Exhibit CC 06-06-2016 Oral Communicationsle &lh (! p
C-Rft[_,, ~-
Michael Chang
An ex-mayor or hired gun?
Disgraced himself in lobbying effort:
Recruited, wrote speech for, and
coached others to do his dirty work
without a Cupertino business permit or
identifying himself as a lobbyist for
Sand Hill Property, Inc.
Michael Chang Spoke at Council Meeting
https://youtu.be/jyMjzTtWyfQ
Schedule F
(Continuation Sheet)
Accrued Expenses (Unpaid Bills)
NAME OF FILER
Amounts may be rounded
to whole dollars.
Statement covers porlod
from Ol/Ol/2016
through 03/31/20 16
SCHEDULE F (CONT.)
CALIFQRNIA 460
FO~M
Pago~ of_l_7_
CUPERTINO NEIGHBORS, EDUCATORS, AND THE CUPERTINO CHA.~BER OF COMMERCE FOR THE SENSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE REVITALIZATION OF
VALLCO, (Si':E ATTACHMENT FOR COMPLETE COMMITTEE NAME)
1.D.NUMBER
13837 96
CODES: If one of the following codes accurately describes the payment, you may enter the code . Otherwise, describe the payment.
OvP
CNS
CTB
eve
FIL
Fl\O
11'4)
LEG
LIT
campaign paraphernalia/misc.
campalgn-CCJnsullants
cont ri bution (explain nonmonelary)"
civic donati ons
candidate filing/ballot fees
fundraising events
Independent eJ<pend lture supporti ng/opposing others (explain)"
legal defense
campaign literature and mailings
l\ISR
MTG
OFC
FET
PK>
POL
POS
PRO
PRT
member communications
meetings and appearances
office expenses
petition circulating
phone banks
polling and survey research
postage, delivery and messenger services
professional services (legal, accounting)
print ads
*Payments that are contributions or Independent expenditures must also be summarized on Schodu!o 0.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF CREDITOR
(IF COMMll'TEE. Al.SO ElllER 1.0. NIJMBl:R)
COOEOR
DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT
Ol.S
(a)
OUTSTANDING
BALANCE BEG IN NING
OF THIS PERIOD
0 .00
RAD radio airtime and production costs
RFD returned contrlbuUons
SAL campaign workers' salaries
TEL t.v. or cable airtime and production costs
1RC candidate travel, lodging, and meals
TRS staff/spouse travel, lodging , and meals
TSF transfer between committees of the same candidate/sponsor
VOT voter registration
WEB information technology costs (internet. e-mail)
(b)
AMOUNT INCURRED
THIS PERIOD
111.000.00
(c)
AMOUNT PAID
THIS PERIOD
(Al.SO REPORT ON El
0.00
(d)
OUTSTANDING
BALANCE AT CLOSE
OF THIS PERIOD
11 .• ooo~.oo
~~~=~.A -:l_.\ ..... :..v=\.='\/'=,--c_s ,::::; =-=~.::: -_:::..i.,-:: ~I\,:::; A55C:: A -=~ ~=z~~ '\.G :~~=7 :: ~
20
21
22
23
24
25
fvid:e: A.v e. sc u ~h of S ~e v e"":S Cr ee :< 3 h.1 '.'.J .
Vailco Parkway east :Jf Wo1fe Rd .
H:J-11es ~e2 ci Ra. east of W o lfe Rd .
25 T 2ntau A.ve. :1ar:h 8 Va!i c:J ?k\"'Y·
27 S~e '1 s ..... s Cr ee k 3lvd. east o-? larL2 u .Ave .
28 3ol li:i ger Rd. eas~ of jof;:i so n .t:..ve.
25
30
31
32
33
L2vvrerce Ex;Jy sout~ of ?r unend ge ,Ave.
:-i ornes~ead Rd. vves: of Steflm g Rd.
