Loading...
14. 1 Results WayCity of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Summary Agenda Item No. Community Development Department Agenda Date: September 16, 2008 Application: ASA-2008-05, M-200$-03, TR-2008-06, Applicant : Tim Kelly, Kelly Associates Owner: Embarcadero Capital Partners - Property Location: 1 Results Way, APNs 357-20-041, -042, -046 APPLICATION SUMMARY: MODIFICATION OF A USE PERMIT (file no. M-2008-03 modifying file no. U-2001-04) to allow the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; a two-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus}. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (file mo. ASA-2008-05) for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Carnpus). TREE REMOVAL (TR-2008-06} request to remove 303 trees on an approved landscape plan and_replace them with 321 trees at an existing office/industrial park. RECOMMENDATION: On a 4-1 vote (Brophy, nay), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project-per the attached resolutions. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project at its meeting of August 26, 200$ (Exhibit A-1; draft Commission meeting minutes are not available). Because of the size of the property and project, a citywide postcard noticing of the hearings was mailed. In addition, the applicant contacted numerous stakeholders in advance {schools, school districts, homeowner groups, Chamber of Commerce) to inform them of the 14-1 ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 August 16, 2008 Page 2 applications to the City. The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting prior to the public meetings. . DISCUSSION Public Comments: Residents spoke in favor of the project, but identified the need to minimize the impact of daily business park activities and construction on adjacent residents. Residents suggested several things: ' • Filling in landscape gaps with trees on the westerly project landscape buffer to block potential light shine from vehicle headlights. • Making sure all outdoor lighting does not shine on adjacent residential properties. • Relocating a proposed trash enclosure on the other side of a parking aisle, closer to the office building and further away from the residences. • Developing a construction management plan to address potential construction impacts to the surrounding area. Another resident spoke about trying preserve the mature trees and oaks on the campus and providing suitable, larger size tree replacements for those that are removed. Alrplicant Comments: The applicant said the comments they heard from the public were: 1) they wanted the industrial/office park to remain as an industrial/office park, and 2) they did not want to see project street access to Imperial Avenue or McClellan Road, 3) two-story buildings and 4} good landscaping. The design team described what they were doing with the buildings to qualify them for LEED silver designation, including energy conserving glass, bioswales incorporated in the landscape islands and a cafe at the front of the project. The project traffic engineer attempted to address the Councilmember's questions about the traffic analysis. Presently, there is nearly 140,000 square feet of office/industrial building area on the property that is vacant and not generating traffic. The applicant has a right to occupy these buildings without further traffic analysis or any requirement to mitigate traffic impacts. Standard traffic engineering practices and California Environmental Quality Act guidelines provide that traffic background conditions assume a worst case situation where all buildings are considered occupied by their allowed uses and the net traffic difference (project traffic -background conditions) is analyzed to determine its impact on surrounding intersections. In this particular case, the net traffic increase results from assuming an office use, instead of a research and development land use plus the net addition of about 11,000 square feet of building. The "net" increase in traffic is considered minimal. Sta~f'Comments: Staff's comments are summarized in the report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A-1}. The applicant's transportation consultant, Hexagon 14-2 ASA--2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 ~ August 16, 2008 Page 3 Transportation Consultants, Inc., provided the attached executive summary of the Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for One Results Way {Exhibit B-1). Traffic data was previously collected in May 200$ but a full formal report was not prepared at that time at the direction of staff. A full traffic report will be available at the Council hearing or sooner. The summary report indicates what intersections were studied, at both the AM and PM peak traffic period and under three different traffic conditions: Existing, Background and Project (see report for explanations}. The LOS table shows that all studied intersections continue to operate within acceptable LOS under .project conditions. The Environmental Review Committee had asked for an evaluation of a "pedestrian scramble phase' during school peak hours at the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road as a means of easing traffic congestion. The Public Works Staff does not. recommend pedestrian scramble phase as part of the signal operations for this intersection because of expected added.time delays for pedestrians and motorists as explained in the memorandum (Exhibit C-1). 5 Staff recommends adding one condition to the Planning Commission ASA and Use Permit Modification resolutions. The resolutions should reflect the relocation of the Building 5 trash enclosure to the other side of the parking aisle, away from the residences and closer to Building 5. Planning Commissioner Comments: The Commissioners supported the renovation of the office/industrial park and added conditions of approval for landscaping, lighting, and planning for construction management to alleviate perceived impacts on neighboring residents. Other added conditions addressed sustainability and energy cost savings. The most significant issue was the traffic analysis. A portion of the Planning Commission felt the traffic impact of the project should be evaluated against the Existing Traffic Conditions, as well as, the Background Traffic Conditions'(see Exhibit B-1 for definitions) to determine the actual traffic impact on the intersections. This is the difference between evaluating the traffic from 155,000 square feet of new buildings and 11,000 square feet of net building area increase. One comment was that most of the traffic would be arriving from Stevens Creek Blvd. and Highway 85 and traveling down Bubb Road and would not impact the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road. One Commissioner felt that workers in those buildings had the convenience of flexing their work hours and would avoid those time periods when students were arriving and leaving. Commissioner Brophy felt a full traffic report should have been prepared, addressing _ the above traffic conditions and reviewed by the Commission prior fo City Council 14-3 ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-Ob August 16, 20Q8 Page 4 hearing. Other Commissioners did not feel sin-~ilarly, and voted to recommend that the City Council take a closer iook~at the traffic analysis. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions: Nos. 652$, 6529 and b530 Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit A-1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 26, 2008 Exhibit B-1: Transportation Level of Service Analysis (Executive Summary} for One Results Way Exhibit C-1: Memorandum from Dave Stillman to Colu1 Jung on Pedestrian Scramble Phasing, dated 9/9/08 Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: avid W. Knapp City Manager G: `PIanrzing ~ PDREPORT~ CC ~ 2008 ~ ASA-2008-b5, M-2008-03; TR-2008-06 SR1.doc 14-4 Director, Community Development CITY OF CUPERTi1V0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental 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 September 16, 2008 PR0I~ECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: ASA-2008-05 (EA-2008-06), TR-2008-06 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Architectural and Site approval of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three new, two-story office buildings containing 155,500 square feet, .a two- level, 204 space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office park and a Tree Removal request to remove 303 trees on an approved landscape plan and replace them with 321 trees at the existing office park 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 environmental impacts, The applicant shall adhere to all of the conditions required by the City Council on September 16; 2008 including but not limited to: 1) Tree replacements shall be made in accordance with the protected Tree Ordinance; 2) In lieu of transplanting trees #131 & 174, #s 88 & 89 will be transplanted instead 3) Evaluate improvements in the parking area to provide protection/preservation of tree #179 4) Traffic improvements will be made to Bubb Road and Results Way including the removal of the "pork chop" island, do related Iane re-striping and modify traffic signalization 5) Install a traffic signal warning sign /s/Steve Piasecki 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 /s/Kimberly Smith City Clerk g/er%zegEA200806 14-5 ASA-200$-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. b528 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF FIVE BUILDINGS CONTAINING ABOUT 139,b32 SQUARE FEET AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS CONTAINING 155,000 SQUARE FEET; ATWO-LEVEL, 204-SPACE PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING~LOT AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS AT AN EXISTING 19.8 ACRE OFFICE PARK (RESULTS WAY CAMPUS) SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS,, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1} The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Architectural and Site Review Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code; and . 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 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 No. ASA-2008-05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 2b, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as thoeigh fully set forth herein. 14-6 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 Page 2 August 26, 2008 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ~ ASA-2008-05 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners} Location: 1 Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Results Way Campus, Results Way, Cupertino CA" consisting of 27 pages labeled X1.01, C1.00 through C3.00, L-1.0 through L-1.2, PERSPECTIVES, A0.01, A0.02, A-A2.01, A-A2.02, A-A3.11, A- A3.12, B-A2.01, B-A2.02, B-A3.11, B-A3.12, C-A2.01, C-A2.02, C-A3.11, C-A3.12, G-A2.01, G-2.02, G-A3.11, G-A3.12, including one color rendering of the project, dated "August 14, 2008", except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park {Results Way Campus). ~ . 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION T'he applicant shall receive a general plan Monta Vista Area office development allocation of 11,015 square feet. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities fox the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 5. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage, the applicant shall qualify the new buildings to achieve a LEED Silver certifiable designation for the core and shell. 6. DEMOLITION RE UIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible (which industry practice currently results in recycling up to 80% of total volume, depending on the individual materials}, subject to the Building 74-7 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 3 Official approval. The applicant shall provide evidence fhat materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. . 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 b6020(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. 8. PUBLIC ART . The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2- 66. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 9. LOT LINE ADTUSTMENTf EASEMENTS Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall file a lot line adjustment application to realign existing property lines around proposed buildings and record appropriate easements where utility lines, storm drainage, vehicular movements, garbage enclosure access and parking may cross proposed property lines. 10. LANDSCAPE AMENITY Applicant shall provide a landscape amenity next to the cafe. 11. INTERPRETATION OF PLML) ZONING USES Zoning Code section 19.60.030(A} shall be interpreted by the Director of Community Development to allow a broad range of office uses related to high- tech, bio-tech, venture capital, research and development and similar businesses, as well as professional, financial and advisory firms supporting such industries, so long as the overall occupancy of the property reflects the City's goal to emphasize "tech park" type usage. More commercially-oriented office uses, such as, insurance services, realty, patient-serving medical arid dental uses ,that have no relation to the "tech park" emphasis for the property and no connection with other allowed tech park-type occupants of the property shall not be included in this directive for interpretation, except the Director may allow small stand-alone general commercial services that are incidental and complement the primary occupancy 14-8 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 4 P CC of the property, such as a small bank or professional office, and except as otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted in the ML zone. 12. REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING The replacement tree replanting plan shall include the planting of trees to fill in the landscape gaps in the project's westerly landscape strip. 13. POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT The applicant shall investigate a power purchase agreement prior to building permit approval: 14. SITE LIGHTING All new and replacement outdoor lighting shall meet city standards. 15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN The applicant shall prepare a plan for the management of onsite construction impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as part of the building permit plan set submittal. 16. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The applicant should. prepare a traffic report, comparing the difference between existing traffic conditions and project generated traffic impacts on local signalized intersections and deliver that report for City Council consideration. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 17. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 18..CURS 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. 19. 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. 20. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City' and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. . 14-9 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 5 21. GRADIN_ G " 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. 22. DRAINAGE " Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. " 23. 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. 24. 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: $3,847.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $2,239.00 minimum c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $ 2,000.00 $ 47,528.83 ~~ N/ A g. Park Fees: N/ A h. Street Tree By Developer *'~ Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: " a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements 14 - 10 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 6 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. 25. 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. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ' Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs}, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 28. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs} to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 29. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. . 30. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 14-11 Resolution No. 6528 - ASA-200$-05 August 26, 2008 Page 7 - 31. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS The developer shall fund traffic signal improvements at the Bubb Road/Results Way intersection. The improvements include installing new pedestrian signal heads, a new traffic signal cabinet, a new traffic signal controller, new traffic signal loops, and replacing damaged pavement on the Results Way approach, removal of traffic control island(s), pavement restoration and lane restriping. `The developer shall also offer for dedication and improve land off the McClellan Road frontage for road- widening. The applicant shall also fund the cost of: 1) travel dine restriping on the affected segment of McClellan Road, and 2} the installation of raised concrete safety barriers to protect a potential student drop- off area on the south side of McClellan Road. 32. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 33. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS - The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager - in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code} I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 14 - 12 Resolution No. 6528 ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST; f sfSteve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department APPROVED; / sj Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission G: ~ Planning 1 PDREPORT~ RES ~ 2008 NASA-2008-05 res.doc 14-73 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6529 M-2008-03 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION OF A USE PERMIT (U-2001-04) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF FIVE BUILDINGS CONTAINING ABOUT 139,632 SQUARE FEET AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS CONTAINIl~G 155,000 SQUARE FEET, ATWO-LEVEL 204 SPACE PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING IlVIPROVEMENTS AT AN EXISTING 19.8 ACRE OFFICE PARK (RESULTS WAY CAMPU5) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION ' Application No.: M-2008-03 ' Applicant: Tim Kelly (Ernbarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit Modification, as described on Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given iri accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety; general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the Cupertino Municipal Code; and 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 Modification is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginiung 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 14-14 Resolution No. 6529 M-2008-03 August 26, 2008 . Page 2 No. M-2008-03 ,as set forth u1 the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2008-03 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINLSTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Results Way Campus, Results Way, Cupertino CA" consisting of 27 pages labeled X1.01, 01:00 through C3.00, L-1.0 through L-1.2, PERSPECTIVES, A0.01, A0.02, A-A2.01, A-A2.02, A-A3.11, A- A3.12, B-A2.01, B-A2.02, B-A3.11, B-A3.12, C-A2.01, C-A2.02, C-A3.11, C-A3.12, G-A2.01, G-2.02, G-A3.11, G-A3.12, including one color rendering of the project, dated "August 14, 2008", except as may be amended by the conditions contauled in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive a general plan Monta Vista Area office development allocation of 11,015 square feet. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities for the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 5. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage, the applicant shall qualify the new .buildings to achieve a LEED Silver certifiable designation for the core and shell. 14 - 15 Resolution No. 6529 1VI-2008-03 ~ August 26, 2008 Page 3 6. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demob-shed building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible (which industry practice currently results in recycling up to 80% of total volume, depending on the individual materials), subject to the Building Official approval. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 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 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. 8. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2- 66. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 9. LOT LINE ADTUSTMENT/EASEMENTS Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall file a lot line adjustment application to realign existing property lines around proposed buildings and record appropriate easements where utility Iines, storm drainage, vehicular movements, garbage enclosure access and parking may cross proposed property lines. 10. LANDSCAPE AMENITY Applicant shall provide a landscape amenity next to the cafe. 11. INTERPRETATION OF P(ML) ZONING USES Zoning Code section 19.60.030(A) shall be interpreted by the Director of Community Development to allow a broad range of office uses related to high- tech, bio-tech, venture capital, research and development and similar businesses, as well as professional, financial and advisory firms supporting such industries, so Iong as the overall occupancy of the property reflects the City's goal to emphasize "tech park" type usage. More commercially-oriented office uses, such as, insurance services, realty, patient-serving medical and dental uses ,that have no relation to the "tech park" emphasis for the property and no connection with other allowed tech park-type 14-16 Resolution No. 6529 ~ M-2008-03 August 26, 200$ Page 4 occupants of the property shall not be included in this directive for interpretation, except the Director may . allow small stand-alone general commercial services that are incidental and complement the primary occupancy of the property, such as a small bank or professional office, and except as otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted in the ML zone. T2. REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING The replacement tree replanting plan shall include the planting of trees to fill in the landscape gaps in the project's westerly landscape strip. 13. POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT The applicant shall investigate a power purchase agreement prior to building permit approval. 14. SITE LIGHTING All new and replacement outdoor lighting shall meet city standards. 15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN The applicant shall prepare a plan for the management of onsite construction impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as part of the building permit plan set submittal. 16. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The applicant should prepare a traffic report, comparing the difference between existing traffic conditions and project generated traffic impacts on local . signalized intersections and deliver that report ~ for City Council consideration. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 17. STREET WIDENING Streef widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City . Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 18. 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. 19. 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. 14 - 17 Resolution No. 5529 M-2008-03 August 2b, 2008 Page 5 20. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 21. 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. 22. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 23. 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. 24. 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: $3,$47.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $2,239.00 minimum . c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6°~ of Off-Site lmprovement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $ 2,000.00 $ 47,528.83 ** N/ A ~g. Park Fees: N/ A h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC 14 - 18 Resolution No. 6529 M-2008-03 ~ August 26, 2008 Page 6 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. 25. 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. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 26. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be ulcIuded in grading and street improvement plans. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 28. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI} from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 29. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS ' The applicant must~include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. 14 - 19 Resolution No. 6529 M-2008-03 August 26, 2008 Page 7 30. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 31. TRAFFIC[ SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS The developer shall fund traffic signal improvements at the Bubb Road/Results Way intersection. The improvements include installing new pedestrian signal heads, a new traffic signal cabinet, a new traffic signal controller, new traffic signal loops, and replacing damaged pavement on the Results Way approach, removal of traffic control island(s), pavement restoration and Iane restriping. The developer shall also offer for dedication and improve land off the McClellan Road frontage for road widening. The applicant shall also fund the cost of: 1) travel line restriping on the affected segment of McClellan Road, and 2} the installation of raised concrete safety barriers to protect a potential student drop- off area on the south side of McClellan Road. 32. TRASH ENCLOSURES . The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 33. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Ralph Quails Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 14-20 Resolution No. 6529 M-2008-03 August 26, 2008 Page 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: s /Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Developinerit Department APPROVED: / s J Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair ' Planning Commission G: ~ Plariiriirg ~ PDREPORT~ RES ~ 2008 ti M-2008-03 res.doc 14 - 21 TR-zoos-o6 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6530 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST TO REMOVE 303 TREES ON AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND REPLACE THEM WITH 321 'TREES AT AN EXISTING OFFICE PARK (RESULTS WAY CAMPUS) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2008-06 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way ' SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the removal and replacement of 303 trees that are part of an approved landscape plan fora 19.8-acre office/industrial park that is proposed for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the 303 trees are considered protected under Chapter 14.1$ of the Municipal Code, pertaining to Protected Trees and subject to a tree removal permit issued by the City; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: - That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 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-2008-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein. 14-22 Resolution No. b530 TR-2008-06 August 26, 2008 Page 2 ~ _ SECTION III: ~ CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The applicant is approved to remove or transplant the 303 trees on site and depicted in the Results Way Campus plan set page titled: "Tree Disposition Plan" dated 8/14/08, consisting of one sheet labeled L-1.1, except as may be amended by the conditions of this Resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant shall plant replacement trees per the City's Protected Tree Ordinance and in accordance with the approved Landscape Master Plan dated 8/14/08 and labeled L-1.0 . The replacement trees shall also.be used to fill in the landscape gaps in the westerly landscape strip between the single-family residences and the office park. For any additional protected trees that are removed due to construction damage, hazardous conditions or death, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 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 #aiI 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. 4. TRANSPLANTED TREES Trees nos. 88 and 89 identified in the tree silrvey shall be transplanted in lieu of the proposed tree nos. 131 and 174. 5. EVALUATION OF PROTECTION OF TREE NO 179 (COASTAL REDWOOD} Applicant shall evaluate the potential to protect tree no. 179 by modifying parking lot, and driveway improvements to minimize grading and provide pervious surfaces in the drip zone among alternatives. Evaluation shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. Final decision for removal and any replacement shall be made by the Director of Community Development. 14-23 Resolution No. 6530 TR-2008-06 August 26, 200$ Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda, Rose NOES: ~ COMMISSIONERS: Brophy ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: / s /Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: /s/Mar , Miller Marty Miller, Chair _ Planning Commission G: `Planning `PDREPORT` RES ~ 2008 ~ TR-2008-06 res.doc 14-24 Ezi~ibit A •g CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-069, Agenda Date: August 26, 2008 Applicant : Tim Kelly, Kelly Associates Owner: Embarcadero Capital Partners . Property Location: 1 Results Way, APNs 357-20-041, -042, -046 APPLICATION SUMMARY: MODIFICATION OF A USE PERMIT (file no. M-2008-03 modifying file no. U-2001-04) to allow the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; a two-Ievel, 204-space. parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL {file no. ASA-2008-05) for the demolition of five buildings containing about.139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, twa-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus}. TREE REMOVAL (TR-2008-06) request to remove 303 trees on an approved landscape plan and replace them with 321 trees at an existing office/industrial park. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project per the model resolutions. .Project Data: General Plan Designation: Industrial/Residential Zoning Designation: P(ML)- Planned Development Zoning with Light Industrial Use Intent Acreage {Net): 19.8 net acres Building Area: Existing Office/Industrial Park: 355,296 sq. ft. Demo 5 Buildings (6/7, 8, 9,10): -139,632 sq. ft. Demo inter-building corridor: _ 4,353 sq. ft. Construct 3 Buildings1A, B, & C: +155,000 sq. ft. Net Tilcrease in Bldg. Area: 11,015 sq. ft. Total Bldg. Area (Exist. & Proposed}: 366,311 sq. ft. Building Height: Max. Proposed Bldg. Height: 29' 0" (two stories) 14-25 ASA, Use Permit Modification, Tree Removal for One Results Way ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 August 26, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Parking: Parking Required (366,311/285): Existing Parking Supply: Proposed Parking Supply: Excess Parking aver Required: Project Consistency with: Envixonmental Assessment: 1,28b stalls 1,234 stalls 1,331 stalls 45 stalls General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is an industrial/office park located in the northwest quadrant of Bubb and McClellan Roads. The well-landscaped business park was originally constructed in the early 1970's with a few buildings added at later dates. The last significant construction occurred in 1996 {Building 10}. The business park is surrounded by townhouses to the north, one-story office/industrial buildings to the east across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, a townhouse development to the south across McClellan Road, and to the west either single-family residences or small light industrial buildings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant Tim Kelly, representing Embaxcadero Capital Partners LLC, is proposing to demolish five vacant buildings that are either older or have outmoded facilities and construct three new office buildings and atwo-level parking structure. A renovation of Building No. 5 will be completed under a separate planning permit. The~purpose of the redevelopment is to provide updated facilities for the expansion needs of current tenant companies and attract new businesses. A 1,500 square-foot cafe is proposed as part of Building A (nearest to Bubb Road) and is being treated by staff as an ancillary and supportive use of the industrial/office park, with the square footage counted toward the totals. It is staff's understanding that the cafe will be open to the general public. Other amenities include a bocce ball court and two potential public art locations. DISCUSSION: General Plan Development Allocation: The Results Way Campus is part of the Monta Vista Planning Area which has an unused office allocation of 39,653 square feet. The net building area increase for this project is Iess,11,015 square feet. Zoning Interpretation: Permitted uses in a light industrial (ML} zoning clistrict include "manufacturing, processing, assembly, research and development factories, laboratories, shops, and other uses, which in the opinion of the Director of Community Development are similar ~a-zs ASA, Use Permit Modification, Tree Removal for One Results Way ASA--2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 • August 2b, 2008 • Page 3 of 5 to the above uses; and which do not create undue adverse impacts due to the effects of glare, noise, dust, or any other emission within the premises...". The Director of Community Development has opined that the proposed office use is consistent with the allowed light industrial uses. The nature of industrial use has evolved in Cupertino, as well as the rest of Silicon Valley. For decades "light industrial" has taken on a more office-like character in Santa Clara Valley typified by research and development that uses computers, and "manufacturing" is software development. Excluded from this allowed office use are the more commercially-oriented office uses, such as financial services, realty, medical and dental uses. Site Design, On-Site Circulation and Parking The new and existing buildings are oriented toward the main circulation driveway (Results Way) with either surface or structure parking Iots well-distributed around the buildings. The new buildings are pushed closer to the railroad tracks to maintain a wider side setback (110 feet} from the small industrial buildings facing Imperial Avenue. A deep •parking lot to the north of Buildings B & C buffer the Astoria townhouse project which is over 400 feet away. The new two-story buildings are 29 feet tall, which matches the character of this low-profile office park. The semi-depressed garage is equally low-profile, rising b or 11 feet.in height, depending on where the grade is measured, and only about 15 feet to the top of the parking canopy. Attractive pedestrian ways were designed to connect all of the buildings with the Bubb Road public sidewalk and trail along the Union Pacific Railroad line. The cafe will be located near Bubb Road to make it more accessible to the general public and adjacent businesses. Traffic & Circulation: Hexagon Transportation Consultants prepared a trip generation table and a vehicle trip distribution and assignments for this project on behalf of the Public Works Dept. The utilized building area: 15,518 of office square footage is slightly higher than the net square footage increase used in this report (11,015 sq. ft.) because of an unreported demolition of an inter-building corridor. The conclusions are thus slightly overstated. The project is expected to generate a net addition of 66 a.m. peak hour trips and 68 p.m. peak hour trips to the roadway network. The level of traffic generation does not trigger a full Traffic Impact Analysis (threshold for Analysis is 100 peak hour trips). Public Works staff further concludes there will be~ no significant degradation of traffic level of service at the signalized intersections (Exhibit A}. Street improvements to improve circulation and safety are included in the project. There are two improvements: 14-27 ASA, Use Permit Modification, Tree Removal for One Results Way ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-Ob August 26, 2008 . Page 4 of 5 1) Removal of the pork chop island at Bubb Road and Results Way with associated lane restriping and traffic signal modification. This will have the' added benefit on adding one more northbound lane on Bubb Road north of McClellan Road. 2) Dedicating and improving a strip of land to "widen' McClellan Road. This would allow the creation of a drop-off pocket on the other side of McClellan Road to help with student drop-offs and pick-ups. These street improvements were first identified in 2005 with the Parks at Monta Vista project proposed by Taylor Woodrow Homes, but never implemented because of project denial. Lot Line Adjustment/Easements: Existing parcel lines must be adjusted around the proposed building footprints so as to not create violations of the zoning and building codes. In addition, where utility lines, storm drainage, vehicular movements, garbage access and parking cross proposed property lines, easements should be recorded. A condition has been placed in the resolutions to record such easements and lot line adjustment prior to building permit approval. Trees: An arborist report was prepared and updated by McClenahan Consulting, LLC (Exhibit B) and reviewed by City Arborist, David Babby in his report {Exhibit C}. There are 552 trees on the property with diameters of two inches or more. The vast majority of these trees were planted as part of the approved landscape plan. The City Arborist noted that there were 20 specimen size oak trees among this inventory: tree nos. 8, 9,11,12, 88-90, 121, 130, 131, 149, 174, 185, ~ and 230-237, and several other trees he considered noteworthy, all of them Coastal Redwoods, tree nos. 176,178, and 179. Of the 303 trees proposed for removal, 153 of them are 6" or more in diameter and 150 are less than 6" in diameter. 32T trees are proposed to be planted to replace those removed. Staff presented this information to the Environmental Review Committee who concurred with the following staff recommendations: 1) Tree replacements should be per the protected tree ordinance and landscape plan. 2) Transplant Tree nos. 88 and 89, in lieu of nos. 131 and 174. 3} Evaluate the potential of preserving tree no. 179 by modifying the parking lot~and driveway improvements, such as minimizing grading near the tree canopy and install pervious pavement under the dripline. City Architect Review: City Architect Larry Cannon reviewed the plans {Exhibit D) and thought the project architects did a very good job addressing his site plan comments in their revised plans. 14 - 28 ASA, Use Permit Modification, Tree Removal for One Results Way ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 August 2b, 2008 Page 5 of 5 The only significant negative being the Ioss of mature trees on the east side of the campus. The other issue that the City Architect was concerned about is the large amount of glass used to emphasize views to the campus entries and the consequent potential for heat loss or gain that increases energy consumption. The project architect has responded (Exhibit E) and noted that they are using a very high performance glass that will reduce solar glare and heat loading without the need for sunshades and additional trees to achieve the same results. Public Noticing: ~ . Mailed noticing for the public hearings was a citywide postcard mailing. In addition, the applicant contacted potential interest groups: school districts, parent/teacher associations, neighborhood and homeowner associations, Chamber of Commerce, etc. The applicant also hosted a neighborhood meeting. ENCLOSURES: Model Resolutions Initial Study & ERC Recommendation Exhibit A: Traffic Impact Analysis Memo for Proposed One Results Way Project, dated July 16, 2008 by Cupertino Senior Civil Engineer David Stillman Exhibit B: Tree Survey Project Location Results Way/Cupertino, California, prepared byMcClenahan Consulting LLC dated June lb, 2008 Exhibit C: An Arborist Review of the Development Proposed at 1 Results Way, Cupertino, California Prepared by Arbor Resources and dated July 11, 2(?08 Exhibit D: Emailed Architectural Comments from City Architect harry Cannon dated 5/22/08. Exhibit E: Responses to City Architect comments from Ted Korth, project architect dated 5/30/08 PIan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~c~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G: Planning/PDReport/pcasareports/2007/ ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06.doc 14-29 ASA-2008-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF FIVE BUILDINGS CONTAINING ABOUT 139,632 SQUARE FEET AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS CONTAINING 155,000 SQUARE FEET; ATWO-LEVEL, 204=SPACE PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS AT AN EXISTING 19.8 ACRE OFFICE PARK {RESULTS WAY CAMPUS) SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Architectural and Site Review Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code; and 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 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 No. ASA-2008-05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 14-30 Model No. ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2008-05 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Results Way Campus, Results Way, Cupertino CA" consisting of 27 pages labeled X1.01, C1.00 through C3.00, L-1.0 through L-1.2, PERSPECTIVES, A0.01, A0.02, A-A2.01, A-A2:02, A-A3.11, A- A3.12, B-A2.01, B-A2.02, B-A3.11, B-A3.12, C-A2.01, C-A2.02, C-A3.11, C-A3.12, G-A2.01, G-2.02, G-A3.11, G-A3.12, including one color rendering of the project, dated "August 14, 200$", except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-Level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive a general plan Monta Vista Area office development allocation of 11,015 square feet. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities for the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 5. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage, the applicant shall qualify the new buildings to achieve a LEED Silver designation. 6. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS . AlI demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official approval. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 14 - 31 Model No. ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 3 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 fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with ali of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 8. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2- 66. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 9. LOT LINE ADTUSTMENTfEASEMENTS Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall file a lot line adjustment application to reline existing property lines around .proposed buildings and record appropriate easements where utility lines, storm drainage, vehicular movements, garbage enclosure access and parking may cross proposed property lines. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORIGS DEPT. 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening 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. 14-32 Model No. ASA=2008-05 ~ August 26, 2008 Page 4 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 14. 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. 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- development calculations must be provided to indzcate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 16. 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. 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: $3,847.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $2,239.00 minimum c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6 % of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $ 2,000.00 $ 47,528.83 N/A g. Park Fees: N/ A h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC 14-33 Model No. ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 5 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 Band: 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. 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. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (B1VIPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 20. DEDICATION .OF WATERLINES The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 21. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain ~a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 22. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS The applicant_must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. ~a-sa Model No. ASA-200$-05 .August 26, 2008 Page 6 23. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered ' Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 24. TRAFFIC/ SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS The developer shall fund traffic signal improvements at the Bubb Road/Results Way intersection. The improvements include installing new pedestrian signal lieads, a new traffic signal cabinet, a new traffic signal controller,~new traffic signal loops, and replacing damaged pavement on the Results Way approach, removal of traffic control island{s), pavement restoration and Lane restriping. The developer shall also offer for dedication Iand off the McClellan Road frontage for road widening and improvement and fund street improvements. 25. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 26. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices __ / s/Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 14-35 Model No. ASA-2008-05 August 26, 2008 Page 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: js/ Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission G: {PlanninglPDREPOR71RES420084iIS~l-2008-OS res.doc 14-36 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION M-2008-03 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION OF A USE PERMIT (U-2001-04) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF FIVE BUII.DINGS CONTAINIl~]~G ABOUT 139,632 SQUARE FEET AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF 'THREE NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS CONTAINING 155,000 SQUARE FEET, ATWO-LEVEL 204 SPACE PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARICIl~iG LOT AND LANDSCAPING ]MPROVEMENTS AT AN EXISTING 19.8 ACRE OFFICE PARK (RESULTS WAY CAMPUS) SECTION.I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2008-03 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners} Location: 1 Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit Modification, as described on Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the Cupertino Municipal Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit Modification 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 14-37 Model Resolution M-2008-03 August 26, 2008 Page 2 No.. M-2008-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2008-03 Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The, approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Results Way Campus, Results Way, Cupertino CA" consisting of 27 pages labeled X1A1, C1.00 through 03.00, L-1.0 through L-1.2, PERSPECTIVES, A0.01, A0.02, A-A2.01, A-A2.02, A-A3.11, A- A3.12, B-A2.01, B-A2.02, B-A3.11, B-A3.12, C-A2.01, C-A2.02, C-A3.11, C-A3.12, G-A2.01, G-2.02, G-A3.11, G-A3.12, including one color rendering of the project, dated "August 14, 2008", except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is-granted for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; atwo-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive a general plan Monta Vista Area office development allocation of 11,015 square feet. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking facilities for the proposed development in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 5. GREEN BUILDING At the building permit stage,. the applicant shall qualify the new buildings to achieve a LEED Silver designation. 14-38 Model Resolution M-2008-03 ~ August 2b, 2008 Page 3 6. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS ' All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official approval. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 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 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. 8. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall provide public art in accordance with General Plan policy 2-~ b6. Public art selection will be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission. 