 589 Wesl FremotttAvcnul: PQst Offi.~ Box F S.unnynle. CA 94087 AN EQUAL OpPORTUNITY EMP:LoYêR (408) 522-2200 FAX (408) 245-5325 b11 >1/www.fUhod.o<W D-- . ìl{-~1