••'-·-·-·· .. ···-··-···
TRAN SPOR TA'HON AND TiRAfF ~C
2040 i=o r~~ Volwrne
::; 377
30779
24 ,875
5 294
30 .348
22 895
17 ,379
34 ,200
3:!.,751
::.8,825
2,Sl7
?r oject _____ _
:: ::( i ~ -
!!7 533
2·J.2J2
41 803
8 ,677
42 54S
32,8J7
25,S2l
L5 ,6CS
31, 744
3,947
;o:c,456
5 .839 9, 708
--------------·---------J,~---------
27 ,515 !J a~r '32 ,208
ll,164 23 ,374
23 ,577 42,605
87,142
25/l/5
35,l9D
:6,99 0 22 ,541
47 5 28
45 ~T7
36 , 7S3
9,39 0
3L 725
3 0 2.Sl
42 .936
33.265
l 7,4 ::.6
22,48l
11 ,887
35,143
24,25E
9!,334
35 ,43G
4S ,730
S::::v,..::e. -~c= :Q....:rr::s ::r::::u:::ed c-'/ve~ Se;Jt :8 2C:::..3. -ex::gor --cr·sp::::r:a::io r ~,:;risu ·::::r:s .,c
l.fen free1~·ay segn'lents v\e re selected fo r analysis Li.J.der 2040 onditions .. acs described in Sec·cion +. i 3. ~. l,
ilin:t.e1rsec tio11 lim·pc.-ct Criteric:,. the addition of projlect traffic causes a G.'\"a.fB.c impact on a C ~ LP fteeVt-a.y
segn~em:t \~lTen:
" The !LOS o.f the free;,·Ka:1 segment is LOS Funder existing col'lcbti1Dns, and
The l'l.1'1..Tl'l.ber of new· trips added by the project is mor e thaFL m1e tpeJJ"Cent oft.he free·w;:,y capacit:':.
Table +.13-1; p;;esents the dai.i;-capacit;· of both the mixed-Hov.r lanes and t.l-ie High Occupancy 1.-ehide
(z..DO\r)1 I-a.mes Oi11 each o ft.i-ie s .. cudy freevfa~; ~egments. Sin£e da:ily ILO·S is not a.·>.:a.il2Jble fo r free1 .. ~:-ay ~egmenl:~~
the lo,;ve sl: o f u.\e tv~:o pec,k.-'.1 01,.;r LOS '.evels, as reported in V T~ ·s 20·1 Z C:.V~P :Vionito:rirrg St::.1cly, is also
3l.1.ovc1""i..
Jo n W illey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello David (Sti l lman),
Jon Willey
Wednesday, May 25 , 2016 10 :32 AM
'David Stillman '
Darcy Paul (DPaul@cupertino .org); David Brandt (Davidb@cupertino.org)
RE : Cupertino Traffic Questions
Jobs Growth by Alternative to 2040 JSH for Modeling .x ls x; Apple Employee Per Office
Space .pdf; Main Street Office Employee Numbers .pd f; I nternet Office Space Articles .pd f
Thank you , I received the file with data for the number of employees for the 3.SM ft 11 2 of office (file adds .SM for
existing available) allowed in the 'Project' in the Gene ral Plan 2040 , attachment 1. That file states that the number of
employees is calculated at 300ft 11 2 ft per employee and this then computes to only 11666 added people for
3.5Mft 11 2 . The Apple C2 EIR has 4 .15 employees/1000ft11 2=240 ft11 2/emp, attachment 2 . And i n the Main Street
Marketing brochure, they are promoting 166 ft 11 2/emp to 197 ft 11 2/emp, attachment 3. A lso attached are some articles
off the internet, attachment 4, that indicate in 2012 the North American offices have 176 ft 11 2 per employee and they
are projecting it will drop to 151 ft 11 2/emp by 2017 . So will you p, ovide su12 ort for number 300 ft/\2/empl <;i Y,ee . •
TAZ#
S6
$6. i_ .. ..------___ ,. .. _ • w.r -
no ,..~_:•·~~·-""'~-
117 .... _..._ ·--:_· :>.c-. ..,,_ l!\A.