9. LOT LINE ADTLTSTMENT/EASEMENTS Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall fife a Iot line adjustment application to reline existing property Imes around proposed buildings and record appropriate easements where utility Imes, storm drainage, vehicular movements, garbage enclosure access and parking may cross proposed property Imes. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Z0. STREET WIDENING Street widening 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. 22. 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 giare 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. 14-39 Model Resolution M-2008-03 August 2b, 2008 Page 4 13. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be Located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 14. 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. 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm watex control measures are to be installed. 16. 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. 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: $3,847.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $2,239.00 minimum c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee; e. Power Cost: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $ 2,000.00. $ 47,528.83 ** f. Map Checking Fees: N/ A g. Park Fees: N/A h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC 14 - 40 Model Resolution ~ M-2008-03 August 2b, 2008 Page 5 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 inay 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 t11e then current fee schedule. 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located tulderground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. B1VII' plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 20. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES ' . The applicant shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service - to the subject development. 21. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtaui a Notice of Intent (NOI} from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 22. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (SMP) R~UIREMENTS The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Pian, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMP's are required. 14 - 41 Model Resolution M-2008-03 August 26, 2008 Page 6 23. EROSION CONTROL PLAN ' The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 24. TRAFFIC/ SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS The developer shall fund traffic signal improvements at the Bubb Road/Results Way intersection. The improvements include installing new pedestrian signal heads, a new traffic signal cabinet, a new traffic signal controller, new traffic signal loops, and replacing damaged pavement on the Results Way approach, removal of traffic control island(s), pavement restoration and lane restriping. The developer shall also offer for dedication land off the McClellan Road frontage for road widening and improvement and fund street improvements. 25. TRASH ENCLOSURES . The trash enclosure plari must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Progrars Manager. 2b. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ' ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Cade) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices _ /s/Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 14 - 42. Model Resolution 1Vi-2008-03 August 26, 2008 Page 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26~ day of August 20U8, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: I S1 Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: 1s/ Marcy Miller, Chair Planning Conunission G: ~ Piamzing ~ PDREPORTI RES 12008 ~M-2008-03 res.doc 14-43 TR-2008-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST TO REMOVE 303 TREES ON AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND REPLACE THEM WITH 321 TREES AT AN EXISTING OFFICE PARK (RESULTS WAY CAMPUS) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRII'TION Application No.: TR-2008-06 - ' Applicant: Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: ~ 1 Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the removal and replacement of 303 frees that are part of an approved landscape plan fora 19.8-acre office/industrial park that is proposed for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the 303 'trees are considered protected under Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to Protected Trees and subject to a tree removal permit issued by the City; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for tree removal is hereby recommended for approval; and That the sixbconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2008-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The applicant is approved to remove or transplant the 303 trees on site and depicted in the Results Way Campus plan set page titled: "Tree Dispos,~~io~. Model Resolution TR-2008-06 August 26, 2008 Page 2 ~ . Plari' dated 8%14/08, consisting of one sheet labeled L-1.1; except as may be amended by the conditions of this Resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant shall plant replacement trees per the City's Protected Tree Ordinance and in accordance with the approved Landscape Master Plan dated 8/ 14/ 08 and labeled L-1.0 For any additional protected trees that are removed due to construction damage, 1lazardous conditions or death, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 3. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include cextain fees, dedication requirements, reservation ~ requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute wxitten 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 Iater challenging such exactions. 4. TRANSPLANTED TREES Trees nos. 88 and 89 identified in the tree survey shall be transplanted in lieu of the proposed tree nos. 131 and 174. 5. EVALUATION OF PROTECTION OF TREE NO.179 (COASTAL REDWOOD) Applicant shall evaluate the potential to protect tree no. 179 by modifying parking lot and driveway improvements to minimize grading and provide pervious surfaces in the drip zone among alternatives. Evaluation shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. Final decision for removal and any replacement shall be made by the Director of Community Development. 14 - 45 Model Resolution TR-2008-06 August 26, 2008 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:IPIanning~PDREPORT~RES`20081TR-2008-06 res.doc APPROVED: Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission 14 - 46 CUPEI~TiNO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Titie:~ Project Locatiion: ~~.-.tea ~ ~ fi-~-~-; ; ng: ~ ~or~~~R t~~ ~~ Commun City e# Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 elopment Department File N ase File ttachme t~ •-1 ~s~ f R-Zocg 1~ ~ ~re~c Mevti[ V i 1~~ .$ ,~ ~~~-~1~, i ~~~ ~ a 303 w; .~ ~ ~~ iJ d `~ ~ ~•r c st ~ V2, A,rc.~ w 2 ~ " o~ 3 s; d~ ~ ~ n u t dos ~ ~= ec~s~: PR~JECT DESCRIPTIO qq((~~ Site Area (ac.} - ~c~C. Building Coverage - 21 % F~cist. Buildin~~~s.f.1"Prop sed Bldg. 3~(TTlcs.f..Zone-~L_r~ G.P. Designation -~~~ir'~~~ j~eS~cw~~C+~ Assessor's Parcel No. - X57 - '2-b -~~~ -~ O~~ ~ °' o~ Z- ff Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Total# RentallOwn Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ^ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ^ S. De Anza Conceptual ^ N. De Anna Conceptual ^ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual ^ Stevens Crk Bivd. Conceptual ^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW ~ Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - 3 s.#. FAR - .,~ Max. EmployeeslShift - Parking Required ~.~~' Parking Provided ~ •~~ Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ~ NO ^ 14-47 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Re~urces 6. Appendix A-Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. No'sse Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Gupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site-specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Communiiy Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Deparkment 22. Cupertino Water Ufility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Gantinued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contamiinant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps1SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Cara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. Ca}EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience wlproject of similar scopelcharacteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A. Complete al[ information requested on th~ 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 mus# 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 page. F: Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the fnitiaf Study to the City. /Project Ptan Set of Legislative Document /Location map with site clearly marked {when appticable) 14 - 48 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: wv s Hvs"'"'G ~~ v v ISSUES; S ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ° o, fl- ~ 3 ~ o e a ~ = Q N ~ £ oe a z Q ~ ources] on jand Supporting Informa ° m ~ ~~ ~ r a cn~ - ~ c N I. AESTHETICS --Would the project: a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ ,~ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] ' b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ © ~ 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 ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ character or quality of the site and its - }~ ' surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or ^ ^ ^ ~ 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 Modei (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the -~ project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ^ ^ ^ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ^ ^ ^ ~ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ^ ^ ~ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] I i ~4-4y C C ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] a~ic c a, ~ ~'c3~°' ~ a~ = ~ wc~ m ay ~ Za ~ a v~ -~ v} ~ c -i to Ill. AIR QUALITY -Where. available, the significance cri#eria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b} Volate any air quality standard or ^ ^ - ^ ~ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] , • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ ~~~ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ~ - ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d} Expose sensitive receptors to substantial • ^ D ^ .. ~ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ D ^ ~~ substantial number of people? [4,37,44] - N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would "~~ • the project: '` ~ • i a} Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ^ ^ ^ directly or through habitat modifications, on ~ • any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44) b) Have a substantia[ adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ ~`t riparian habitat or other sensitive natural • community identified in local or regional plans, polices, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ^ ^ ^ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal !C t1 V 'C C! .F+ s.. ~ .~ t1 ~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting information Sources] ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ' ` ~v, `=' = m ~ m ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ p z Q- ~ a us --i m ~ c ~ cn pool, coastal, etc.} through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] ' d) Interfere.substanfsallywlth the movement ^ ^ ^ ~ 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 ~ ^ ~ ^ -~ ^ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,4i] ' f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ' ' Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural - ^ ^ ^ : ~ ~ 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 ^ D . ^ - ~~ the significance of a historical resource as ' defined in §15464.5? [5,13,41] b) .Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ . ^ ~ the sign~cance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5.,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ]5,13,41] - d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ^ ^ ~ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1 ~5] - VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the - project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: - i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ O ^ ,~ delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued b the 14-51 ~ ~ v tom? o t V~ y ~ L v t! V ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] :~..._ ~ ~c o e~ ~ ~- _ ~ O w=3a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yea m ~ ~ p ea ZQ ~ a u~ --~ v~ ~ c -i v~ State Geologist for the area or based on . other substantial evidence of a known fault? -Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ .~1 [2,5,10.44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ >~, liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44) ^ ^ ^ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ f~ loss of topsoil? j2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ' ^ ~.~. ~l unstable, or that would became unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result lateral spreading ~ in on- or off site landslide , , subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,14,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ^ ^ ~ ,~ in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to 1'~fie or ~ Property? [2,5,10] .. e) Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ^ ^ - '~ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems . where sewers are not available for the disposa[ of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ ~ ^ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b} Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ J~. ^ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condfions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 14-52 ea v~ O v ~ v H ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ++ ~ '!- c ~ ~ H +- + 4 ~ ~ •- m a m ~ 3 ~ o 0 w e y ~ Q. ~ a~ ~ - p t C z e. E ~ m- of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ~^ ^ ^ ^ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a sign~canfi hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ ~( use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] fl For a praject within the vianity of a private ^ ^ ^ - airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the + project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physicaAy ^ ^ ^ interfere with an adopted emergency - response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or strictures to a ^ ^ ^ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, induding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) V«olate any water quality standards or ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater D ^ ^ ~ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering of the local groundwater table level {e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses far which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] . 14-53 ia~v c~ ~~ °;° V R s~~ v ~ ISSUES: S w v lC me ~ ~-' ~ ~ O ~'c~3~°' ~ t1i ~- N~a ~ p t3 Z~ ~ ources] [and Supporting Infiormation c a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ m LL v1 ^-i t0 c -1 to c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ^ ^ ^ ~l pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which wou}d result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14, 20,36] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ^ ^ ^ pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or t amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ ^ •~ ' would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42]_ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ^ ^ ^ ~ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ~ t^ O ^ ~ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] - . h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ^ ^ "' j~ structures which would impede or redirect •. flood flaws? [2,38] . i) Expose people or structures to a significant ^ ^ ^ ~ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ^ ^ ~ ~ mudflow? [2,36,38] tX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^ ~ community? ]7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ ^ ^ ^ policy, or regulation of an agency with 14-54 Ar V ~~ ~ C V ~~ ISSUES: Cand Supporting Information Sources] ++ n3 ~ = c m ~ ~- ~ R C w = •- c~ ? m ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ w ~ N •E ~ m m ~ ~~ z ~ ~ Q. U) JN ~ ~ JN jurisdiction over the project (including, but nat limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflicf with any applicable habitat ~ ~ ^ ^ 17 ~, conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a {mown ^ ^ ^ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b} Result in the loss of availability of a ^ ^ ^ ,~. locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ^ ^ . ^ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? j8,18,44] b} Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ^ ^ ~ excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ ^ ^ ambient noise levels in the projec# vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ ^ ~ ^ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] ~ e} For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ ~'y 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 e ose people residin or workin in the 14-~~ A ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ° ~ .~ eti ~ r ~ ~ .a+ a ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ o ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o z ~ a cn ~ m c J y project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an O ^ ^ ~. 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 substantia) numbers of existing ^ ^ ^ ~ =- housing-, necessitating the construction of - replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ O ^ necessitating the construction of • replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] . . Xlli. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantia! adverse physical impacts associated with the • • . provision of new or physically altered .. , govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the • construction of which could cause significant - environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ^ ^ Police protection? [33,44] ^ ^ ^ ,~ Schools? [29,30,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ existing nei hborhood and regional parks or I4 -JO ~~~ o ° ~ -cam °~ ~, ~ t~~ i ISSUES: and Su ortin Information Sources [ PP ~ ] c~ ~ °' m ~ y~~' a,° ~' ~ 3 ~ o ~'"= ~. N ~~ ~ - z° ~. E - a°v~ ~v~ ~ ~ ~N other recreational facilities such that . substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ ;~ - facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? j5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ^ ^ )~(, ~^ substantia! in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] ~ . b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ ^ ^ ~ a level of service standard established by the s county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? j4,20,44] .. . c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ^ ^ ^ - including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ' substantial safety risks? [4,?] - . d) Substantially increase hazards due to a - ^. ^ ^ ' design feature {e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fame equipment)? j20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ,~ [2,19,32, 33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ^ ^ ~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? j4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: 14-57 ~ ,+.+ v 0 ~ ++ _ ._. U O ~ r ~ H ~ ISSUES: S ti :~ nt w ~ E c I- ~ ~ 3 ~' ~ ~ ~ E ~ a p z ources] on [and Supporting Informa . ~ , ~ 3 s a N to - c -~ vi a) F-xceed wastewater treatment O ^ ^ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ^ D ^ ' new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the - constnaction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ^ ^ ^ = ~ - wastewatertreatment provider which serves _ or may serve the project #hat it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addi#ion to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ := pem~itted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ~~ g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ ^ ^ statutes and regulations related to solid .• waste? [?] • 14-58 '~ • .r•.'au ~ 1~}?t i ~'~~ 'n .. A ~ ~ _t ~- ~ ~ ~ i n~ 72 J r3' 2 ~Jaea , C y`. a) Does the project have the potential to ^ ^ ^ ''~ ! degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communi#y, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or ~ examples of animal or eliminate important the major periods of California history or prehis#ory? ~ b) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ^ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when • viewed in connection with the effects of past ~ ~ • projects, the effects of other can-ent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? D c) Does the project have environmental ~ ^ ^ ^ .~(, effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? d ~ . 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 Enitial 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. (~~ er's S" nature \.~V~.=- Prepar ~g Print Preparer's Name ~i ~ 1 ~ 14-59 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected- by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality l~ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils f $~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Land Use 1 Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population /Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ~ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance . DETERMtNATfON: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC} finds tha#: ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a.significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ The proposed project MAY have a sign cant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ _ The proposed projec# 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 Lego! standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on.the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets: An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ Although the proposed project could have a signficant effect on the environment, because all potentially sign cant 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 DECi..ARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date ~~ ~ Date 14-60 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COl~TMITTEE July 23, 2008 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupextino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on July 23, 2008. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: ASA-2008-05 (EA-2008-06), M-2008-03, TR-2008-0& Applicant: Tim Kelly {Embarcadero Capital Partners) Location: 1 Results Way DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Architectural and Site approval and Use Permit Modification to demolish five buildings containing about 140,000 square feet and the development of three new, two-story office buildings containing 155,500 square feet, a fwo-level, 204 space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office park and a Tree Removal request to remove 303 trees on approved landscape plan and replace them with 321 trees at the existing office park FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMFITEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General PIan and has no significant environmental impacts. The mitigating conditions are identified below: 1} Tree replacements shall be made in accordance with the protected Tree Ordinance; 2) Iri lieu of transplanting trees #131 & 174, #s 88 & 89 will be transplanted instead 3) Evaluate improvements in the parking area to provide protection/preservation of tree #179 4) Traffic improvements will be made to ,Bubb Road and Results Way including the removal of the "pork chop", do related street re-striping and change signalization 5) Install a traffic signal warning sign ' 6) Evaluate a "pedestrian scramble phase" during school peak hours at the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2008-06 14-61 Exhibit A (408) 777-3354 FAX; (408) 777-3333 PIJ~LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2008 TO: Colin Jung, Senior Plazmer r.. _ FROM: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer ~~ SUBJECT: One Results Way Traffic Analysis At the request of the City, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, submitted a Trip Generation Table and Trip Distribution and Assignments for the One Results Way project. I understand that the project proposes replacing 139,482 square feet of manufacturing, general office and R&D space with 155,000 square feet of general office space, for a net increase of 15,518 square feet. Using the average rates given in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Hexagon determined that the project resulted in a net addition of 66 a.m. peak hour trips and 68 p.m. peak hour trips to the roadway network, or just greater than one trip per minute. I performed a separate analysis using the ITE fitted curve equations, with the result that the project added 47 a.m, peak hour trips and 12 p.m. peak hour trips. Reality likely lies somewhere in between the two results. Regardless, this level of traffic generation is less than that required (100 peak hour trips) to trigger a full Traffic Impact Analysis, and so none was required of the project. The project trip distribution indicates that there will be no significant impact to the roadway network or to the levels of service at nearby intersections, even assuming the worst case (average trip rates) as described above. The McClellan/Bubb intersection will experience an increase of no more than one vehicle every five minutes on average for any given movement, and in fact no intersection will experience an increase of greater than one vehicle every two minutes on average with the exception of Bubb/Results. This level of project traffic would be absorbed into the existing background traffic without impact. 14-62 Exhibit B RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS: TREE SURVEY (ARBORIST REPORT) Prepared by: McCfenahan Consulting LLC John H. McClenahan TREE ALLOCATION SUIVIMARY Prepared by: Studio Five Design, Inc. Richard Sharp PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL JUNE 25, 2008 14-63 TREE SURVEY Submitted To: Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton 7301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250 Belmont, CA 94002 Project Location: Results Way Cupertino, California Submitted By: McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC John H. McClenahan ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-14766 member, American Society of Consulting_ Arborists June 16, 2008 ©Copyright McCLENAHAN CONSULT[NG, LLC 2008 14-64 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 wiA 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 arbarist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, sits lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot #ake 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.oniy way to eliminate al! risks is to eliminate ail trees. ~~ i~ ACborist: ~ ~ . Jo H. McClanahan Date: J ne 16, 2008 14-65 i• s A. li'VicClena~aan Consulting, L~LC ~Trbaricultarists Since 1911 1 Arastradero Road, Ponora valley, eA 94ozs-80tz Telephone (b50) 326-878I Pax (650) 854-1267 ~~~spmectenahan.com June 16, 2008 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton 1301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250 Belmont, CA 94002 RE: Results Way Cupertino, CA Assignment As requested, I performed a visual inspection of 251 trees greater than 6.0-inches in diameter to determine species, size and conditions and provide general Tree Preservation Guidelines. This is an addendum to my previously submitted report to Taylor Woodrow dated November 10, 2004 to add trees 175 - 250. No further review of trees 1 to 174 occurred during this inspection. Background • This is a commercial site with plans for improvements. Plans were not available to evaluate impacts to trees on site. However, all the trees numbered in this report should show on the plans. Two trees are numbered 241; the second tree tag is 241 a. For purposes of this report, only trees 175 - 250 were inspected. Eight trees from the 2004 report measured 17.0 to 17.9-inches. Some or all of these trees may have grown to 18.0-inches in diameter. Summary This survey serves to identify the trees on site. Further evaluation may be necessary to determine impacts to tree environments. For design purposes trees to remain on site should have a Tree Protection Zone designated at the driplines. Grading should not exceed plus or minus 6.0-inches within designated Tree Protection Zones. Summary of trees by species: American sweet gum Liquidambar styracitlua 34 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 25 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 13 Nichol's Peppermint gum Eucalyptus nicholii 1 Raywood ash Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood'13 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 78 Leyland cypress Cupressus Leylandii 1 Flowering plum Prunus cerasifera 12 London plane tree Plafanus x acerifolia 2 European white birch Betula pendula 8 Japanese black pine Pinus thunbergiana 1 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 1 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 49 ~a-ss Embarcadero Capitai Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 2 Summery continued Saucer magnolia Modesto ash Evergreen ash African sumac Flowering cheny Magnolia sou/angeana 3 Fraxinus velufina `Modesto' S Fraxinus uhdel 2 Rhus lancea 2 Prunus serrulata 1 Methodoloc~y No root crown exploration, climbing or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of this survey. In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: Rate of growth aver 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. 0 - 5 Years = Poor 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair 10 - 15 Years = Fair 15 - 20 Years = Fair to Good 20 + Years = Good Tree DescriotionlObservation 1 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 17.7" Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Awkward growth habit. 2 American sweetgum (Liquidambarsfyraciflua) ' Diame#er: 18.1" Height: 50' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 3 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 14.2" Height: 45` Spread: 30' Condition: Good Observation: Shaded by large pine. 4 American sweetgum (Liquidambarsfyraciflua) Diameter: 14.9" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits minor branch dieback. 14-67 Embarcadero Capital Partners Ll_C Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 3 5 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 15.1" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits minor branch dieback. 6 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 20.7" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits narrow scaffold limb attachments. 7 American sweetgum (Liquidambar sfyraciflua) Diameter: 18.0" Height: 40' Spread: 30` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Mechanical wound at base. 8 Coast five oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 26.5" Height: 45' Spread: 45' Condi#ion: Fair to Good Observation: Lawn area creates poor root environment. 9 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia} Diameter: 21.4" Height: 45' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Lawn area creates poor root environment. 10 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diame#er: 15.8" Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Observation: Sparse canopy and narrow limb attachments. 11 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 15.8" Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observa#ion: Lawn area creates poor root environment. 12 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 20.9" Height: 30' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Lawn area creates poor root environment. 13 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 16.8" Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is one-sided. Bifurcates at six feet. 14-68 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 4 . 14 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 19.8" Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is one-sided. 15 ltalian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 22.6" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is one-sided. Bifurcation creates inherent defect. 16 American sweetgum (Liquidambar sfyraciflua) Diameter: 13.0" Height: 40' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at six feet creates inherent defect. 17 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 9.7" Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limb attachments. 1$ American sweetgum (Liquidambarsfyraciflua) Diameter: 11.4" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observa#ion: Narrow scaffold limb attachments. Basal cavity south side. 19 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 15.5" Height: 50' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limb attachments. 20 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua} Diameter: 13.9" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 15-feet creates inherent defect. 21 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 13.0" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Ofd wound at 4-112' on south side. 22 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 24.5" Height: 45' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is one-sided. Bifurcation at seven feet creates an inherent structural defect. 14-69 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 5 23 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 32.5" Heigh#: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Observation: Canopy is one sided. Bifurcation at nine feet. 24 American sweetgum (Liqui`dambar styraciflua) Diameter: 9.0" Height: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Observation: Sparse canopy and leans to south. 25 Italian stone pine {Pinus Pinea) . Diameter: 15.0" Height: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 5-feet. Poor root environment with roots causing curb damage. 26 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 13.5, 12.7" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 3-feet. Poor root environment with root damage to curb. 27 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 16.5" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 4-feet. Parking lot proivdes poor root environment 28 ftalian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 21.6" Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 4-feet. Parking lot proivdes poor root environment 29 Ita[ian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 16.3" Height: 25' Spread: 25` Condition: Fair Observation: Mechanical wound on trunk. Poor root environment. 30 Italian stone pine {Pinus Pinea) Diameter: 16.1" Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good ' Observation: Bifurcation at 5-feet. Poor root environment. 31 Nichol's peppermint gum (Eucalyptus nicholiij Diameter: 25.2" Height: 55' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 10-feet creates structural defect. 14-70 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 6 32 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 11.9" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 6-feet. Limbs exhibit weak wood attachments. 33 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood') Diameter: 12.3" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 6-feet. Limbs exhibit weak wood attachments. 34 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 1 Z.0" Height: 50` Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 8-feet. Limbs exhibit weak woad attachments. 35 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 11.2" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 10-feet creates structural defect. 36 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood') Diameter: 10.9" Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 11-feet creates structural defect. 37 Raywood' ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 13.6" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 7-feet creates structural defect. 38 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.1" Height: 50' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: One-sided, in grove. 39 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 15.8" Height: 50' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: In grove. 40 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.6" Height: 40' Spread: l0' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: In grove. 14-71 Embarcadero Capita! Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 7 41 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempenrirens) Diameter: 13.5" Height: 50' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: [n grove. 42 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempenrirens} Diameter: 13.5" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: In grove. 43 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 16.5" Heigh#: 50' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Gaod Observation: In grove. 44 _ American~sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 6.5" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 8-feet, poor root environment. 45 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 6.9" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Parking lot provides poor root environment. 46 American sweetgum (Liquidambar siyraciflua) Diameter: 8.4" Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 47 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua} Diameter: 6.8" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bleeding trunk at 6-feet on northeast side. 48 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 8.2" Height: 35' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limbs create weak attachments. 49 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 9.5" Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limbs create weak attachments. Poor root area. 14-72 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 8 50 American sweetgum {Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter:. 7.3" Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observe#ion: 54 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 19.7" Height: 50' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Cluster of trees creates grove effect. 52 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: '13.7" Height: 45' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Cluster of trees creates grove effect. 53 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.9" Height: 45' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Cluster of trees creates grove effect. 54 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 16.0" Height: 50' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Cluster of trees creates grove effect. 55 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.6" Height: 45' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Cluster of trees creates grove effect. 56 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.3" Height: 40' -Spread: 9' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low needles discolored from exposure. 57 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diameter: 14.6" Height: 40' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low needles discolored from exposure. 58 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diame#er: 14.6" Height: 45' Spread: l2' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 14-73 Embarcadero Capital Partners i_LC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 9 59 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 10.6" Height: 40' Spread: 6' Condition: Fair to Good - Observation: Sparse canopy. 60 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 11.7" Height: 38' Spread: 8' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low needles discolored from exposure. 61 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.4" Height: 45' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low needles discolored from exposure. 62 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.3" Height: 45' Spread: 10' Condi#ion: Fair to Good Observation: 63 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.3" Height: 45' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low needles discolored ftom exposure. 64 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.0" Height: 45' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor discoloration of low growth. 65 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.5" Height: 40' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor discoloration of low growth. 66 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.9" Height: 45' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 67 Coas# redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.9" Height: 45' Spread: l2' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is slightly sparse, 14-74 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 10 68 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 15.2" Height: 45' Spread: l2' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 69 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 16.4" Height: 45' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 70 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervi'rens) Diameter: 19.8" Height: 55' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 71 Coast redwood (Sequoia semperyirens) Diameter: 17.2" Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 72 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 19.4" Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 73 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 21" Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 74 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.8" Height: 60' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 75 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 8.2" Height: 40' Spread: 30' . Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limbs create weak attachments. 76 American sweetgum {Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 8.1" Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 14-75 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 11 77 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 21.5" Height: 60' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 78 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 24.1" Height: 60' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 79 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.8" Height: 40' Spread: 12` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 80 American swee#gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 7.0" Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limbs create weak attachments. 81 American swee#gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 9.0" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observa#ion: Canopy is slightly sparse. 82 American swee#gum (Liquidambar styracifiua} Diameter: 7.T' Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observa#ion: 83 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea) Diameter: .22.5" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slight phototropic lean. 84 Italian stone pine (Pinus Pinea} , Diameter: 28.6" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 9-feet creates structural defect. 85 Leyland cypress (Cupressus leylandii) Diameter: 7.6" Height: 20' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 14-76 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 12 86 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 8.6" Height: 30' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor deadwood. 87 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 9.1" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor deadwood. 88 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 12.4" Height: 38' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. 89 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 13.0" Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted, heavy leaf drop. 90 Coast live oak.{Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 14.6" Hei'ght:40' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted, heavy leaf drop. 91 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 24.3" Height: 60' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is slightly sparse. 92 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.6" Height: 40' Spread: 20` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Previously topped. 93 London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia) Diameter: 8.3" Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Leaves exhibit symptoms of mildew. 94 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 6.9" Height: 15' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is sparse with branch dieback. 14-77 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 13 95 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 6.7" Height: l2` Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with minor dieback. 96 Flowering plum {Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 8.0" Height: 18' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 97 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera} Diameter: 8.0" Height: 20' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with minor dieback. 98 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua). Diameter: 9.0" Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limb attachments. 99 American sweetgum (Liquidambarsfyraciflua) Diameter: 8.3" Height:-50' Spread: 25' . Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Narrow scaffold limb attachments. 100 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 9.5" Height: 30' Spread: 30' _ Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Root crown decay, Bifurcation at 3-feet creates an inherent defect. 101 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 8.4" Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with branch dieback. 102 European white birch (Betula pendula) Diameter: 12.7, 10.4" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: L.ow branching growth habit creates inherent defect. 103 European white birch {Betula pendula) Diameter: 7.8" Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 14-78 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 14 104 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 20.8" Height: 55' Spread: 50' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 8-feet and narrow scaffold limb attachments create structural defects. 105 Flowering plum {Prunes cerasifera) Diameter: 9.4" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Basal wound south side exhibits decay. 10fi European white birch (Betula pendula) Diameter: 9.8" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcaton at 8-feet creates inherent structural defect. 107 Flowering plum (Prunes cerasifera) Diameter: 8.5" Height: 25' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with branch dieback. 108 Flowering plum (Prunes cerasifera) Diameter: 11.2" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with branch dieback. 109 European white birch (Betula pendula) Diameter: 9.2" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is slightly sparse with minor dieback. 110 European white birch (Betula pendula) Diameter: 11.0" Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Low branching growth habit creates an inherent defect. Dieback of canopy. 111 European white birch (Betula pendula} Diameter: 10.0, 6.3" ~ Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Multi trunk growth defect. Canopy slightly sparse. 112 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood') Diameter: 13.8" Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 7-feet and narrow scaffold limb attachments create structural defects. 14-79 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 15 113 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 6.5" Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Leans 45 degrees to west. 114 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood') Diameter: 17.8" Hei'ght:40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 7-feet and narrow limb attachments create structural weakness. Some dieback. 