lib s. ~ An:u . South o( S5
OFFICE ALLOCA TlO
OFFICE ALLOCATION
30.ooo tao
2.00,000 667
too.ooo nt
lW,000 661
50,000 16i
10.000 }.I
100,000 "'
15.000 so
50,000 167
5,!3l 18
100.im Hi
10.000 Ji
5.000 17
30.J)O() 100
200,000 667
100,000 n;
100.000 .nt
200,000 667
50,000 167
1,000,000 J~\34
15,000 50
10.000 !<
50.000 167
5.131 15
17
U5,000 H7
100,000 33-1
15,000
l0,000
30.ooo too
200,000 f1'i1
13(!,000 500
Z00,000 667
50.000 167
l.000,000 6,667
15,000 50
1'50.000 500
25.000 &!
7.731 26
7500
.?25 ,000 75IJ
l.l,257 '
Also , I have looked at quite a few EIRs and a good example is the RoseBowl EIR, see below, which clearly describes their
methodology with the assignment of the calculated daily vehicle trips to the surrounding roads . Their Trip Distribution
map is also below, which shows how they split the total daily trips among the various surrounding roads.
This is what I do not find in the GP 2040 EIR and which I believe is crucial to understanding the true impact of the
'Project' on our roads . Since this is not in the GP 2040 EIR, will you p lease supply this informatia p; 'calculations fo.L Dail y
Vehicle Trips for each of the l!.,uil ~ing .<i,ate &QLYJ office cCUlJ_me W,al , _hotel resjdences" for the 12 2040 'Pro 'ect' along
with the factors use d fo r Daily Vehicle Trips also known as tbe Tri[) Generation Rates from the Trip Generation Manual
by the Institute Of Transportation Engineers, an a Map for how the vehicle trips are distributed to our roads .
If we go back up to the first paragraph , if the office space per employee is 166 ft"2, then the GP 2040 is underestimating
the employees by 9418 (remember the 'Project' adds 3.SM ft"2). And if we use the ITE Trip Generation Rate for office of
3.32 trips/emp per day (Apple is using 3.59) then the Average Daily Trips in the GP 2040 EIR is off by 31268 trips/day for
office.
I am trying to get the true impact of the GP 2040 'Project' (with an acceptable range for variables ) and I th in k it can be
done fairly quickly with your assistance, but to date we've spent 2 months. And feel free to let me know if you find any
discrepancies in my numbers.
Respectfully,
Jon Willey
Pn>fild T .... &dls-.s
The llnoL.d of ttalllc added to tie roecfWay system by • pnlpOIMd dewlllpmen1 peotect Is MlfNlld
using. bee-a1lap ~; (1) lrip ~ C2) tq> dlatribulDn. end (3) ttlp llSSigmlent. In ..
..., '-emounl of eddad tr.me I& .. ....,. In h wend ... ,. dnldb'IS lie tlfpa ... ta
~ and depalt.,. ..... eldmallCS . The lllps .. -.lglltld to lpllClftc llJeel ~and
ntemcllon Unlng mcwemesits In ztie l*d stap. The rMt*s of !he pnass tor lhe proposed Valeo
•sldlntial ptajlld ... daeCltled In .. tolowli1g w:tlons
\
\ ..._ .. I
I
t ~ --
2
A.I~.,, tJ.,-c -> Mc,
T Li -Pr,-F_z-K(
-------------..
>1.d~W~, i-µ
7
c~rc:_
lev t w,,.. f
.., i., " •· "' b, • i ;4 r'F 'e <fJ
W' •" t "'/,c vf /!,, -..,,, I<>~ r
G~v~ :fr ":!(' ~ , c I
--
-#;
-.itr_
>
c "'P'<"'f, ..... ~
jtl(,;:;c"'I<"(.· .... .,.
µ,uJr 1'",;:;
-,f'~'!!..~ef e
I
I
GENERAL PLA N AM E N D M E NT . HOUSING E L E M E NT UP DATE . A ND ASSOCIAT E D R E ZON I N G DRAF T E IR
C ITY OF C UP E RTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TABLE 3-2
Tota l
Office
Comm ercia l
Hotel
Residential
-·-· --··-·-------·-
Note : sf= square fe et
SUMMARY -ALL PROJECT COMPON ENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS
Built I Approved
8,929 ,774 sf
3, 729 ,569 sf
1,090 ro oms
21 ,399 units
~
Allocation 1 1 . \
(ti /t /t <! "'~I,
~~t l1(}v~ ftr-q
540 ,231 sf i
-;
701 ,413 sf I
339 rooms
4,040 ,23 1 sf
1,34 3 679 3f
1,33S rooms
4,4 21 units
\-
\
\
\
a. Incl udes Homestea d, North Vallco Par k, Heart of the City . North De Anza , and South De Anza M a1or Mixed-Use Spec ial Areas .
Difference
·--......,
+ 3,500 ,000 sf
+ 642 ,266 sfc
+ 1,000 rooms
~ 2 ,5 ~6 _units j
~--_/
b. Includes Bubb Road Mixed -Use Spec ial Area . Manta Vi sta Vill age , Other Comm erci al/Mixed-Use Sp ecia l Areas , Other Neighborhoods , M ajor Employers
Catego ry, and Hou sin g Element Sites.
c. Net new co mme rcial is not p ropos ed . This number assu m es that the existing Val/co Shopp ing M all sq uare footage (1,26 7,601 sf ) will be demoli shed and
will go back into th e City-wide commercial allocation pool. A tota l of 625 .335 sf would be rese rv ed for a future project i n the Vallc o district.
Sou rce: City of Cupertino, 2014.
' i
J
Under Section 15064( d ) of the CEQA Guidelines, "In eva luating the significance of the environmental effect
of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the e nvironment w hich may be caused
by the project and reasonably foreseea ble indirect physical c hanges in the environment w hich may be caused
by the project."The buildout projections represent the City's projection of"reasonably foreseeab le"
development that could occur ove r the next 26 ye ars under the General Plan and are used as the basis for
the EIR 's environmental assessment. As described above in Section 3 . 1, Background , the City allocates
d evelo pment potential to project applicants on a project-by-project basis. As part of the proposed Proj ect,
additional building height and residential density increases would be contingent upon future development
proj ects in Cupertino providing co mmunity benefits. W hile the proposed Proj ect is a General Plan and n o
specific projects are currently proposed , it is important to analyze the impacts of the proposed building
h eight and dwelling unit 's d ensity incr eases that could occur during the 26-year buildout horizon. Therefore,
unlike a project EIR this document is a Program-EIR. Consiste nt with C EQ A, all future projects proposed
under the new ly adopted General Plan , o ther than those tha t qualify for an exemption, w ould have to
undergo project-level environmental review to e nsure that any project-level impacts of the future project
proposed on specific sites are disclosed and mitigated, if fe asible.
General Plan Policy 2 -2 3 . A, Community Benefits Program, states that at the discretion of the City Council
and as indicated in certain land u se policies, the City Coun c il may approve h eigh ts different from the
maximum base height standard in Gateways and Nodes identified in the Special Ar eas Map , if a project
includes a retail component and provides community be n efits .
3-13
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT , HOUSIN G ELEME NT U PDATE , AND ASSOCIAT ED REZON I NG DRAFT E I R
C ITY OF C U PER TINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13.4.7 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to better characterize the existing conditions on Cupertino's arterials and major collectors, 3 3
roadway segments were selected for 24-hour traffic counts.