115 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood'} Diameter: 16.3" Height: 40' Spread: 30` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 7-feet and narrow limb attachments create structural weakness. Some dieback. 116 Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 13.8" Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bifurcation at 7-feet and narrow (imb attachments create structural weakness. Some dieback. 117 European white birch (Befula pendula) Diameter: 6.0" Heigh#: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 118 European white birch (Betuta pendula} Diameter: 6.6" Height: 30' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 119 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervlrens) Diameter: 16.9" Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor browning of needles. 120 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervlrens) Diameter: 11.5" Height: 40' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor browning of needles. 121 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia} Diameter: 15.9" Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor Western Sycamore borer infestation. 14-80 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 16 122 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.8" Heigh#: 50' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy exhibits interior deadwood and has been pruned back from building. 123 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diame#er: 19.8" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor browning of needles. 124 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua} Diametec: 6.0" Height: 35' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 125 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.6" Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slightly sparse canopy with some browning. 126 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.6" Height: 50' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slightly sparse canopy with some browning. 127 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 7.$" Height: 38` Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Observation,: Canopy is sparse. 128 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diameter: 13.8" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor browning of needles. 129 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 10.8" Height: 30' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Tree previously topped. 130 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 12.7" Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is chlorotic. Western sycamore borer infestation. 14 - 81 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 17 131 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 16.2" Height: 38' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Scaffolds exhibit small circular wounds. 132 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 8.5" Height: 35' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy, competes with oak. 133 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diameter: 8.6" Height: 35' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is slightly sparse. 134 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirerrs) Diameter: 6.1" Height: 30' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy. 135 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: ~ 15.4" Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 136 American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Diameter: 7.2" Height: 30' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse canopy with dieback and bleeding canker on trunk. 137 American sweetgum (Liquidambar sfyraciflua) Diame#er: 6.2" Height: 30' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Void of limbs in lower 20-feet. 138 American sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) Diameter: 6.8" Height: 40' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Void of limbs in lower 20-feet. 139 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.0" Height: 45' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 14-82 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 18 140 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 9.1" Height: 40' Spread: l0' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Competes for light with adjacent trees. 141 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 16.2" Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Appears water stressed. 142 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.0" Height: 45' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Appears water stressed. 143 London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia) Diameter: 7.5" Height:40', Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Symptoms of anthracnose, a seasonal blight. 144 Japanese black pine (Pious thunbergiana) Diameter: 7.3" Height: 20` Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Chlorotic needles. 145 Flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera) Diameter: 7.2" Height: 22' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Heavy dieback and bleeding canker on trunk. 146 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 19.1" Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Limited root environment. 147 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.3" Height: 50' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Goad Observation: Limited root environment. 148 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.2" Height: 40' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Limited root environment. 14-83 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 19 149 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 13.2" Height: 20' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Roots damaging curb. 150 Red ironbark (Eucalypfus sideroxylon) Diameter: 15.9" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: History of limb failure. 151 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 27.1" Height: 50' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy is one-sided. 152 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 16.7" Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits interior deadwood. 153 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 19.0" Height: 50' Spread: 30' . Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits interior deadwood and branch dieback. 154 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: ~ 16.9" Height: 53' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Exhibits interior deadwood and branch dieback. 155 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 12.5" Height: 50' Spread: l5` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Codominant leaders create a structural defect. Sparse canopy. 156 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 22.2" Height: 50' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slightly sparse canopy with some deadwood. 157 Monterey pine (Pious radiafa) Diameter: 23.7" Height: 55' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Void of !ow limbs. 14-84 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 20 158 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 21.5" Height: 50' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Canopy exhibits interior deadwood. 159 Monterey pine {Pious radiata) Diameter: 16.5" Heigh#: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sparse foliar canopy. 160 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 22.7" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Two-inch girdling root. 161 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 24.4" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slight lean towards neighbor's. 162 Monterey pine {Pious radiata) Diame#er: 22.2" Height: 50' Spread: 35` Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Some branch dieback. 163 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 7.9" Height: 35' Spread: l5' Condition: Fair to Gaod Observation: Dead top. 164 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 20.3" Height: 50' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Minor interior deadwood. 165 Monterey pine (Pious radiata) Diameter: 10.5" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slight lean and void of low limbs. 166 Monterey pine {Pious radiata) Diameter: 11.9" Heigh#: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Slight lean. Two-inch girdling root. 14-85 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 21 167 Monterey pine {Pinus radiata) Diameter: 14.9" Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Void of low limbs and exhibits interior deadwood. 168 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 11.8" Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Phototropic lean toward parking lot. 169 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 17.2" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Sequoia pitch moth infestation, slight lean and girdling root. 170 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.8" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 171 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diame#er: 15.5" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 172 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 11.4" Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 173 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 1.0.9" Height: 30' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Bleeding observed on trunk. 174 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifoiia} . Diame#er: 7.0",10.2",4.8" Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: 175 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 42.5" Height: 70' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Tree is over mature with minor dieback. Three leaders divide at 8-feet and create weak structure. 14-86 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 22 176 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 55.9" Height: 85' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typica[ of the species. Tree is surrounded by lawn. 177 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 26.9" Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree is surrounded by lawn. 178 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 43.3" Height: 55' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Previous top failed. Tree is surrounded by lawn. 179 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diameter: 39.7" Height: 75' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree is surrounded by lawn. Parking iot creates a limited root environment. 180 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo-ia) Diameter: 8.9" Height: 14' Spread: 14' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse artd stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 181 Coasf live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 8.2" Height: 12' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Plan#er area provides a limited root environment. 182 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 10.0" Height: 16' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 183 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 12.7" Height: 16' Spread: l8' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 14-87 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 23 184 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens}. Diameter: 28.7" Height: 60' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Tree is surrounded by lawn. Sidewalks create a limited root environment. 185 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 22.2" Height: 30' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Bifurcation at 5-feet creates an inherent structural defect. 186 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 18.8" Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Lawn area and sidewalk are beneath dripline. 187 Saucer magnolia (Magnolia soulangeana) Diameter: 4.4, 3.2, 5.0, 4.1" Multi Trunk Height: 15' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Mufti trunk growth habit is not considered a significant defect at this time. 188 Saucer magnolia (Magnolia soulangeana) Diameter: 4.6, 4.6, 4.1" Multi Trunk Height: 12' Spread: 12' Condi#ion: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Multi trunk growth habit is not considered a significant defect at this time. 189 Saucer magnolia (Magnolia soulangeana) Diameter: 4.4, 4.0, 6.2" Multi Trunk Height: 15' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Multi trunk growth habit is not considered a significant defect at this time. 190 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diame#er: 16.5" Height: 45' Spread: 22' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits interior browning and minor drought stress. Jasmine planter bed surrounds trunk. 191 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diame#er: 13.9" Height: 45' Spread: 22' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits interior browning and minor drought stress. Jasmine planter bed surrounds trunk. 74-88 Embarcadero Capital Par#ners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 24 192 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 16.1" Height: 45' Spread: 22' Condition: Fair . Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits interior browning and minor drought stress. Jasmine planter bed sun'ounds trunk. 193 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 22.5" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 194 Monterey pine (Pinus radiafa) Diameter: 18.2" Height: 45' Spread: 38' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 195 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 13.3" Height: 38' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 196 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 21.8" Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. Red turpentine bark beetle 'infestation observed at root crown. 197 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 38:2" Height: 45` Spread: 30' Condition: Dead Observation: Dead. 198 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 39.7" Height: 50' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor Observation: Severe Red turpentine bark beetle infestation indicates tree is approaching mortality. 199 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 25.9" Height: 3$' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. Red turpentine bark beetle infestation observed at root crown. 14-89 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 25 200 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 31.0" Height: 38' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 209 Flowering cherry (Prunus serruiata) Diameter: 15.9" Height: l2' Spread: 14' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits moderate accumulation of sprouts. Extensive large surface roots observed 4-feet from trunk. 202 Monterey pine {Pinus radiata) Diameter: 33.0" Height: 50' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. Red turpentine bark beetle infestation observed at root crown. 203 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens} Diameter: 14.6" Height: 30' Spread: 18' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 204 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempenrirens) Diameter: 14.7" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 205 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 13.2" Height:2T Spread: l5' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 206 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 11.7" Height: 26' Spread: 14' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typica[ of the species. 207 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 45.6" Height: 50' Spread: 50' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is slightls sparse. Tree is over mature and susceptible to early mortality. 14-90 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 26 208 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 11.5" Height: 25' Spread: 13' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 209 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 11.2" Height: 25' Spread: 13' Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 210 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 12.5" Height: 25' Spread: 13` Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 211 Monterey pine {Pinus radiata} Diameter: 27.4" Height: 40' Spread: 40' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 212 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 16.9" Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. Trunk grows to irregular lean. 213 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 24.7" Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 214 Monterey pine (Pinus radiafa} Diameter: 27.5" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species with minor signs of pine pitch canker. Grows to a slight lean over parking lot. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 215 Monterey pine (Pinus radiafa) Diameter: 8.6" Height: l8' Spread: 18' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 14-91 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 27 216 Manterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 11.6". Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Co dominant leaders have developed at 12-feet. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 217 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 27.0" Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 218 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 23.1" Height: 40' Spread: 40' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 219 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 9.2" Height: 22' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 220 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 6.8" Height: 20' Spread: 12' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. 221 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 33.1" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of tFie species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 222 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Diameter: 28.2" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is sparse and water stressed.. 223 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata} Diameter: 22.3" Height: 38' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 14-92 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 28 224 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 26.3" Height: 40' Spread: 35' , Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 225 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 32.2" Height:' 45' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 226 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) . Diameter: 14.2" Height: 40' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 227 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 21.5" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 228 Monterey pine (Pines radiata) Diameter: 30.2" Low Branching Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 229 Monterey pine {Pines radiataj. Diameter: 24.4" Height: 45' Spread: 40' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Bifurcation at 7-feet creates an inherent structural defect. This species is susceptible to early mortality. 230 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 10.9" Height: l7' Spread: l8' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 231 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 11.1" Height: 14' Spread: l8' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 14-93 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamil#on Page 29 232 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 15.7" Height: 30' Spread: l8' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 233 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 23.0" Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 234 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 12.9" Height: 24' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse. Planter area provides a limited root environment. 235 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 17.5" Height: 24' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Narrow planting strip provides a poor roo# environment. 236 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 13.9" Height: 18' Spread: 18' ' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Narrow planting strip provides a poor root environment. 237 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 13.2" Height: 20' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Mechanical wound on low trunk exhibits callus formation. Narrow planting strip provides a poor root environment. 238 Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina `Modesto Diameter: 16.0" Height: 25' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. 239 American sweet gum Diameter: 10.2" Height: 40' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Raised planter provides a poor root environment. 14-94 Embarcadero Capital Partners LAC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 30 240 Modesto ash {Fraxinus velutina `Modesfo~ Diameter: 10.5" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Grows to a phototropic lean. 241 Modesto ash {Fraxinus velutina `Modesto Diameter: 15.3" Height: 35' Spread: 35' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. 241a Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina `Modesto Diameter: 7.2" Height: 18' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Grows to a phototropic lean. 242. Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina `Modesto Diameter: 6.5" Height: l8' Spread: l6' Condi#ion: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. 243 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 17.0" Height: 38' Spread: l6' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 244 Coast redwood {Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 14.5" Height: 37' Spread: l4' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 245 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Diameter: 17.2" Height: 38' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species. 246. Raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa `Raywood~ Diameter: 8.0" Height: 12' Spread: l5' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Girdling roots. Grows to a slight lean. 14-95 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: iNr. John Hamilton Page 31 247 Evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Diameter: 24.5" Height: 45' Spread; 45' Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Canopy exhibits a moderate accumulation of deadwood. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Extensive surface roots observed. 248 Evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Diameter: 16.8" Height: 40' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor to i=air Observation: Canopy exhibits a moderate accumulation of water sprouts. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Extensive surface rooting observed.Grows to a lean over Bubb Road. 249 African sumac (Rhus lancea) Diameter: 17.3"_ Height: 18' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback and a heavy accumulation of epicoral growth. 250 African sumac (Rhus lances) Diameter: ~ 16.7" Height: l2' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback and a heavy accumulation of epicoral growth • Young establishing trees in parking lot and on the perimeters include: Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 62 trees Brisbane box Tristania confen`a 19 London plane tree Plafanus acerifolia 34 Hornbeam Catpinus betulus 20 Chinese efm Ulmus parvifolia 4 American sweet gum Liquidambarstyraciflua 26 Bradford pear Pyres calleryana `Bradford' 27 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 21 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 28 Saucer magnolia Magnolia soulangeana 2 Pittosporum Piftosporum undulatum 25 14-96 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton Page 32 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 'snjuries 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 mandafory. 