The average daily traffic (AD T ) was collected on We dnesday, Sept. 18, 2013. Table 4 .13 -7 presents the
24-hour traffic volun1e data for each roadway segment, and each roadway segment number is show11 on
Figure 4.13-6 , which graphically illustrates the traffic vo lumes, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Segment# Lo cat ion ADT
1 Foothill Bou lev ard north of Stevens Creek Bou levard 20,878
2 Ste vens Creek Bou leva rd eas t of Crescent Road 20 ,598
3 Bubb Road south of Ste vens Creek Boule vard 13,339
... ·····································································································································-·······························-············································-······:=·······
4 St evens Creek Boule vard w est of Stelling Road r 30,587
~--
5 Stell i ng Road south of Stevens Creek Bou levard
6 Stelling Ro ad north of Ste vens Creek Bou levard
7 Ste vens Creek Boule var d east of Stel lin g Road
8 Homestead Road east of Ontario Drive
9 De Anza Boule vard south of Bo llinger Road
--------------------
10 De Anza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek Boulevard
11 De Anza Bou levard north of Stevens Creek Bou levard
12 De Anza Boule vard south of Homestead Road
14,710
17,493
18,357
36 ,756
43 ,216
42 ,455
52 ,676
---·---··--·--------.---·-.----.--·-·------------.. ------·---·---·---__,.,-~~~ .. -·----.. -
13 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road north of Homestead Road
14 Boll in ger Road eas t of De Anza Boule vard
15 Ste vens Creek Bou levard east of De Anza Bo ul evard
16 Hom estea d Road east of De Anz a Bou levard
17 Blaney Avenue nort h of Ste vens Creek Boule vard
18 Ste vens Creek Bo ul evard east of Blaney Av enu e
19 Homestead Road eas t of Blane y Avenue
20 Mille r Avenue so uth of Ste vens Creek Bo ul evard
21 Wolfe Road north of Vall co Pkwy
22 Wolfe Road south of Homestead Road
2 3 Wolfe Ro ad north of Hom es t ead Road
24 Vallco Parkway eas t of Wolfe Ro ad
25 Homest ea d Ro ad ea st of Wolfe Ro ad
15,877
30,779
24 ,876
6,294
············;;,;:.;.;:.-.;;.;····.
30,348
22,895
17,3 79
34 ,200
31 , 751
18,82 5
2,917
21 ,463
4.13-35
GE NERAL PLAN AMENDMEN T. HOUS I NG E L E M E NT UPDAT E . AND ASSOC I ATED REZO NING DRAFT E I R
C ITY O F CUPERT INO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.13 -7 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment # Location ADT
26 Tantau Avenue north of Vall co Pkwy 6,839
·-----~·-----:-~·--·--------·-··----··-···-··-·-------·-·-··-··-··-----··-··--------···----------------------····-------·------· .. -2 7 Ste ve ns Cr ee k Bou levard east of Tanta u Avenue
28 Bo lli nger Ro ad eas t of Johnso n Avenue 21 ,523
29 Lawrence Expy north of Bolli nger Road 47,363
30 Lawrence Expy south of Pruneridge Av enue 69 ,249
3 1 Ste vens Cre e k Bou levard w est of Tant a u Avenu e
···'--···-·----------------y---·-
25 ,476
32 Wol fe Road south of 1-28 0 NB Ramps (ove r 1-280 )
33 Hom estea d Ro ad w est of Stel li ng Ro ad
Notes: NB = northbound ; SB= southbound; EB= ea stbound ; WB =westbound.
So urc e: Tu be counts conducted on W ed , Sept. 18. 2013 by Hexagon Transportation Consultants .
4.13.4.8 EXISTING FREEWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
•.••••••••.••••••••••.••.•.•.•••••.••••••••••••.•.••...••.••..••••••..••••• ~~~;(.! ••••.•••
33, 786
16,990
Traffic volumes and le ve l of service for the study freeway segments during the AM and PM peak hours we r e
obtained from the 2012 CMP Annual Mo nitoring Report and are listed in Tabl e 4.13-8. As listed below, the
results show that the following study freeway segments currently operate at LOS Fin at least o ne direction
during at least one peak hour:
SR 85
"
"
"
Northbound between De Anz a Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard -AM peak hour
Nor thbound between I-280 and Homestead Road -AM peak hour
H O V lane northbound between 1-280 and Homestead Road -AM peak hour
So uthbound b etween 1-2 80 and Stevens Creek Boulevard -PM peak hour
So uthbound between Steve ns Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard -PM peak h o ur
So uthbound between Lawrence Expressway and Sar atoga Avenue -PM peak hour
Nor thbound betwee n Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway -AM p eak hour
N orthbound be tween Lawrence Expressway and Wo lfe Roa d -AM peak hour
Northbound between Wolfe Roa d and De Anza Boul evard -AM peak hour
Northbound b etween De Anza Boulevar d and SR 85 -AM peak hour
Northbound b etween SR 8 5 and Foothill Expressway-AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between Wolfe Road and De Anz a Boulevard -AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between De Anza Boulevard and SR 8 5 -AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between SR 8 5 an d Foothill Expressway -AM peak hour
4.13-36
(:;:J PLACEWORKS
r~-
r
,~__..