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 dripline area as practical. These barricades will be placed around individual trees andlor groups of trees as the existing environment dictates. The temparary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from mechanics[ 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. 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 fwenty-four (24J 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. ' 14-97 Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr..lohn Hamilton Page 33 Fertilization A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended with applications in spring and summer for those trees to be impacted by construction. Such fertilization will serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset shocklstress 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 the trees on site and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the period of May 15t through October 31$'. 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 lesseh moisture evaporation from soil, protect and encourage adventitious roots and minimize possible soil compaction. Inspection • Periodic inspections by the Sife Arborisf are recommended during construction activities, particularly as frees are impacted by trenching/grading operations. lnspections 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. All written material appearing herein constitutes original and unpublished work of the Arborist and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Arborist. 14-98 ~~ a~ Embarcadero Capital Partners LLC Attention: Mr. John Hamilton ~„~ Page 34 We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concems. Should you have any questions, or i# we may be of further assistance in these concerns, kindly con#act our office at any time. Very truly yours, McCI. CONSULT , LLC JHMc: pm By: n H. Mc ~ a r ESA Board Certfied Master Arborist, WE-1476B member, American Society of Consulting Arborists 14-99 Resultsway Prepared by Studio Five Design, Inc. Tres Allocation Summary - Date: 6/24/48 Required Trees > 6" cal. Remain Remove Transplant Replacement Size Qty, 1 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Box Tree 2 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 3 X 24" Box Tree 2 4 X 24" Box Tree 2 5 X 24" Box Tree 2 6 X 3fi" Box Tree 1 7 " X 24" Box Tree 2 8 - X 9 ~~ X 10 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Box Tree 2 11 X 12 X 13 X 24" Box Tree 2 14 X 36" Box Tree 1 15 X 36" Box Tree 1 16 X 24" Box Tree 2 17 X 36" Box Tree 1 18 X 36" Box Tree 1 19 ~X 24" Box Tn:e 2 20 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Box Tree 2 21 " X 24" Box Tree 2 22 X 36" Box Tree 1 23 X 36" Box Tree 1 24 X - 24" Box Tree 1 25 X 24" Box Tree 2 26 X 24" Box Tree 2 27 X 24" Box Tree 2 28 X 36" Box Tree 1 29 X 24" Box Tree 2 30 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Box Tree 2 31 X 3fi" Box Tree 1 32 " X 24" Box Tree 1 33 X 24" Box Tree 1 34 X 24" Box Tree 1 35 X 24" Box Tree ~1 ~ X 24" Box Tree 1 37 X 24" Box Tree 2 38 X 24" Box Tree 2 3g X 24" Bax Tree 2 40 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Box Tree 2 41 X 24" Box Tree 2 42 X 24" Box Tree 2 43 X 24" Box Tree 2 ~ X 24" Box Tree 1 45 " X 24" Box Tree 1 ~ X 24" Box Tree 1 47 X 24" Box Tree 1 ~ X 24" Box Tree 1 4g " X 24" Box Tree 1 50 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for s¢e 8 species X 24" Box Tree 1 51 X 3fi" Box Tree 1 52 X 24" Box Tree 2 53 X 24" Box Tree 2 ~ X 24" Box Tree 2 " 55 X 24" Box Tree 2 ~ X 24" Box Tree 2 57 X 24" Box Tree 2 58 . X 24" Box Tree 2 59 " X 24" Box Tree 1 60 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size 8~ species X 24" Box Tree 1 61 " X 24" Box Tree 2 62 X 24" Box Tree 1 14 - 100 ~ '~ X 24" Box Tree 2 ~ X ~ 24" Box Tree 1 65 66 67 " 68 " „ 69 " 70 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species 71 " 72 " 73 " 74 " 75 " 76 " 77 " 78 " 79 " 80 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size ~ species 81 " 82 " N 83 " ~ " ~~ 85 " ~ ~~ „ 87 " 88 " 89 " 90 See Survey l~wgJ Arborist Report for size & species 91 " 92 " 93 " ~ " ., 95 " ~ ,~ ,. s7 " " 98 ~ " 99 " 10 See Survey DwgJ Ari~orist Report for size & species IOi " 102 " 103 " 104 " • 105 " " 106 " " 107 " 108 " 109 ^ 110 See Survey DwgJ Arbortst Report for size & species 111 " 112 " 113 " 114 " 115 " 116 " 117 " 118 " 119 " 120 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species 121 " )( 122 " 123 " 124 ~ " 125 " 126 " 127 ^ ~8 ~~ „ _9 " 130 See Survey lhvg./ Arborist Report for size & species 131 " 132 " 133 " 134 " X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X ~ 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 48" Box Tree 1 X 48" Box Tree i X 48" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree •1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X ~ 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Bax Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X 36" Box Tree 1 X . 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 48" Box Tree 1 X X 24" Box Tree 14 -1101 X 24" Box Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 1 135 X 24" Box Tree 2 136 X 24" Box Tree 1 137 X 24" Box Tree 1 138 X 24" Box Tree 1 139 X 24" Box Tree 2 140 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 24" Sox Tree 1 141 X 24" Box Tree 2 142 X ~ 24" Box Tree 2 143 X 24" Box Tree 1 144 X 24" Box Tree 1 145 X 24" Box Tree 1 146 X 147 X 148 X 149 X 150 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 151 X 152 X 153 X 154 " " X . 155 " " X 156 X 157 X 158 X 159 ~ X 160 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 161 X 162 " X 163 X 164 " X 165 X 166 X 167 " x 1sa " " x 169 X 170 See Survey Dv/g./ Arborist Report for size & species X 171 " " X 172 X 173 X 174 X 175 X 176 X 177 X 178 " X 179 X 36" Bax Tree 1 180 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size ~ species X 24" Box Tree 1 181 X 24" Box Tree 1 182 X 183 X 184 X 185 X 186 X 187 X 188 " " X 189 " " x 190 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 191 X 192 X 193 X 194 X 195 X 196 X 197 X 36" Box Tres 1 198 X 199 X 200 See Survey DwgJ Arborist Report for size & species X 201 X 202 X 14 - 102 203 X 204 " X 205 X 206 X 207 X 2os ~ " x 209 " " ~ X 210 See Survey ihvg./ Arborist Report for size 8, species X 11 X G12 X 213 " X 214 X 215 X 216 X 217 X 218 X 219 X 220 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 221 X 222 X 223 X 224 X 225 X 226 " " x 227 " " x 22s " x 229 X 230 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 231 " X 232 X 233 X 234 " X 235 X 236 „ " X 237 X 238 " X '"i9 n " y 0 See Survey Dwg./ Arborist Report for size & species X 141 " X 242 X 243 X 244 .' X 245 X 246 " " 247 " 248 " 249 " 250 " Summary: Trees > 6" cal. (>6" =(1) 24" Box, >12" (2) Box) Summary: Trees >18" cal. Summary: Heritage Tree X 24" Box Tree 1 X 36" Bax Tree 1 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 X 24" Box Tree 2 24" Box Tree 959 36" Box Tree 28 48" Box Tree 4 14 - 103 Required Trees < 6" cal. Remain Remove Transplant Replacement Size Qty. {62) Sequoia sempervirens X (19) Tristania conferta X 24" Box Tree 19 (34) Platanus acerifolia X 24" Box Tree 34 (20} Carpinus betulus X 24" Box Tree 20 (4) Ulmus parvifolia X 24" Box Tree 4 (26) Liquidambar styraciflua X 24" Box Tree 28 (27) Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' X 24" Box Tree 27 (14) Acer palmatum X (7) Acer palmatum X (20) Lagerstroemia indica X (8) Lagerstroemia indica X {2) Magnolia soulangeana X {25} Pittosporum undulatum X 24" Box Tree 25 Summary: Trees < 6" cal, _ 24" Box Tree 130 Total Trees Req'd 321 (24", 36" 8~ 48" Box) Total Trees to Remain 198 Total Trees Transplanted 17 Total Trees Removed 303 14 - 104 ARBOR RESOURCES Exhibit C ._ . _ professional consult+ng arbor+sts and tree'ca AN ARBORIST REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED .AT ~ RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepared by: David L. Bobby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B . July 11, 2008 p. o, box 25295, son mateo, cal+fornia 94402 emai{: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.335 I fax: 650.240.0777 I+censed contractor #796763 14 -105 Dm~id L. Bobby, Registered Consulting.4rborist July 11, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 2.0 REVIEW OF TREES ........................................................ 2 3.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS ....................... 4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 7 4.1 Design Guidelines ............................................................... 7 4.2 Protection Measures for Before and During Development ..............10 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT TITLE A PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index) i 14 - 106 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting.4rborist July 11, 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to review the tree-related impacts associated with a proposal for site improvements at 1 Results Way, Cupertino, California. Tasks performed for my review are as follows: ^ Review the report by Mr. Sohn McClenahan of McClenahan Consulting LLC, dated June 16, 2008. Evaluate the condition of each tree inventoried for Mr. McClenahan's report; my observations were obtained during site visits on 7!7/08 and 7/9/08}. ^ Tally all other trees that are not presented in Mr. McClenahan's report but located on the subject site. ^ Review the following plans (not dated) provided to me by the City: Sheets 01.00, C2.00, C3.00, L1.0 and L1.1. ^ Measure the trunk diameters of trees that are regarded as "specimen trees"t and contained within the grouping of numbers 1 thru 174 (diameters were obtained at 54 inches above grade or where most appropriate to obtain a representative sample of trunk size}; diameters are rounded to the nearest half of an inch. ^ Obtain photographs of the "specimen trees" and three redwoods of substantial size; these can be viewed in Exhibit A. ^ UtiIize tree numbers derived from Sheet LI.1 (Tree Disposition Plan), as well as rectangular, aluminum tags affixed (by others) to most of the trees' trunks. ^ Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information, and provide recommendations to help mitigate or avoid anticipated impacts to trees that will be retained, relocated or removed. Pursuant to Appendix B of Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 1 Results Jd~ay, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page. l of 13 14 - 107 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2008 2.0 REVIEW OF TREES Mr. McClenahan's report presents the size and general condition of 251 trees located at the site. They are sequentially numbered as 1-241, 241a and 242-250, and most all are non-native specimens planted as part of the tree landscape. The locations of each, but #241a, can be viewed on Sheet L1.1. My site assessment reveals the following 13 trees have been removed from the site: #94, 101, 105, 107-110, 113, 117, 118, 144, 145 and 197. As such, the existing amount of inventoried trees remaining on-site is 238. In addition to the 238 trees, I tallied 314 existing trees2 of 15 various species located throughout the site. These trees are young, are snore -recently installed, and have trunk diameters ranging between approximately 2 and 8 inches. Those in the rear parking lot appear predominantly in decline, dying or dead due to a lack of water, whereas the majority of all others appear vigorous. Combining remaining trees inventoried for Mr. ~McClenahan's report with other existing trees tallied by me, the total tree count equals 552. There are also i0 additional privets (small in .size) situated along the west side of Building 5, immediately south of tree #121. These trees are fast-growing, sprout profusely, and are typically not planted (to some extent, can be regarded as weeds). As such, I have not included them in the count of additional trees. Note the proposed design implies their removal. . Also, note that as inventoried or tallied trees are likely to have either been planted as a condition of approval for the existing development, or for an approved tree removal permit application, most all can be considered protected trees (i.e. regulated) pursuant to the z They include the foi[owing: 64 coast redHrood, 3 fern pine, 18 Brisbane box, 37 London plane, 28 American sweetgum, 26 Bradford pear, 21 Japanese maple, 42 crape myrtle, 1 saucer magnolia, 30 pittosporum, 1 Raywood ash, 25 hackberry, 11 flowering plum, 5 white birch, and 2 oleanders. I Results Way, Cupertino Page 2 of.13 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14 - 108 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist July 11, 2008 following definition set forth in Section 14.18.035C of the City's Municipal Code: "Any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action in all zoning districts." The information contained within the report for trees #1 thru 174 reflects Mr. McClenahan's observations derived for his 11/10/04 report. Observations of trees #175 thru 250 (including #241a) were derived for his most current report. Trees regarded as "specimen trees" at this site include the following coast live oaks: #8, 9, 11, 12, 88-90, 121, 130, 131, 149, 174, i85 and 230-237. Photos of each tree are presented in Exhibit A. Trees #176, 178 and 179 are three, seemingly healthy and stable coast redwoods located along the north side of Building 1 (see photos in Exhibit A). Their respective trunk diameters are 55.9, 43.3 and 39.7 inches. Based on their large size and vigorous condition, these trees appear to provide significant value to the existing tree landscape, and should be regarded as highly noteworthy of being designed around and protected. Due to the time frame in which trees #1 thru 174 were inventoried (nearly four years ago), their conditions and size have changed. Regarding condition, the most notable changes are as follows: ^ Tree #11 appears in significant decline as evidenced by its very sparse canopy. ^ Trees #87 and 95 are nearly dead. ^ .Tree #106 has a dead top. ^ Trees #63, 81, 111, 114, 115, 132, 141, 142, 155, 164 and i67-169 have declined significantly and appear beyond recovery. ^ Trees #130, 131 and 149 have been overpruned, and consequently, their structural integrity and form have been adversely impacted. ^ Trees #136 thru 138 are dead. 1 Results Way, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 3 of 13 14 -109 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting~rborist July 11, 2008 Regarding size, the trees' trunk diameters for, living trees have also increased by an estimated one to two inches. To establish the current diameter of specimen coast live oaks previously measured in 2004, I measured their trunks during my recent site visits and identified the following diameters: #8 - 29 inches; #9 - 23 inches; #11 - 17.5 inches; #12 - 23 inches; #88 - 14.5 inches; #89 - 13.5 inches; #90 - 16 inches; #121- 18 inches; #130 - 13.5 inches; #131 - 17.5 inches; #149 -14 inches; and #174 -multi-trunks of 16, 7.5 and 4.5 inches. 3.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS Sheet L1.1 identifies that the following 135 remaintt~~ing trees would be removed to accommodate the. proposed desiggn: #1-7, 10, 13-93915-1001102-104~06;~111, 112, 113 t7-t~Q t 4'F f ~-1'I'} 1 g0 114-11~~119, 120, 122-130 132-14~,~179,A181 and 246-250 {see Section 2.0, second paragraph, for the' ~st bf trees ~lread~ removed}. Based on the trees' species, condition, and/or size, the loss of all but #8$, 89 and 179 seemingly conforms to the City's Ordinance for development purposes. ^ Trees #88 and 89 are coast live oaks with trunk diameters 14.5 and 13.5 inches, respectively. They are situated adjacent to another and within the footprint for the proposed parking garage. My observations reveal both appear in only fair overall health, however, seem viable and stable. As such, and given their moderate size, they should be relocated rather than removed. ^ Tree #179 is a very large and healthy coast redwood with a trunk diameter of 39.7 inches. To retain and sufficiently, protect this tree, the proposed parking lot immediately north of Building 2 requires revision so no soil cuts, overcut, fill, trenching or compaction occurs within the existing unpaved area within a minimum of 17 feet from the tree's trunk (closest edge). Note that this and alI other setbacks specified in this report are based on Mr. McClenahan's 1 Results Way, Cupertino Page 4 of 13 City of Cupertino Community Developmenf Department 14 - 110 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2008 recommended tree protection zone (hereinafter "TPZ") of five times a trunk diameter. However, these setbacks do not account for any overcut or fill required to construct a curb, gutter, hardscape, foundation, wall or other feature, and must be designed to be at least 24 to 36 inches beyond to achieve assurance that the setbacks can be achieved. For example, in the case of tree #179, any proposed feature must be designed at least I9 to 20 feet from the closest edge of its trunk to maintain the minimum TPZ of 16.5. Sheet L1.1 also identifies that three trees would be relocated rather than removed; they include #12, 131 and 174. ^ Tree #12 is a large and healthy coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 23 inches. It is situated within the proposed street. The relocation of this tree appears feasible, although its vigor and Iife span can be expected to be impacted. To promote its longevity, attentive care before, during and following relocation is essential; additional measures to employ for its relocation are specified in Section 4.0 flf this report. ^ Tree #131 is a coast live oak with a trunk diameter of 17.5 inches. It is situated within a future parking lot. This tree appears healthy and vigorous, unfortunately, has been severely overpruned in a manner that does not conform to City or professional standards. Based on this information, I do not fnd the tree to be a suitable candidate for relocation; rather, its removal should be permitted, and a new tree of 48-inch box size installed as mitigation. ^ Tree #174 is another coast live oak. It is situated along the edge of the future parking, and is comprised of multiple trunks with diameters of 16, 7.5 and 4.5 inches. Its canopy appears somewhat sparse, and its multiple trunks form weak attachments. For these reasons, I also do not advise its relocation; rather, I suggest its removal be permitted, and a new tree of 48-inch box size installed as mitigation. 1 Results Way, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Departmezzt Page S of 14 - 111 Dcn~id L. Gabby, Registered Consulting.4rborist ~ July Il, 2008 Although intended for retention, trees #8, 9, 11 and 178 would be adversely impacted during implementation of the proposed design. ^ Trees #8 and 9 are relatively healthy and large coast live oaks located on a berm. When considering their size and value, I recommend their protection is increased by expanding the proposed planter area, and omitting parking spaces to achieve no soil cuts, overcut, fill, trenching or compaction within the section of existing unpaved area within 20 feet from their trunks. ^ Tree #11 is a sizeable coast live oak in decline, and its retention is questionable; see photo in Exhibit C, page i, showing its canopy adjacent to a healthy oak, tree #12. If retained, note that the proposed setback is sufficient for a healthy oak of its size (17.5-inch trunk diameter). However, for a stressed tree such as this, I . recommend the parking lot west of its trunk is revised to achieve a minimum 15- foot setback from the trunk for all soil cuts, overcut; fill, compaction and trenching (note the setbacks in all other directions is sufficient}. If its removal is required, I recommend a new tree of 48-inch box size is installed as mitigation. ^ Tree #178 i,s a large coast redwood with a trunk diameter of 43.3 inches. The proposed island is insufficient for protecting this tree's stability and vigor. To achieve this, I recommend the parking design is revised so the existing unpaved area within 18 feet from the tree's trunk is restricted from any soil cuts, overcut, fill, compaction and trenching. Sheet L1.1. is unclear as to whether trees #14b thra 149 can be adequately protected or retained. Per the plan, they are situated within the.proposed or existing wall. I suggest the trunks are accurately Located on the plan, and the design ensures that the existing planter width is maintained, and no horizontal cuts are required for any new or repaired retaining wall (if a new wall is planned, note that it would need to be established 24 to 36 inches north of the existing to avoid soil cuts, and any soil fill between the wall and soil cut to be engineered for a percolation rate of/a of an inch per hour). 1 Results i~ay, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Departure»t Page 6 of 13 14 - 112 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist - July 11, 2008 2. Where beneath a tree's canopy, sail cuts, overcut, trenching, fill and compaction should be restricted to 30 inches from a proposed foundation, retaining wall, curb/gutter and hardscape. 3. Upon availability, I recommend all revised or additional plans are reviewed to verify tree=related impacts. 4. Each proposed site-related plan should contain a note referring the reader to Mr. McClenahan's report, this report, and any subsequent letters or reports with tree protection measures that must be followed throughout development. 5. The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, shall not require water being discharged on unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies. 6. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage); this should be specil:ied on applicable plans. 7. All utilities and services should be routed beyond tree canopies. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring and/or the use of a pneumatic air device {such as an Air-Spade®) must be considered. For boring, the ground above the tunnel(s) must remain undisturbed and the access pits established as far from the trunks as possible, preferably beyond tree canopies. 8. Any walkway proposed within a TPZ should be established on top of existing soil grade with no more than afour-inch vertical soil cut (including for base materials, edging and forms). Direct compaction of the soil subgrade shall be avoided (foot- tamping okay). Soil fill can be used to bevel the raised walk to existing grade, but should be restricted to 24 inches from the edge of walk (and at least 24 inches from the nearest tree trunk). 1 Results l~Yay; Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 8 of I3 14 - 113 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting.4rborist July Il, 2008 Note that the current set of plans does not allow for an accurate assessment of tree- related impacts. To achieve this, the existing conditions (in light font) should be shown with the proposed features (in bold), and the trunk Iocations and accurate canopy dimensions shown. I also recommend the trees are identified (assigned number, trunk location and canopy dimension) on Sheets C2.00 and C3.00, and trees to be retained and relocated (existing and proposed locations) are shown on Sheet L1.0 (accurate trunk locations, assigned numbers and canopy dimensions). As mentioned in Section 2.0 of this report, the 314 additional smaller trees are likely "protected trees" per Section 14.18.035C of the City's Municipal Code. As such, it may be necessary for the plans to be updated to show each tree and specify which specific ones are scheduled for removal (or possible relocation). Regarding proposed replacements, note that the following 10 trees have trunk diameters greater than 12 inches, and one additional 24-inch box size tree would need to be added to mitigate their loss: #32-36, 60, 62, 64, 111 and 129. Note, however, the approximately 320 trees proposed for installation appears sufficient enough to mitigate trees approved for removal, as well as removal of Ilse 314 additional trees. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section are based on the plans reviewed, and serve as guidelines for avoiding or mitigating impacts to trees being retained or relocated. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans, and are subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans. 4.1 Design Guidelines 1. Recommendations presented in the previous section should be followed. I Results YYay, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 7 of I3 14 - 114 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist July 11, 2008 9. Installation of the future curb/gutter within a TPZ should not require horizontal soil cuts between an existing curb and trunk of a retained tree. 10. Table A of Section 14.18.185 the City Code should be used as the framework for determining the size and amount. of new trees to install. The new trees should be proposed and planted beyond 15 feet from the canopies of existing trees and any areas planned for future grading. The trees shall be planted prior to final inspection, double-staked {no cross-brace) with rubber tree ties {may not be necessary for trees of 48-inch box size and larger), and all forms of irrigation of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Additionally, to achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree company, and performed to professional industry standards. 11. The following minimum considerations should be accounted for when determining the types, amounts and locations of trees proposed for installation: their growth rate, size at maturity, growth habit, suitability for a parking lot environment, anticipate life span, susceptibility for insects and diseases, root invasiveness, and proximity to hardscape and buildings. 12. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following guidelines: a. Turf should be avoided beneath the oak trees. As an alternative, I suggest a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips is used. b. Large growing trees should not be installed beneath the canopies of retained trees, and placed' at least 15 feet from existing and proposed foundations. c. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies should be drought-tolerant, limited in amount, and planted at least five to ten feet from a tree's trunk. A source far identifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is as follows: www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf. d. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oak trees and should be avoided. Irrigation for any new plant material beneath an oak's canopy should be low- 1 Results Way, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 9 of 13 14 - 115 Dm~id L. Babby, Registered Consulting flrborist July 11, 2008 volume, applied irregularly {such as only once or twice per week}, and be temporary {such as no more than three years). Irrigation should not strike the trunks of other trees. e. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required within a TPZ, they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If this is not possible, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air_Spade®) to avoid unnecessary root damage. f. Stones and new fencing should be placed no closer than least two feet from a tree's trunk. Additionally, mulch should not be placed against the trunks. g. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. h. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be - established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 4.2 Protection Measures before and during Development 13. In conjunction with recommendations presented in this report, The "Tree Preservation Guidelines" presented in Mr. McClenahan's report should be followed. Where a similar recommendation is provided between reports, the more stringent of the two shall be followed. 14. Prior to any demolition or site clearing, an ISA {International Society of Arboriculture} certified arborist and/or a member of ASCA (American Society of Consulting Arborists) - to be named the "project arborist" -should be retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures. 15. Prior to any demolition or site clearing work, apre-construction meeting should be held on-site -with the project arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, tree removals, staging areas, routes of access, removal of existing hardscape, supplemental watering, mulching, locations for equipment washing pits, relocation of trees, and any other applicable tree protection measures. 1 Results Way, Cupertino Page 10 of I3 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14 - 116 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist July 11, 2008 16. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, ding surface scrag or heavy~e uipment arriving on site, and its precise location and placement approved by the project arborist (in the form of a letter submitted to the City) prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or construction permit. It should be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter . steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until final inspection. Note that the fencing may need to be established in two phases, one for demolition and the other for construction. 17. At the discretion of the project arborist, orange plastic fencing shall be used to protect any low-growing branches at risk of being damaged during development. Trunk wrap protection shall consist of the lower trunks of the trees wrapped to the first branch with two inches thick (about 10 times around) of orange plastic bound by two-inch thick wooden boards tied together on the outside. Limbs may also require wrapping in this fashion to avoid or minimize the risk of damage by large trucks. 18. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be performed outside the designated fenced areas and off unpaved areas beneath the existing tree canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 19. The following shall be displayed on 8.5- by 11-inch signs (minimum) and attached to the tree protective fencing every 50 feet on the side facing construction activities: "Warning -Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty according to Cupertino Municipal Code." These signs should be posted prior to construction. 20. Any approved activity performed beneath tree canopies shall be performed under the knowledge and direction of the project arborist. Unless specifically authorized by the project arborist, all work shall be manually performed using jackhammers, hand tools 1 Results T3~ay, Cupertino City ojCupe~7in.o Community Development Department Page 11 of 13 14 - 117 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting.4rborist July 11, 2048 and wheelbarrows. In the event roots of two inches and greater in diameter are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted. 21. Each recommendation that is presented within Section 4.0 of this report, and applicable to the construction process, shall be followed. 22. Prior to construction, Irecommend athree- to four-inch layer of coarse wood chips ('/4- to 3/a- inch in size) is manually spread on the section of unpaved ground that is beneath the canopies of retained trees {not necessary within 24 inches from proposed structures). The chips should remain throughout construction (and possibly beyond), and must not be placed against the trees' trunks. These wood chips can be obtained from a local tree service company. 23. Removal of existing pavement beneath canopies must be carefully performed so no soil cuts and root/trunk damage occur during the process. I suggest this work is performed under the direction of the project arborist. 24. Immediately (e.g. within one-hour) upon removal of existing pavement beneath a tree's canopy, athree- to four-inch layer of coarse wood chips should be spread on the newly exposed surface and remain moist for atwo-week period. 25. Prior to excavating soil for a foundation, parking garage and curb/gutter, aone-foot wide trench shall be manually dug along the perimeter of these areas tb the required or a 2.5-foot depth, whichever is greater (the purpose of this trench is to expose roots and allow for a clean cut to minimize root loss). The trench should be dug where soil cuts will occur closest to the trunks, and any roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed by hand (such as with Topper or sharp saw) against the side of the trench closest to the tree. All soil inside the trench and below the trench can be excavated using heavy equipment. 2b. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October, supplemental water shall be supplied to retained trees. The specific trees, methodology, frequency, and amounts. specified in Mr. McClenahan's report shall be followed. 1 Results Way, Cupertino Page 12 of 13 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14 - 118 Dm~id L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2Q08 27. All equipment shall be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation. 28. The relocation of trees shall be performed according to the s#andards set forth in ANSI A300 (Part 6)-2005 . Transplanting, and also by a company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role, holds a current California state-licensed contractor's license, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and abides by ANSI 2133.1-2006 {Safety Operations). All recommendations provided by the company for pre-, during, and post-transplant care shall be followed. 29. All tree pruning shall be performed in accordance with the most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should also carry General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and shall abide by ANSI 2133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). 30. Stumps located beneath canopies of retained trees shall be ground below grade rather than pulled up with an excavator and causing unnecessary root loss. 31. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Prepared By: ~~~~ L• David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B Date: July 11, 2008 ~~,,;t, ~ c~u,~,` 1F° 1 A A iY 1 Results Way, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 13 of 13 14 - 119 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2008 EXHIBIT A: PHOTOGRAPHS Photo Index Page C-1: Trees #8, 9, 11, I2, 176, 178, 179 and 185 Page C-2: Trees #88, 89, 90, 180, 181; 182 and 183 Page C-3: Trees # 121, 13 0, 131, 149 and 174 Page C-4: Trees #230 thru 237 1 Results Way, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14 - 120 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2008 1 Results Way, CuZertino, CA Page C-1 CityofCu~rtino CommunityDevelop~:ent Delzxrtment David .G. Babby, RegisteredCansultingArborist Julyll, 2008 1 Results Way, Cu~rtino, C.4 Page C-2 City o fCuFertino Community Develo pr:ent Delxtrtment David L. gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist July 11, 2008 w A N 1 Results Way, CuFertino, CA CityofCulxrtinoCommunityDevelops:entDepxrtment Page G3 David L Babby, Registered Consulting tJrborist Jz~l y 11, 2008 1 Results Way, Culxrtino, CA Page C-4 CityofCulxrtino CommunityDevelo~nent Depzrtment AT&T Yahoo! Mail - cdgplan~apacbell.net Exhibit D ~,~,~3t~C~~ M A I L Classic Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:14:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Larry Cannon" <cdgpian@pacbell.net> Subject: Results Way Office Campus To: "Steve Piasecki" <stevep@cupertino.org> Steve I met with the applicant, architect and landscape architect back on April 24th, and then visited the site. Overall, I think the project looks pretty good. The new site plan and landscaping are well done. The only significant negative impact of the site plan is the loss of many of the mature trees on the eastern portion of the site. At our meeting on April 24, I gave the applicant some initial reactions to the site plan, and we discussed possible approaches. They addressed those issue very well, and I don't have any other site plan issues. The second page of the attachment outlines those initial issues, and the steps they took in addressing them. The only issue that 1 am uncomfortable about regarding the architectural design is the large amount of south, east and west-facing glass. In some cases, the desire to emphasize views to the entries exposes the glass more since there are no screening trees to shade the wall. We discussed that, and the architect felt that positive sun shading devices (e.g., sunshade canopies} would not be effective. They are relying on the type and quality of the glass to reduce energy consumption. Perhaps that wi(1 work, but most office structures of this type that I have reviewed recently, especially in the past six months, have made a major effort at screening window surfaces in a more direct manner with either eyebrows or screen scrims in front of the windows. Partly, this may be a desire to visually emphasize a commitment to energy consumption reduction in a way tha# is not so readily apparent from the use of the glass alone. You may want to discuss that with them further. Let me know if you have any questions or if there are other issues that I missed needing further evaluation. Larry Attachments Fifes: Resuits`Way_REVIEW_052208.pdf {4.7MB) 14 - 125 httn://us.~'8~4.mail.yahoo.combm/ShowLetter?bcx=~entR~M~~Tc#=1 FRS X951 R9F5 1 ~4R5 5/~~/~ftf1S2 - ~ ~ ~~. e _z~. t -r„~.,-~- - x Parking lot and residential to north Existing building at north parking lot Si€e Context RESULTS WAY OFFICE CAMPUS Cupertino CANNON f 'GN GROUP May 22, 2G, Noah West property edge Central entry court Pedestrian path/east edge ::.. _;. _. `East property edge Entry driveway bU1101MlHMXW0l0•T1,{lNLOOIFM ,'~/'~ r yy, . G0 •.•~'~; Parking relocated and visual terminus treated as green space ~a~ ate"- ~ ~ ;4; -... _.. .L _ `/. \.. .' i ~~1~ L//~/jj(j~~y~jjy[~_ILrLr II IIII ~~ff rIr It1t1I I~fIL' Ir~ T ~ ~~ t\ ~1 ~ 1 ~'J i O Vp' ; BVILDIN61 W111~~ I~I~I~III I ~~I I~~-I I1 ~ l.v' i - - ~ t~~- ~ , , lam' ~1~11-I"I Il"~1\~il~frl i~~_.+. Additional trees = C~ ~- ~ I ' -~ ~~ added to parking lot WILWLI_tl.lll_LLLLLI1W11LJ1. ~~~ ~ i. `;~f~~i. ,H~~(~~I~ - _ ~ R ~ B~°'"G ~`H' I~~ hi~f ~-f' ~' - - - - rte- - Tom.-.-4,-T----,- - -•-- - - ~ ~~ ~`~~ ,1 Response Pedestrian linkage ~..,~~ .,,,,~• ~ is still a little weak _ t ~ ~ ~~ ~ + to west side buildings ~ -- ~ ` ~~ ~ ~• ~•-- _ `~ ~ Limited direct edestrian links e Response ~ ' ' >,~~, .~"' ~ ~. ~~.. ,~.::~ : p g '° p~¢ ~ ~ r~c~~J ~'~~'~ between buildings on the two sides 4.., .. ~x+ . ~~'.~i°*- r," ,,;T` Y~~';'yr,~ ~ ~ ail.^~ ~~ ;SS~ ~ , ~r ~ .;.:. z ~ #~~,~~!?~.~,~ 1.,. ,~, ~~ of the entry drive :: .._~.~• ~~iLN~ 1 :: !'J ~ ~~ arlJKi~~i~k '5r~fi~"ri~~i+'~i? >~f ! 3', ~" ; ~ ~ru`~ `. ,,~.,a ~'; ; ~~, ~ `"~ `-~' ~ j ~~ ~~ Pedestrian experience with walkway .~ ? •> ~ ~-=~-z-i1-...:x yrs. .. ~~ ~.... ;~ ~.= b +''~ ~ ~ ~ adjacent to arked cars not as Parking lot would benefit ti • ;~~' °b~J •+~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ -•>•-• ~~ "• ~ ': ~ P from additional trees ns :'j,~+ !i~~li ,I~IIwI•+'i ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~ ~ „~+~ -~~•~ •;I k ~ `i~~~ pleasant here as elsewhere on the plan ~ i; • 1 ~ ;OJ,~;'I~{ iill ~~~,Iill~ Fj 'J•J ~J J JI J} ~J ~"° u J~/~ _ .f +`,~ * ~4~ :{i 1~~ Hj ~ _ .:.I -1.401 L 'l~/"~' r: rl ~.~" .!1 ~r"l ~j ':I 4J~iii+H al ~ t •)~iliif~y h~{`~2~I'/, I ~.I.Li'iL~ ~17,~ VJ 1 ~4~~~ I ,r+ 1C • t - Y' ~. • r` yR.. .H ~,{ ... ,~ `k' 'W - .e` er rf ~ } { ~ .~Vji,~ _`~t`l~"~`1'v'~/ / Y.[_3~, y~.,,rS~.. ~y,~x,o~v, ::.~" ti1d~...1ti+F}Ojl~ :-~Jw[~ I Visual focal point was Response ~~~'~ back end of parked cars ~ .,_. R Q~ 8~,~ ~,;;; A~piicant's Response to Site Plan Comments RESULTS WAY OFFICE CAMPUS Cupertino. CANNON DESIGN GROUP May 22, 2008 ~i ,~ ~ ~~; • ~ %~ Planting pockets and trees added . =~~ ~ ~ between pedestrian way and parked cars _~: ^-~ ~ .~,_ euunil~a ~,14 Substantial expanse south, east, and west facing of glass ~ .._.;, ~ - ,,..~- -~~~. ~ . _. ,_ k r ~ '~ 1 ~~ ~J Aj ~, ~-~ I~j ~ ' :`~(1 ,e."M' ;A ~ ~ M Rj Tl yffl'Y a w~'r".I'J{7 xyln ~f~ `"°'° ~~ .: .. Ey § ( •'R HI ,~"I ~Y9 ~ burl ~t~ f - -~.IC x~. , rJ -;. ~l. 8p~. ~ ^, ;I:.~}' iii ~s~J.. ~*r!u~°~ ~4i ~.d I_' v ~i ;C ;~ ,~ IUD I~ - ~ ~ L ~ f ~ ~' ~ 1 ~ ~ -- ... ,: ~,,~]~$ dJ -.~ ~! ll._I~; II Hll~ .f. b t W ,~, irJi ~~ w i{~j~ .ICJ 'L ~ J U ~ ^, •. f~'.1~,1 ..I ~ f a~' .+!i ~ yi J~,i:t~ I I ~'i: vu ir<r ~~Is ..I.~ .! r t,c)" ~ r,,.y r _-I~4`~~~' ~~ ,.Ny11N. ;. r'' v r w i" ~r it~ # .1~s s ~ +,~SI f!~}'~.•~F:~t4~f .J•'v ~~/"V....~,,. _?.~.. ..,f~t.,R.,;~-~ ~'J~!'..:v:`:;1'it~ ., w ''',~~'+Jl~~ "rpr '''fi ',H''~i... ~ umev~a`um~n« Sf~e Plan /Architectural Issues RESULTS WAY OFFICE CAMPUS Cupertino CANNON IGN GROUP May 22, 2G~., Substan#ial expanse south, east, and west facing of glass I_ _I Substantial Substantial expanse south, expanse south, east, and west east, and west facing of glass _ facing of glass Colin Jung ~H1BIT E From: Ted Korth [tkorth@ksha.corn] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:45 PM To: cdgplan@pacbell.net; Steve Piasecki; Colin Jung; 'Allison Yiu'; 'Blake Reinhardt'; 'Debbie Blehm ; 'Ed Shaffer'; 'Greg Hagey'; 'John Hamilton ;sharpy@comcast.net; tim@karedev.com Subject: Results Way Design Comments Larry, Thank you very much for your design review comments. We are very happy that you are pleased with the design direction for the project. I thought that I should write to better explain our proposed design regarding the extent of glazing on the project. The buildings have been designed to incorporate several exterior wall systems to create architectural variety and interest, while accenting key areas of the buildings and the site. We have specified very high performance glass for the project. The proposed glass system is a spectrally selective, low e, tinted, double glazed system that is very effective in reducing solar glare and heat loading to provide a very comfortable interior workspace. We have designed the project to respond differently to solar conditions on each elevation of the proposed buildings. The south facing vision glass will be shaded by projecting horizontal sunshades which is a very effective solution to control solar heat gain and glare. The limited areas of the east and west elevations that are primarily clad with glass have limited areas of actual vision glass, with 50% of these exteriors walls composed of colored opaque spandrel glass {which will be fully insulated), with the remaining 50% a spectrally selective, low e, tinted, double glazed system. Of the 50% area of the wall that is vision glass, 2$% to 30% of this area will be fritted with a 50% dot screen pattern that will further reduce any solar exposure. I have attached a drawing with notes to better describe this design. In addition, trees are proposed directly adjacent to Building A to provide additional shading for these areas. The areas composed of colored opaque glass and vision glass will provide variety and interest to the project, while accenting important areas of the buildings, including the building entrances, the cafe, and the building comers that combine to create a gateway between buildings B and C. While the exterior wall system in these areas is primarily composed of glass, only a limited area is actual vision glass, and the vision glass is a very high performance product. We feel that this exterior design feature is very important part of the design and that the interior space will provide a pleasant work environment with expansive natural light. I hope that this explanation is helpful. Please feel free to call or email if you have any further questions. Thank you. fed Ted Korth Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects 650 California Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415-954-1960 x230 14 - 129 6/20/2008 •] ~~ fl ~~ti 0 Qo-> pvs Y O S 7 v A f~ S O I m~ .. ..... PANTED NONZONTAL AIUMNUH FIR M. PAOITED ALUaINUM PANEL PAMiFD NDwzaNrK ALUMNM PIR rn. '' '•r :} 2 i-: e..Jt yl Y'.~'.~a4 Yy~ti.' Y~~ r'r;Vt.-5 ~ -i ~ a 3~ ,~ '~"•'p!'4 .~.s i . iC~S~ .+e ~ SPANDReL I11911LATIN6.6LAZIN6 UNIT. sx -`',r ''u u- y, ~~ ~~~ i ` ti~ ~'?'r [ k'S' J -~"i ceceR.timc Pwr aN .s , r , 4' d K >f '' .Y ~f J~f t ai dy 1 j : ~ ? ~~i~~ ~ ~Y:: 4i ~ l„e 3 a. D F~ F i, *k, ~ 1 •~ . I D•i. 4• - ... .• .. W ... PLANTED HORROMAL ALUMRR7 PIN. M. ~~ , s~ - t-u.cAn IN~1nrnNC 6L.AZING Wrc nnTl .:• Dor Fwr oN .~ suaPACe _ _ _ # ~ 4 IN9lLAlEO 6LAZIN6 WIY PANTED AUMlNUM PRAFAN6 9Y8i.h4 M. 9PANDRIX. iNEIA-A11N6 bLAZINi WIT. OPAOIR CERAMIC PRIT OK +< 51MPAGL ~ ~ ... ~.;#; ~A , ~ ;. ~ t `~ ~-:1 .'w I ALIT-nNUrl PIR Trr. ~_:~ E .- of S 3 ` ~ ..' ~ ~~ :_, .~ { ~' f .....SPANDREL 1N8ULATM9 BLAZIRi UNT. ~ ~ i 4 Y ! l y..~ ;~ roi ~~ ~f3„T~} J a h r FT T tik.: OP/Y]IIE CERAMIC IRIT ON 114 ' 9U(WAOE ` l . 44 ur . T .~ T ~ .._ ..'. ...' ' ... .... _. .. .. .. . _ PAINTED NOIOZONTAL ALUMINUM FIN, M. '+ I ,r - Ir CLEAR NS1LAnNe 6LAZINO YN17''rfTN 1,., ,~ , S , ~ M Dar rRlr DN a su'PACe . . ... _ (N7ILATED 6L.A2016 UNIT yam, ~-PAOTTED AUMINUM PR.ANINB sY'STlR ~` _ .: ~ } _- ~ . a ,_. h _IX } ..4^^--9PANDREI_ tNSU-ATMfr bLA21H6 WIT. ff OPAfiIE OERArNG PRIT ON r4 d 1. +t S .. , ~tif i ' SURFACE. ~--PAINTED ALIMIWM PLAfMNs ~ PMNTPD NDRIZONTAL AIaMNUM FlR M. PAIHTEO Al17r71N1M PANEL Ywa PAINTED NOPJZONTAL ALUlMNUM PIN, T1T. LIANDREL INEUTATR# 6LAZIN6 UNIT, OFAGUE CERAMIC PRIT ON .4 ssuwACe. f-PAINED NORIZOKTAL ACUMIN.M FM, rn. LLEAR IN71AAnN6 6LAZIN6 WIT MTN DOT PRIT ON !3 S'AJRPK.E It181LATEO IXJ,ZIN6 WK --vsencAL sT®I. cowrnN eerarm DLADDIIK CY TENANr. PAINED ALUMINUM PR.4TMQ, SY TE ~TYP. /~xANOrtEL IN9ULAnN6 ®LAZI / OPAdJE CERAMIC PRIT ON ~ / 54APPA .E. PAINiID NONZONT ALlaxwrs Ff<rn. SPNmRLR, xs1IL N6 OPAOUE GE PR SAGE ~-•'- PANTED NORI ONE Nll•11RR'I M rn C81LINr tf ~•'~'~ CLEAR 1 UNIT WTN DOT FRI7 ON I 6 T . TI UMN OE'f , A T. PAI, 1 N11M FRAMRQ6 SY3TGIR TTP. SP .4NSULAnN6 AZM6 WIT: Op/.04.F RAMIG FRI~ON r4 m. A) ENLAROEO ELEVATION IVI B) ENLARGED SECTION ,la v>•+~Y ~ v% 0)6 1s~a71>a.l~ 4Lett wow {s v1s)o~J ~r.,.6.slf -7uxi on~ltYs 50°/• !s v1°,44JY c~LOYt~1D ti1.,4s~• j1! f71~ '73~1t ~/iflo.L,l ti~st i 2'a % 7'•e ~°°~o 15 i7a7 SGIZ1~i1J p'1~S'77Ysb hJW~{G).ls 5°~~° DJ~ ltilrQ~f. p EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC sCALE: tla• = r-a• -+ KORTH SUNSER[ HA6EY ARCHITECTS RESULTS WAY CAMPUS ~ NEW BUILDINGS: WINDOW WALL ELEVATION.lSECT10N p Yn.:ir ::rru~ m r.mrrn i~'O=i :~irei::rce. c.ureewue iee°i CUPCB71N0. CA 06/08NE I4MNNNMNNIMYRWLM/MA,OrwOMCM111VRMY,1tIM IPNY,eae•[4MrolrtN+xwwM01'NMNrr0.l.CN0YC10{10N11ENNR,W m1v=onianMARf . Exhibit B - 2 ~~ N~XAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. MEMORAI~IDUIVI TO: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino . FROM: Gary Black Sandi Domingue Clu~istine Young DATE: September 5, 2008 SUBJECT: Level of Service Analysis for One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a level of service analysis for the One Results Way project. The project is located near the southwest quadrant of the McClellan RoadBubb Road intersection in Cupertino, California. This level of service analysis is a follow-on to the trip generation analysis completed in June 200$ for this project. The purpose of this level of service analysis is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Cupertino. The traff c impacts of the proposed development were evaluated on key intersections in the vicinity of the site during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of street traffic. The key intersections are as follows: Stevens Creek BoulevardBubb Road Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 SB Ramps* Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 NB Ramps* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road* Bubb Road/Results Way • McClellan Road/Stelling Road McClellan Road/Bubb Road McLellan RoadByrne Avenue (unsignalized) Bubb Road/Hyannisport Drive (unsignalized) Asterisk (*) denotes CMP intersections. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the typical weekday AM and PM peak commute hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes were obtained from CMP counts and peak hour turning- movement counts conducted in May 2008. These volumes represent the existing development at its current Level of occupancy. • Background Conditions: Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing volumes the projected volumes to represent the existing development at full occupancy. • Project Conditions; Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts - 14 - 131 Mr. Colin Jung September 5, 2008 Page 2 of 3 The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to City of Cupertino and CMP level of service standards (see Table 1). All of the study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions and would continue to do so with the project. Despite the impression of congestion in the morning due to the schools in the area, by objective measurements of Levels of Service, all intersections operate within the City standard. 