\..
\·1
Fremo nt Ave
/qc:
~~ $cJ ~
1_ ~--.0.'---*1'.;.. ... 4 ____ ... --:.-~ ... ~
I
'l
Source : Hexagon Transportat ion Consul t ants.
~•r
11100
_;
I
ii
.0
.0
" "'
~--·-(
Ra in bow Dr
I
\.
:·;F.N ERA l PLAN AMENDMEN1, HOUSING l:l EM ENT UPOATF .l:\N(J t>. -.SOCIA ifD flf_Zr)N N( PR''.d::~-
·1
j
~-~
~
J!!
0
23,0()0 ;;:
Q)'
~I
mi
~;
Rainbow Dr
i n .ooo
!f,
<('
§;
f l ..,,
ii 11 , I! o
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
~:
Jt l
I
\
El Cam ino Real
----= 5,000 Vehicles Per Day
---=10,000
---=15,000
•••=20,000
= 25,000
r::J
lll!JI
= C ity Boun dary
=Parks
= Reserv or
_,,,,,,
,,"" .J?Oj "O ~ ~"' 0:::' v_,fli., o l ;<;;::I a.
(f)
Fig u re 4.13-6
Roadway Segment Volumes
c -, o = c .... ==~-...... 2
TRANSfPORTATJON AND TiR.AfHC
TA3LE 4.13-1. , 'li"IE P . .-::E DA ;;_y T~~i='C O ~ Si:LEC"i:::r ROAJ 'JiJA'f SEG M E:'ff: iJND E~ THE PROPO SED PRO.~EC:
:5
20
22
23
2!!
W o 1'e Rd. rort 'i of Va !l cc ?kw y.
V/oife P.C. so :..;t'i of :..;o m es~=a~ ::;\d .
W o l'e ;:(d. -,o~h of horr:eS~ead rd
Va tlco Parkvvav eas t :if Wor:e Re .
'-i::i-n es:ea ci Fici. east of W o lfe qc.
42 2.:!S
3J 779
24 ,875
30 .3.:l.8
22 .895
17 379
34 ,200
31 ,752.
:3,825
2,Sl7
10481
·····················-··~-····
20 40 i=c1~2st \fof'.Jr.1€-
l\ic
?r :l iect -~-:_ ____ _
t..7 5~3
2·J 2J2
41303
35 07::
3 .577
42 ,5~9
32 ,807
25 .. 52!
45 ,505
4 :!.,555
31 ,744
3,9!!7
2::,456
"~opcse-j
·-~ro}~c~
47 5 28
2 : 434
45 ~T7
36 7 9 3
9 3S J
48 2.25
K725
3J 2~1
52,241
:12 .936
33 .265
25 ~arta u P...v e. 'l ·:Jr:h :Jf \/:::li e;:, ?k\-vy. 6 .839 9 , 708 :il,88/
~-·----------·--------------·-·------···-·--·----· ---·--·--. -·-----------·-·--·--------·-·---~ . -+.-.::--··----·-·--··--··--·-------·--··-
27 S':e •ie -s Cr e ek ::l lvd. east of Ta r .:a :.i .Av e . 27 ,5 15 p. Q,fo·r '32 ,208 35.143
28 3 olll~g=r Rd. 2as ~ of Jo!::-tso ri .Ave. ll,164 23 ,3 74 24,255
L 2v~1 re""C e Ex;J y so ut h of Pruner~dg e 6.ve.
31
32
33 0ornestead Rd. vv e s~ 'Jf Ste!l!ng R.d.
·······-······-··
23 ,577
69 .249
23 ,6.75
35,lSD
:'..6 ,99 0
s.:a ..... :::e . -..... c= ::.Jit 5 -::;r-.::u::e~ ~-·Jve :J Se;n :s 2~:3 . -e x:=go--~a r s;x:::r:a:t (}r ~C G 5 .J ::=r:s ·~
42 .506 45 ,389
8 7,142 91 ,934
22 ,541
lien freeYr a:y segnQents vrere seiected for analysis w.1.der 204-0 conditiom .. !l~s de scribed in Senion .+.1.>.). l ,
!lmtel'Seccion ill'npact Cdceria. t.he addition o f proj.ect traffic causes a traffic ic.unp act o n a C '.v!.P freew ay
segn'l'elllt v;ch:en:
" The !LOS of the free.,va:1 segment is LO S Funder existing col!lditi<D n::, and
The ni!l..TTI.ber o f nev• trips added by the p r oject i-s mor e than ol!l.e !Percent oft.he freev1121y capacit::.
Table +. 13 -E pre sents t he daiiy capacit~· o f b o th Lhe mi.xed-Hov.; lanes and t..he High O ccupar.:cy \·e hide
( HO·"J~~}i I-am.es om each o f the st·u.d~ freev!'a~"-~egments. Si n ce da:ily tO·S is ri o t a·-\.-a.ila..b le fo r ff"ee1.i'i_:-ay segm.en t 5 ~
cfa.e i o •;•e st o f tJ1e t v;::a pec.k-'.;e:;Hr LOS '.e ve'.::, as rep,orted in \,J::'.fs 20 12 C:\t P ~f o n~t o !!ill? St-c!.dy, !s ;;.ls o
shm"·n
I "\ if if ABLE 8 TRI !fJENERATI~ N -APPLE CAMPUS 2
,..
AM Peak Hour •>_f ily PM Peak Hour
Land Use Employees r Rate 1 Trips R te1 In Out Total Rate 1 In Out Total
" Proposed Apple
14,200 3.59 50 ,978 p2 3,953 591 4,544 0.33 1,031 3,655 4,686
Campus 2 2 .j
Existing Uses 3 4,844 3.28 (15 ,872)4 /026 (1,063) (207) (1,270) 0.38 (235) (1 ,352) (1 ,587)
Net New Vehicle Trips 5 -35,106 / -2,890 384 3,274 -796 2,303 3,099
Notes: '~J' 1. Rate per employee
2. Trip generation estimates for the proposed campus we re developed based on trip rates derived from suNeys at Infinite Loop campus
and office south of Marian i Ave nue by Fehr & Peers , May 2011
3. Trip generation estimates for the existing site we re developed based on project site dri vewa y counts conducted in August 2011 and
factored up to estimate Ma y 2011 values.
4. Daily trips estimated based on AM and PM peak hour trips representing 18 percent of dail y trips .
5. Net New Vehicle Trips= Proposed Apple Campus 2 trips minus trips from existing uses .
Source : Apple Headquarters Campus Transportation Study, Fehr & Peers, July 2011.
DIVERTED TRIPS DUE TO PRUNERIDGE CLOSURE
With the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, vehicles cu rrently traveling on the roadway between Wolfe Road and
Tantau Avenue would have to detour around the project site. The detour path along Wolfe Road, Homestead
Road and Tantau Avenue is approximately 1.1 miles in length and represents a 0.6-mile detour (1.1 mile new
path minus 0.5 mile existing path). There are generally three types of trips that would be diverted with the
proposed closure:
• Through trips with no destination on Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue
t hat would be diverted around the project site
• Trips access ing the project site that wou ld be diverted to proposed new driveways on Wolfe Road and
Tantau Avenue
• Trips associated with the Hampton Apartments. Only trips traveling to and from the east wou ld need
to be diverted since existing trips from t he west would not be affected by the road closure
To estimate the number of diverted vehicles for each of the three trip types, Fehr & Peers conducted origin
and destination (OD) surveys 6 in August 2011 at the intersections of Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue and
Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue. Fehr & Peers also conducted counts at the Hamptons driveway in
November 2011 to determine the trip generation and d istribution characteristics of the apartment complex so
that the apartment's trips to/from the east could be re-ass igned . The OD survey resu lts were used to
6 Origin-Destination surveys can be used to est imate the amount of through traffic in a particular area . The y involve
record ing the licens e plates of veh icles at the entrances and exits and matching the plates to determine the number and
percentage of vehicles traversing the area .
Kristy Weis , Da v id J. Powe rs
August 6, 201 2
Page 4 of 14
Comme rcial
Office
Rc:s· _
Hotel
PARKING ANALYSIS
28
40
47
46
29
. HO
p'2 ~ ""-\.~ '-•
74
82
395
55
76
682
-~ .~)
fE H R f PEERS
~PM Peak-Hour Vehicle Tri s
151 165 316
253 156 409
62 301 363
48 25 73
50 45 95
564 -69-2 1,2%
Table 3 su mmarizes the park ing demand est imates for the Revised Proposed Proj ect , prepared using ITE
Parking Generati on and the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking (ULI) guidance, , consistent w ith the
previous ana lyses . The tab le also presents t he City's Munic ipa l Code requirements for park i ng supp ly.
The Revised Proposed Proj ect wou ld need to accommodate 1,717 ve hicles in a shared park i ng situation
and 1,928 without shared park i ng per the ITE and ULI demand methodologies . Based on t hi s proj ection,
t he Rev ised Proposed Project's 1,931 park ing sta ll s would be suffic ient to meet demand. However, the
proposed supp ly would not meet the City's Code requirement.
. . .
Unshared Parking Demand2 Shared Parking Demand3
Rev ised ProJilose€f Projec t
:v_1t-:s. il 8,_bt:< C1\ c;t·.,-of (;j;:)f .;r-. .,_; \1v 1CT<:t :">a::<_;;:iq ·=0(~-:~ lZ' Based :2;(' 1TE D:)1"\1r''] G2~''2:r ·ation 2'}()3
D DP·--',Y~d 3;j ,:,tt~: ,Viti' t P't;.'-(Yi~--_i.:J.; ~?~tcr·, f. , _ _iU Si· a ·20 °:--.(k 'l::J ;.) . .::,-:.;._;qlp'.' UH! J:: L~-c-:; ;;1,Fr? ·~'Y\ !'0 ~ ~ t,'~J .::;:t2 :·
~:J+-,'-e c: ·;( ·:::,s:d..-)n~ ~:'. f.-<F< -19 1S :-~SC\1 ,~C tl'e :1°? "13:~d "· ,__ ~11 ".! ue s.~~.i,2 1 : 1-..:'"-:i. ~,-) ··_:;<•vn<J :;,-~, ---1 ·L~ ;·1·-.·,_7 --~1 !v hc~21 c~ -:
INTERS ECilON IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traff ic impacts associated with the Rev ised Proposed Project were eva l uated to determ ine w hether the
revised land uses wou ld result in new or more severe traffic i mpacts t h an those disclosed in the Proposed
Project's 2008 TIA and EIR and 2012 EIR Addendum . Traffic i mpacts are evaluated using in tersection leve ls
of s,ervice (LOS)1
. Th is sect ion discusses the LOS operations of the 27 study intersect ions eva l uated in the
2008' studies and identifies both background and cumu lative impacts assoc iated with the Revised
Proposed Project.
The operatio11s of roadway fac:lities are descnbed with tl1e terrn levei of service Level of Se1vice (LOS) is a qualitative description cf
traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel tirne delay and freedom to n1aneuver Six leve!s are defined frorn LOS A
rep1esenting congestion free conditions, to LOS F. when volumes exceed capacity and stop-and-go conditions occur LOS E
repr·esents "at-capacity operations