14-132 Mr. Colin Jung September 5, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Tablet Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Conditions Peak Count Ave. Ave. Ave. Incr.ln Incr. In Intersection Hour Date Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delay° LOSb Crit Delay Crit V1C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bubb Road AM 5/20/2008 21.0 C 21.1 C 21.1 C 0.2 0.013 PM 5/20/2008 19.4 B 19.8 B 20.0 B 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 SB Ramps* AM 5/21/2008 20.0 B 19.8 B 19.8 B 0.0 0.000 PM 10/5/2006 26.7 C 26.7 C 26.6 C 0.0 0.005 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 NB Ramps' AM 5/20/2008 32.1 C 33.0 C 33.4 C ~ 0.4 0.012 • PM 10/5/2006 34.7 C 34.9 C 35.0 C 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road* AM 5/20/2008 42.9 D 42.9 D 43.0. D 0.0 0.001 PM 10/5/2006 49.9 D 50.2 D 50.3 D 0.2 0.002 Results Way and Bubb Road AM 5!22/2008 3.2 A 6.4 A 7.2 A 0.1 0.001 PM 5/22/2008 11.6 B 16.4 B 17.7 B 1.3 0.031 McCellan Road and Byrne Avenue** AM 5/22/2008 12.2 B 12.3 B 12.4 B n/a n/a PM 5/22/2008 10.0 B 10.1 B 10.2 B n/a n/a McCellan Road and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 26.8 C 27.0 C 28.0 C 0.0 0.002 PM 5/22/2008 26.9 C 27.1 C 27.2 C 0.1 0.008 McCellan Road and Stelling Road AM 5/20/2008 30.8 C 31.0 C 31.1 C 0.1 ,0.004 PM 5/20/2008 31.7 C 32.2 C 32.4 C 0.2 0.006 Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road"* AM 5!22/2008 13.1 B 13.2 B 13.3 B 0.1 0.001 PM 5/22/2008 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.7 A 0.0 0.004 * Denotes CMP intersections • ** Denotes Unsignalized In#ersections Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for ]ntersections con trolled by a signal or four-way stop. At intersections under two-way stop control, average delay Is reported for the worst controlled lane group. b Level of service {based on average delay). M M EXhiblt G ~ ~ City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPA1tTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 2008 TO: Colin Jung, Senior Planner FROM: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer ~/~ SUBJECT: Pedestrian Scramble Phasing at McClellan/Bubb Intersection Public Worlcs does not recommend the implementation of a pedestrian "scramble" phase at the McClellan RoadBubb Road intersection due to the increase in vehicle and pedestrian delays and frustration which would result. A scramble phase is taken to mean a traffic signal phase dedicated exclusively for pedestrians to cross the street, during which time no vehicles are allowed to proceed through the intersection. The reasons a scramble phase is not recommended are as follows: • Vehicle delays along McClellan and Bubb would likely increase, due to less green time available for vehicle movements and the Longer signal cycle length required. Driver frustrations would likewise increase. • Pedestrian delays crossing the street would increase, if pedestrians are not allowed to cross with the corresponding vehicle green phase (which is typically the case for pedestrian scramble phase operations). • Allowing diagonal crossing by elementary- and middle-school-aged children reinforces improper, unusual and, under typical conditions dangerous, intersection crossing behavior. Additionally, if the light changes before a pedestrian has finished crossing the stree#, they are stranded in the middle of the intersection. For these reasons, Palo Alto requires schoolchildren to cross one leg of the intersection at a time during their scramble operations. However, requiring the crossing of one leg at a time further increases vehicle delay due to the longer pedestrian crossing times required. The one safety benefit that would be realized by implementing a scramble phase would be to eliminate conflicts between right-turning vehicles and crossing pedestrians. As indicated above, this benefit would come at the cost of additional delay for vehicles and pedestrians. 14 - 134 PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE VICINITY MAP SITE INFORMATION (EXIST ING R PROPOSE D); BUILDING INFORMATION (EXISTING): BDILDBasaaIDGEANDBUitDIxGSB197o3sDENaIB19tDAxD REPUC SO6YxEweulL aNBB A-c (see d emd8on plea hebw) EXI6TIN0 PROPOSED BUILOINGI BUILDING2 BUILOIXG7 BIHLOB164 'BULOING9 BUILDING V7 rBUILDINGt aBULDIN69 BUILDING IO TOTAL ~ I'~VT BITE AREA: BUILDINGARG (SQ FLr 37,921' 13,311' 31,594• 42,500' 77,578' 33,730' 22,420' 36,894' 47,818' 355,299' NETAAE0. (S0. F7 ANO ACRES) BM7733 sF lte.e4 Aq ee4273esF118.94ACl IN w1DH O93 A0 Olrvef0lY THE wIOENmOOF COCIELLW FLOORAREA RATIO: IFAA~xwexxa~xne xwl 0,044 0.017 O.OW 0.018 O.OBO 0.099 0.028 0.041 0.055 0.411 _ ROAD, ENACTpJBIlCOEDK.ATION WILL ~ BE OETERMNEO AFTERXEKA30N NUNBEROF 9TOPoE8: 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 $ DETERMINES iXE 1PAFRCOE3KrN FOR HEIGHT " ' " ' 0 iNE NCCLBIAN ROAD. : 9D-0 18 -0 24 .p • 23'-1' • 30-0" 28'4Y' 28'-0" 954' 2847' - 0 OR089AREA: eee,510A 3F t1a.e7ACI Bl,Sldd 9Fj18 e7 AC) (FT. MF.1wR®FROM NINPIL O0.NE1 7 Y E R w EfiL (SO. Ff.ANDACRES) BUILDING PAD ELEVATION: WA WA WA WA WA WA N/A WA W0. EN5 C K 5 E E . . - CLgIBELEVATION: 311,4' 341.4' 311,4' 338.4' 740.4' 310.3' 333.1' 338,8' 310,2' - tQ PARNINO: REQUIRED (STALLS): ~ .1ee lue•Xeu.l v,,..xmeael (FOOTPRINT OF ALLE%IS7I G BUILDINGS) . ....... 1B2 3~ ....... ....... ...... ......>. PROJECT SITE T PROVIDED (TOTAL STALL51~ Lz31 1,371 FoRwRTnBt FAnnxo BUILOINO COVERAGE CALCULATKIN (EIIISTINO) _ , _ - 0.Y2 ~~ NETSITE AREA 884,231,8 V ? UNI3RE: MCCIFLLW RD INa oF9TU19AMpwoFrouy w• 1 m ~ ~a u~a E70911NG BUILOINGCOVEAAOE ON THE RESULTS WAY SITE: 72% HANDICAPPED: ~ F A , cA na1 xAx q F N o ALLeI - 34 z BUILDING INFORMATION (PROPOSED) : RESULTS WAY m XOURS OF OPEMTNJN: TYPICAL OFFlCE TYPICAL OFFICE BLOG.HWRS 3 w E BLDG. HWR9 USE: OFFICEIINOUSTRIAL OFFILEIINDUSTRIAL 2RNIx0 DESgNATION: P(MLJ P(ML) PAVING AREA: (SQ. FT. ANO %OF NET LOT AREA) 173,03150. FT. (/B%) 459,285 S0. FT. (52.8%) UNRBCAP! AREA: (S0. FT. AND %OF NET LOT AREA) NOTEB• 24,782 S0. FT. (23%) 228,07130. FT (281%) BUILOINOI BUILDIN02 BUILDIN07 BUILOIN01 PBUILDIN06 IRI BUILDINOA (N)BWLOINOB IN)BUILOINOC TOTAL BUILDING AREA ISO. FT.I: 37,821' 23,371' 34,594' 42,fi00' 7321fi^ 61,270" 51,886' S1,B85" 393,311" FLOOR AREA RATIO: IFA9. a44nx~mxwewYl 0.014 0.027 0.040 0.019 0.085 0.0~ 0.080 0.080 0.423 NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 XEIGNT: 3C4Y' 26'-0" 24'-0" 23'-1" 30.0" 18-0"' 29-0'^ 28-0"' Pr. pEAP.I I®FROM wTURU oRAaEp BUILDING PAD ELEVATION: NIA WA NIA WA WA 3345" 336^ 335^ - CURBELEYATAIN: 341.4' 341.4' 341.4' 338.4' 335.8" 334,5" 375.8" 395.8^ - 9wemremnenenxm Neal ^ ^ ~ ^ m V4CINITY MAP 5 ADDRE88: 1 RESULTS WAY, CUPERDNO, CA PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER ARCHRECT EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC KORTH SUNSERI MAGEYARCHITECTS 13018HOREWAY ROAD, SUITE 260 650 CALIFORNIA STREET, /TH FLOOR BELMONT, CA 91002 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84108 BURRING 8 RENOVATONSYRLL BE 'AIL C•ICWalgnefor mnetlng BuiNinga l-f0 ere darned enBely fromerumherdpeN Saunxe COMPLETED UNOERABEPARATE PERNR. Tel: 850.329.9074 Tel: /16R54.1B80 dawmentllry 9M hulNinge. NONl ofNeee cakuMtlaro hew hewn wd9ed by Kath9uneM HRgey Fa'. 850.323.1603 Fez 41b.954.18T0 »~~~ (FOOTPRINTOF ALL E%ISTING ANO PROPOSED BUILDINGSe FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED GARAGEI (20913398,029) CekuNtlone en e9orevlmab and ere based on echeme8c dnwinge. Thgeereee erR whjedro BUILDING COVERAGECALCUUTNIN IPRDPDBED) _ 026 CmhG~, DEBORAH BLEHM Comxt ALLISON YIU change. Cekvletlona ero NOT heetl on ulwi¢6eN almenalIXM, NET SITE AREA 884133.8 PROPOBEO BUILDING COVEMOE ON TXE RE8ULT8 WAY BTTE ; 28% DEMOLITION PLAN ® ~~A'•T~' DRAWING INDEX KEY; ~ ~" 1 ~ eHEET Na rmE ~-, '~A ~ F vI!y ~..~ COYER t c Xy, ~ I ~,I~ %1.01 COVERSHEET:PROJECT INFORMATION ________ i ., ~,. .1 y ~ i~ ~ PROJECTSIIMMARY TABLE EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE DEMOLISHED ~ ~ ''?< ~,~~ ~a,~a r1 I'', DEMamoNPUN I I I I (139,632 S0. FT.) ~~1 .; ~ ~ `a 'w ~'.. ,. ,. GVIL _ ., ~ 14 , . ~ ~~ r if,>~ c1.oa ElasnxccGNDmoNSPLAH 7t ~ '~. ~ ~ (Y > -•~"~ - C200 PRELIMINARY ORADINO ANO DRAINAGE `v_ i ~3 /e, y ~f~y} ~ ~ / ~~ C3.00 PRELIMINMYUTILIIIES PUN EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ` ,~ )it ~ a ' 1111^ % r r I I LANDSCAPE (211,080 SO.FT.) e ~ ~' ~s L-1.B LANOSaPEMASTERPUxwmlPUNrusr 1 ~ ~ , ~1 ~ ~~, • ~ ~ ~ /o~ / r ~1 ^T `~ 1 ~"' . ~'' ~ y ~~ L•1.1 rnEE DI6POSirIDN PuN ~ -• /1~~ ~G //v'~~y~ 1 Y { ~ e4~ {-~ ~~;Y _.~ 't f; L-11 PARKING ALLOCA7gNPUN prNiw6sm4sN6vaaw~~ccArmwl f ~ ~ ~ ~ 'JrN ~ f~ ..f' ~ I ~ r' RENDERING LANOBGPE MA9TERPLAN ~ RENDERING L4N08CAPE PERSPECTIVES AND IMAGE BOARD ~ i~ \ '- ~' 1 vYv ( r ,^r~ "" .. ~'•,.~ ARCHREC7URAL 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ '`~~ ~ ~ r 11 ~ ~Y i ' ~sa ~~~ ~ ~S 1 ~ A0.01 CODE SUMMARY y ,} .. v ~ ~, .~ ~ ~., ~ 1 ~ III 16 i A0.02 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARCFI LINE DOWRAM .~ ~ ~~ II ./ ~ ~ ~ YYpI I F<AN ~'~ , ~)%~~ ~+.~~'u~~ ~`-•1 x I f ~ ~~i , } r~r .w"+.. ~ ~ ~~'. ~/r x _~., 'x.a~c,c~a.. _.. -':i.- {1 O t'! AA1.01 8111LDINGA-FIRST AOOR PLAN .,. ~ ~ ;,`~.,, / ~ ~~,( ~1 A-AT.1? BUILOINGA-ELE~VR ON3~ I t1 7 ~~~~'' . 1 `~~.__J ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~I ,~~ Af~912 BUIIRINGA-SECTION6 " 1,~ ,, ~ ~d 1~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Srr~~ _,....~ 1~ 'a (E) ~~~ ~ r ~ :~~ ~~ ~ .~I ti,~~ ~11~1 tl : ~,m auILOINGB-FIRST BOOR RAN "~% f9 ,.v `~. •,. I. 02 BUILDIN - FLAN G B SECOND FLOOR BLDG 9 I ` I ., ~'. T Y ~F ^. n" ~~ f ~J7 ^ 71 BA3.11 BUILDINGB•ELEVATIONS J Ir -~~ ~~ I I,~T.______~_ ~ L__, I ~)) ~ Y'~ ~, ~ ~~ 8#7.12 BUIIDINO B-SECEN)NS IJ ~ ~ ~,f ~ i 1 II x S GA201 BUILDING C-FIRST FLOORPUN ,~E / r 7 `s O BLDG 8 I k i IH k~ t^ I I }~~ ~, ~„~ E ~I I ,~ ~ 1 G1202 BUILDING C-SECOND FLOORPUN T ^%; I „ ~ ( ~.~ ~ ~' , ~9 ~I BLDG. 10 ~ 1t ~~ (; l~ t~ _ ~ ' ~- ~ 7 1 ~ jai,-,' X11 BDILDINCC-~EValoNs t _ T I ~Y' I~ ," i II ' ~•~, ~ ~~~ I..~ f'l V I ~ n~ ~)E I:. n r.~4 i ~.::~-'c ~,.M, ~(~r:~ili ''rl~ it CA3.12 eUIIDINOC-SECTNNIS I 1 1 t i I U I 1 { ~" . ~ ~ I ~. -.: ~~ '. ..-.f _' r ~ L ~ OA2,01 G4RAGE•LOWERPPAKING LEVEL ~ , ,,..r. + GA2.02 GAMGE-UPPERPMIB LEVEL a Y W .. .....-. > U GA1.11 GARAGE-ELEVATIONS .. "J t~ r I I .,~ "~.. ~ I 2l~ fih1,12 GAMOE-SECTIONS r _ r I `- ~ ''I ~~i 8LD .7 [ _ r_i i ' r~ ~- ~ ~~ ~, +~ e. LNG y~~. I L RENDERING RENDERED BUILDING ELEVATIONS ISRE SECTIONS fi-. ~ tl.l G 0 ~ t J r Mme' _ __ I !0 ~. ~~ x 1 ~~ ~„ „ - ~ ....,rOG~ ~. -mss..: cxx..rr '.~ .. _.. -' - 1 ~ ~ ''' ~ I FxorTa I ~r... ~ I Is~~i r i awl en~nmeme,~s. G'~ ~~ _ ~ _I I BLDG.Ol7 ._ea"^71'~~.: f _ .... "~ ._ __. , s."'-_': ~ ~~,~ '_` ~~ F''" SUPPL ME ENTAL PACKAQESLLeaweem~AFnRTxeNmusueMinN, 1 1 := L y r L_~,r .,,. ~~ ~ - SI - ~ i / ~I J 1'. 1 CNIL j.: _ ~~, ~... L ` 3k q ~~.-"-, pI "~I V„ y'~'i 4 ,i 1{1 ys ~r IC"x! :~' ~~ ~ ,~ 11 ! ~ ~AF I m^r ~ - APN 367~20~0/T TITLE REPoR7 FOR PMCEL 357.20Ad2' 1,j- _ t _ "' ~' '~T~ I -~~ 1 ~~I I ~ ~ APN 357.10-011 TITLE REPRRT FORPMCEL357-2OD11' I ~.. ,.,. ,. ~ ~ ! I~, 1`I APN 95P20-0IB TTRE REPORT FORPMCEL357-20-018' ! r `j I ~."~ ii I~ i d f Jt'''..C. ~k n eY -,~ ~A'y"~~'?n~`...-. .--~-1 ~n[f '~ ~, :. ~µ ". _-^4 _, ~' I N~'~ ~L-,",r~~'.~,~~-~.-~V I~~~.-~. 4 i ~~ T, I~i it 'TNE&1CKUPD000MENTS FOREAd/11RE REPoRTAREINCLUDED IN 7NE ~+ { } :. t j 1 .' ~:~ CDROM SUBMIITEO W/TN iHEPLINNNVOAPPLICATION. PRINTCOPIES OF .-,. ',-a.~~ca-r..a- +~, .. = ~ :y_.w_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l ~_ _ _ - _ _ ~ +r~ _ _ ~ip ~ I '" 77N:6ACNUP DOCUNENISAREAYAMBLFUPON REQUEST. I I i I i I ~ _,.. ., - ( 7 i ~ I i _ ~ : LS r ,.. ~'" .~ -.2 ,... S "^--~^.. SY Iy~~i ~ LANDSCAPE -,~ _ =z~ ~ ... t ~ r ,- 'i j j _ I ~ } r ~. ~ - ' ` ( `. - I 7 I I r ~ I ' i I - J ~= r ~ °' t ~ AAeDRISr REPDRT r - 1 ! ti -" ~-~ I f TREE 6UMMARY NL.AWa xa wmM WhRA M1VM0 Xatl1101f110[ aeRIR x10 URw9m vax 6 M weXRR RO wY X01 F eNG®. Um ro Rsal® wOlXa wlid re6wr Or M MerRR ' RESULTS WAY CAMPUS RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO,CA Embarcadero CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC. 1701 Shaeway Rued, Suila 250 Belmud, CelBOmle 84001 www.ecpik.com KORTH S U N S E R I HALEY ARCHITECTS eeo e.XUrovxu Btecn !AN FIIANCISCAr GA Mt00 413.eM.leaO RNRPo RB7ORY 83 xa~.nxw.Nrx~.m, OB 142008 02 F;AVxwa AFnluna 092$2008 B1 so%sD 01252009 I ~:fµr.A~!r PROJECT INFORMATION X1.01 mwiro xuc: e:\E.aa~\owiae\aro\-ze a..ui ~. W.r conPU.\m\ci.oo-xwcoEx.e.a ROT WTF: 0a-11-08 PtOTTEa aY: v..l Ox ~ o~ ~~ 0 ~ Z N Z ~~ ~ ~ m Q ` y ~~~$~ e~~m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~R p 3 of ~ r ~~ ~ .~ sg ~d ~~~y s ~ ~~ "O ~ ~ RESULTS WAY CAMPUS RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO,CA Sd R &Y ib ~W ra ae Embarcadaro caPrtkaaameas uc. 1301 sOdowey P1Oe0, 9u8e180 eelmom, cePromv, eiom ww.ecpOC,wn ~~BkF 7ss 9f~e ort SIe3E im 18nsueo att, G somas ax-le7-e3ro fi50-k7-6399 (FACJ ISSUE HISTORY PUN MP eF&,OIy1RAl 0811 /108 PUNlING/PPUG110N O8A8N8 700]018611 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C2.00 umwm eo vmw wmw. x~cwio Tad mennrt vnufi w waaeim woM v n<uaeRw wr pra wwim uea a ®~ wmart mm mmn s nE+artcr RESULTS WAY CAMPUS RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO,CA F a s t ~~ s$ ~~ Embarcadero CAPITPI PARTNERS LLC, f 3019narew6y RO66, 9ott6750 9Nm6M, c9uromi9 s6oo7 vwu.e~p9cmm !~ BkF ~~ 776 SNOREINE OR SNIE 100 AFDW06T Ott, G 91065 B'A-167-6700 650-M7-6799 (FANJ 7am6i6e.7e PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN C3.00 PLANT __ -_ _~.... ~~,ee ALE PAL $' AOx Am mahm AS SNa,IN YNAt Io-1Y . 1-A ALE PR ]Y AOY Au dmahm a Y AS SNOW Io-IY . 7- IIF RJA 1/' 80% An ndrd.' A.e Yeple AS S6YIW ALY WO 1/' AO% Ahm mamYNlq WNe AWm AS 9gWi a-IV • N-5' CAR AEi 14' BaY Cdp'nd Eehk Euryne Wmeeem AS SNOW NP YAC y' AON Yetm N 910W a-I • ti6' GW 9l Sfi' AO% C4 Nvhe' We 6dd 4vtledaF lne AS SNOW 10.11' . FB' ap lAA NAG WA 1MN5 4+ divhv i f 4eid.M ine y' AOk dR SaIAAm Ye A4 9pW AS 6NOaN A-IC . d-7 4A0 NR M' 90x SM By Aa SIA1W Slmdmd 4Ei QI 1/' AOk 4d hNVdtlde Ovn Awned AS SNOW Slmdmd xY5 Stt 11' SO% mhaWV Tyde im AA SxOW PN CW 2/' AO% Pduf [eo1ede Cm Ided P'me AS 919M A-10' PL1 RAC 09' B01I RvtaW rrcmee UIbn4 5 AS 910AN Stan itilE a 6- PL1 AAC Ix' BOx flotann ramnam CNlbnly 5 AS 9104N Sta 10-IY a F-6 Pw fRf it eaz Pv n.mo,u Ye4m cxnd~nr As saw Ode Yrld Pu, IRA mws 'a ' r e1 a r and As snow 0.E A01 $' AO% Wem b4 Cevd Ilw OvY AS 910w Slvnddtl aA: WA mWS admen r Pm od, r nt As waw go sY lv aox r rad Red+nd ~ u,wWq 11-Is uY PAR Br eax mm sm, owe. 5m u slow iN' xt SPL fl1A le' AGI Svk W Yee' Wvr AS 9N1W Ott 10 5~ AOIWX:II NILE COINOX XAYF 4/IDIC NOlF3 WES Pl 9' Pedmn nade'Aldv' Am,er'Me AS SNOW wlY Avem CAl 6' e G Wlmq Adbl ' ide NWt rm d We AS SNOW Pde 4 Aer LAR 6' A OemvlN anmd E vn OenvW AS SXOW Wlte Fb.r FP a' eNm1. Fm dnY AS 910f1 Wile Flom Pill 6' eth PdUnadem 4cvepdab AW W A$ 910W mT C 9ZE AOrWNJL W amore oeede K Ade Acem mlW4rn Wd 1A' aG W Ade hd4 deevn Rdreed Smn6 IC aG W Ade lmkmv 'NaNm' Nme a IY aG u AW ilehdeP.mxm 4,msdde sro' nde le' o.G xu Aen Y~ W mmAld gvdn Y61n t nc. att o s~ ecrxwrx x,WE GAm cawox NAw Aac Norts Ex I u. EwYe4n hsm~W m.: Aud a' aG FR rSA NYdeWW 1' Pvh Fehn mArv Nv Ye: Fohn idehenv Blud N FeeNe Idnxe Fame 1' O.G I Gd m Wen timd r r Pde +~ Petme LalremN IYdI a' ae 1 ~ Wed xr r n ' NvnefA leul,dmv u.Inl FWum aw r ac 1 w detl PS d PW ' PnpNYlll elmwn 7adm Fwntdi Gee a' 0.C I fA x Itwt Nord SA N PW SdeW aMmndle AYMm Yom a® 1' aG I Cd a rmre Wntl NLA 1' PW Yuhlndrge dgme d aoe ll' aC I W a Pnn IIaM fNJa xL I xAp.aePe =edmm snuem s.me Fm It ac PN I GaL Pdpxqum munlhm Weeten Sword /• aC I ~:T:~, ~1~ ~ ~: /_~ .'. /. ~ ` "`i! ~/ 1 ~ ~. ~. /.'!.. , ~ ~ ;~; .~ ~. R' _ .,\\ ~! ~~ / /tom ~. ~ ~'~• ~:i1 ~. ~~. x ~ " `~ ~'.~ ~`~_ .. ~"-~~ 11 P 'Y>.tl1~-IL ~~ ~%~-' Ill IU111 hIBFFBA_ ~-J ~ ~~11111~111 %~ -t~ ~ 1~fy` •~~MtlG~ ~~ ~`1'' ~ _ 1'EC`I ~ ~ ' 0.~ --~'k~-'~- ~P_W~ ~. eN~ /~~-~'~'~ ':~ i. ''~ @1G1~" --'~., -;r= ,~a~ .. -~>~r/ A¢R PA~~m~ 1 U'-,}' ~~ ~,~+ ' ~: x; I W6 ~ V~p~\\ y '-.:~ ~ '-. .._l ILA ~ BULDING2 ~ -_ ' , %~/~~: 1 l(` ., l ' ~ `~~~ fLOIXfAA N~ 9GY~-, 4' .~ y .:; ,~ ~W•. ~ 1Y J-~ ~ ,5~'_ `~ ~1fr,~{ISep i~ ~ fI I~'~}„~ _{ ~ ~~ -'i i 1 ~ it ~ .__ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 r +lf ~' 1 1 1 1 sA ~ ~' ' I ~ ; ~' t I L 1 1 1 I ~ 1 i „ ~( , ,~ ~. ~~1j%M i . ~ .`t, _~.' ~ ~ 9 _ ' .. I ~ i - ~~ }..- ` `~,,$ may,, J ~ k •Yl d ~ I i I ~ 1 A' ~ yr '~- ~ i L Y -Ani AAU lw- ~~~_ ~ ~ ~ qd pg~y -' ~ a. aJ 6E ( I~d".,- -- ~~"~ry .~ '~ Ind -- - I'1 i ,1 ~ , A 1 1 - C -~I' ,. ~ .. -~sunxc ~ I .-. ~~ jE" ~~".i -- =d '_IL~~P' mA" au. ~ '~~TI~ ~p;~l t (Flt.) _ 1 l ~ A 1' -. ~ ~ ( 3 --~~ a _~~ ` -'>•`d%' a - .x_ ~ ;,ty' , ~ 1a9 { I {Fy .. _ ( ~ ~~- . i i~ _~ F ~ { BUILDING4 ~~ I aox~ i` ~ ~ BUILDINGS %•t- r. ~ . ~ ~ _ ~ s _/ A - i BUILDING 5 1 I - yl (W _ ~ ~ I , IIII ~ '-~' ,'. N !Y ~' ~ --- NEB! B~~LDING C ,w s ~ruu .. - I ~ '"-~.~1 a ,I ~uif'~/~ ,"I ~ - '~ p `E%) ~ .. I I ~ N _ _ _, [~ r (W : III , , I ~uruus AYl~YAAAr Am -_ ~ 1 lal LL _ ~ I r '- r~'ti~~-~ '~AIF r ~~ IEx.I - A . ,~ ~IFN.1 iAAln~/' +~ '~9 `-Ili = i a I I I I -fir, ~..: _ - - lexl (ER7 ~ ~ fExl _. ([xl ~' IEE1 , lE'dl Iwl ~~ " (~- ~1 )~ -1( I~ I (eil ~I 1'~Plal'.. ; ~.. ,~.~ : ;~1 ,-il, . ~ r I i ~L i ~~. ~ : I I .r..~ l I 1 --1 I I . ~ ._L i.. 1~1-, ,,~.I=_~i -,.a~Lf , a[x>• ._ wu~ ,--;~ cai t1~L~ , IoLi ~Li lai cn~ m r u~i ~+1 (a(4~,f ' ~i ~~,1F~L~IOLI . , _ ~-.,• ' i ral ial~ ~ ~A1 _`~,I~ ~ a I '~ ,.t TtI r==~.~`• ~~fFS1 ~T1.fet1~;.~(atLYa:,e/= .. . ~'--- .~_ .-`;'''=( ~'~`~~~IFki ~(a~(Frl(Fxl+~ !E%.1~ (~St~(Fx~~-rix.11,~, 1A~L,:;' .=;,-(~I'__l~L~ L"1 _.} (E~;(Bq_.(Ct1 ~i I~ I - _ _. .: r- .. v -- ... -- - - - _ RESU-__ CAMPUS RESULTS WAY CUPERTINC,CA Embarcadero cwlru rnR7N5RS uc. 10013hofedep Road, 5u~150 5NA1(Nrt, CaIAAmY 99009 Iwxw<Aplkmin STU010 FIVE{ Design, Inc. [andedapsParMedARA SAA Plannlnp 575 pddpeway BAU SNUNAXA, Cdlroma 91955 t 4151121750 (415.03217® Saw 1'-00'~ LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN L-1.0 Nl Wb AL AIIW Mil MRMIi IaW wdalViE Yell AeA uMA119p 4AA 6 aE dWETde W%Am I[ OIIINAFa Y4A a RYA6 A.NN%AAp 91•a11 Rf Nlpel6l -i1 ~ ~ ~.~ ~: _ %~~ ~ _ 1 U~~ i~C E~~ ~ ~G LRppO ~ ...' i ,~F/ 0 ~ ~. i:~:~ "' 0 ~ ~ ~~~-. ~' E ~ r'~: ~. ~,,. ,~i"~ X11\ Y~ ~ ~,, ;hL`A .' Y-- ,~ ~ - f~~ \. ~~ ~~.~ .~\ , ~ \ E ~~.~. ~~ •~~ .~~~ . `,/ ~ ~~..~ :~~~ ~~ ~~ • e`ee ~ ~'~ ~ ~~ 4040 ~ \. ~, ~:~ ` ~ ~a\~`\ \ -o i II I' ail' II I I I I,~;~ i~1~U1111~~ ~~' r ~ ~ - -~ ]~u~,}I ~ If~l I,~i j.l ~ I I I I ~~I 'I ' ~, RESULTS WAY CAMPUS RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO,CA Embarcadaro CAPRAL PARTh'ERS LLC. 1301 ShDfeweY Rued, Suite 250 Belmont, CeMmnY 91002 wew.er~k.c¢n STUDIO FIVES Design, Inc. Lendenpa Arch'deDene Bite PlenNng 675 erldpewey BNd Seuealllo, CelM¢nh 94985 t415.332.1780 t415.332.17~ s ii' A~FM9N(Et cuu ie ~r RA)Rem nAAwooe w: ). ~a' uuicw sYfR wx ]e AI eArxom AAB,um .. i2 j]'~CWSL YVE Wx • t )Y [WS) AmACm il, i'vWW S~W[RXf; '....1 0.111'mAii AFDWm i)ItIW S)Ox[ PIAj 1. ti' CWe) REOAnOD ]• ~l 4x srpE PwE r-iil r AxxAx s«En wu ufk~ s.fi~ au ~~~ u c .A~Ha~nx sw1Er wr f0 NMAICAN SNE[) Ca.•I 0.) Y AM[MC4.` SWEET mY le ii' AYEMCAN eWEEi QJY 0.e C AAYRCax SWC[i Wu 16 10.'Y1]' I)AYAN SipF xRC ux sroxE Pnh iB ii' 1)W AM S)CMC Pqf l9 I6 ilAU.w 5)OM pxF iea es' acsi~Erh•ou~i 1 r coesi aioxaoD IM al' mAS) uH aPx zr m.ASP AfoxaoD 1e1. i0' mAS~ UK Du[ LL SI0.' 4MhAFr qK 1e1 i2T mA5) UK PM 112 10.Y uONhR[r pt( Iii NY NOx)GfY PiM iFAfY PINE pia ees YONME) PME 1.50.0. pENAONOw muuxCFAnA 916 11A' YWRAEY PiXE eP 0.r,] ). 1Y Yql~ Y PME ' YACxaA v]uu¢,wA m. u.o,s.r uA.wa1. souux¢AxA zie I )FREr Mra o. 1es' mAS) AfDNEm 1n sr uw)wfr PwE [O0.St Rf0NOm 1M eB'MONiERfYVIX[ 99 5' xMiFAEr FxC A21 PA'T NOXfrREY Plx[ 90. ~E.i' MM11[RFY PME 19! 19.1' NDNIERFr Ax[ 19S ~].]' NCMRAFY PME l}0. }B 1' NOxhRFV MN[ 1963~A'YWRRr PwE 1SS J21'YM1ERfYP.x[ 9) 3e S' u(nrt[R[v Pix[ 190. 39Y uDx)FR[Y nixE 145' Y[NIgEY PM 99 Iae' uMiFA[Y PM[ 11A b 1' xtlxhAEr Mx[ . ]1a upviFA[v PIN[ 110. 10. 0.' NOXIEAFY Pq[ 101 1S PLOWFMW OxFRRr S uvf WC M]. ]Y utNRIM:Y PMF ]11. 1~~ COASL uH Wx ke 10.6 COAS) AE0MW0 EJi. ~1Y CWS) UVE Wx zin ie~NDOisro ~sX~ nom TMAL AAE xc) 1e. 101' AMFAiCAX SNff1 mY iDFxAMM MM A N0. 1D5' nOmSiO 0.Pl IPAN4uxi Ce RFIYIK 10.1 IS Y YmCSRI Asx ef~eCL MF t0 ¢Yxle X 30.2 e]' Ym[S~0 efx PU¢. Ss] iY cas) xDXim ' mAS)~awm - MsnE suttAnm :Ai it mASi REDxmD vAgY~nr AMA PREP.wEi 0.6 9' RAY,KKO ASx AMY SNND AvF OfANM. 10.). 1n.e' [KAtllf[N A9t fF AFRA¢YEXi BA4ll 1xa iB a' EKRwEEn +sx AnmA)rsr AEPDAI AxD u' 1) f' NAM~[AN 9MAt S)ANDAACe EG MFf 1sa m wu.c usin"~'r, xcnw _~' I w A DWAIL y~ NAK no m ARE Am X[Awv DuD 4iN~NinK 0.RAOwSi REPafl9YK4PoOA .MSgnSi RfeaMC[S, PAEPARFO er 100! BABAY, 0P)m S1lY I~. Z I~ i~_ I ~~~- ~ ,I J ISSUE HISTORY 02 REV. PLANNING 1/2008 APPLICATION pi PLANNING 252008 APPLICATION__ ___~ Bnle:1••50'-0` TREE DISPOSITION PLAN L-1.1 E%ISTINGCONDITIDNS PROPOSED OPTION BLDG. SF. REOUIREDCOUNT PROPOSED COUNT BUILDING 1 37,821 BUILDING 1 37,621 132.0 140.0 BUILDING2 23,371 BUILDING2 23,371 8Z.0 85,0 BUIlDMG3 34,594 BUILDINGS 34,594 121,4 123.0 BUfLDING4 42,500 BUILDING4 42,500 149.1 1510 BUILDING 5 (ind. bddge) 77,578 BUILDING 5 (bridge exduded) 73,400' 257.5 260.0 BUfLDING6/1 33,730 NewBuddiryA 51,270' 179,9 204.0 BUfLDINGB 22,420 NewBu.VIN'ngB 51,885' 182.0 184.0 BUfLDING9 35,884 NewBuadingC 51,885' 182.0 184.0 BUILDING f0 47,818 TOiALAPPROX.SF. 355,296 TOTALAPPROXSF. 368,486' 1,286 1,331 PARKING ON•GRADE" 988 PARKING ONdiRADE'" BBt PARKING UNDER BLDG f 180 PARKING UNDER BLDG 1 180 PARKING UNDER BLDG 5 88 PARKING UhDERBLOG S 88 TOTALEXLSI7NGPARIONG 1234 PROPOSEDGARAGEPARKING 204 (Na09: Numberand bcadon of handicap parking spaces TBD, and wil eRect the Wlal perking cOUM.) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 1288 )388488sF1285) sr[ unn ow9 (Note: City requimeenl of 1 step per285sf of gross floor area) vNe[9, SFE P, Wi Cp [p SUeA1lm16NAM WC,IRWm.Mm IKYQJACmNENM1p0.E m,.mrM sow e., uo qw ad m. mr. a<r m PNYmr q,.N m a,,, W e ,ei.m„e~uM,.we,m~'moN,~m mmCjw«WOpimlawmpy:wae wammwMe.rwwswm,lm,[womPw sosemaw. u•mnr NwrNrr wNmdeaamra..s Fb,3 QrydapeYs P,dkaah OeplMwtGOdeMm NdMRW1m9N 9u4Mp iR1hRKp]ry ErcbrMm ~ Bh a~dmue Wk AI plop9er a eed ellomore M Indus 1 mof aMblmxaenNwdaW 6mW EgmNmmM ~rmdeggNneNmqmVblRqmAqlmevh,7M,m1'mNa®e~ANeW ml gamraW ammo ppmrml9N MN I.YmmmOSN 9mi1NNMIm3lgarbm9.pxn®,M mmgr .A u+s .4 7+.r Nq r„r m~ m.r Mm ovaeo yp-mN ap f.,n me-qw aopFr,Cre id-fmy~ a0-lm'I, aM-wag gm,amo gd~fm» nn-m,m no-Na9 gq,gn9 Np .f mla all-+mfn mpa.gmM gml.,amoo N6-!mm nF-!mm tMPf.mw7 +Mgfa ~mlRrlapl YYSmm•MWrmynrh rermmmrw Mq~mrwrrmramogrrdldy Mw wsa w.madrfm.,e umo,o.,r d Nm..s.reals. 1 rM1YAwa:M,. Maw, rr Pµ7 dydcupMh,9 Pdk MUkr Dpe4nml Guldehm NnAa6edb' akNpTlmNRrgd~q EmJbllm ~561pr NPIimaKnA 7rib 7. NWima PoN 9arz. Wem NeN9n1 ETlaan KmPimlmM mmoa,. ems rr.a rmu. rwA. (wre (w0 OrR p.M rr~(gq k.U orxm up-twpp np-Imkl xo-ma8 1 a fm-IAaOO up-smrp mp-f NfA •n-map u9 14mL4at feP-fmyq m6-ISM mp.mge Im IfAm-qmd fee im)d, mp Imf3 mpf NtA 1 Sle um,.amo NP-,yq qn-fm,n Ram-wrr n, +npo fMN~rhgmeNlgam r,tagM.adw.Ma,p.wrm ors nga.r,mwso.rro,e~r,mmr,.rmw.wlw l4am,rmrdlallNM.4~4 mr~ mNbMPnwnf.mamgi TOTALNANDICAPACCESSIBLE s[[cm ,/~`~y;~~ ~~ PARIUNGREQUIRED"" 33,31 ~s ~-~Rws Gydpgm9n9 (2D+(133111DD) \\"' ~ $q~rRegil..l! Nofes: _ _ nPSxm rm9r. '~~ -. Cakulab'onsareapproximaleertdarebea~ortscbemeBcdrewings Theseareesaresub/ecttochem,7ee. - - III-1 II I I-III = w'["'s ~;. ~ "~ Cakufab'ons are nor based on as-drilf 1rePo - - I I_ I I- 7, ,oPSa ~\;,; ~~ ~ \~\ ~ ~ F - r 'lndka~s a change )tt square rootage /rom exlstlng condLYorts III } - nrz9 vaMC area 3wp. `~ ~ \ ~- %~ -Y j I I M4V [w rp sEaR: Ie ~! I I I "Parh'ng calculafbna are appoximab andrequire on-site vadficetion PVL[. ~ `` -~ - ~ ~ I I I I "'CBCSeclion 1129B, Table 118-6: Iffhe numberolparkhg le• ux9 sNd -~}- „ ~/~~~~ I . ~ I ~ ; I spaces in a Jot or parege a2 },001 and over, fAe number o/ •84ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ' ~ ~ a~ mwt9 owanr ~ - ' `~~~ 2 ~,:•,. ~ I I I e M ~' o puw aocN. s[[ sP[c ' 'r ~ ~ ~ ','. I I aaesslblepark,hgspacesrequired/slwentyplusonafor ,~~ g a<o ° ~-~- ~' ,,~ ;f`'°i `I I 1 eachf00parl9hgspaces. oP.wPPE~Oxxwvio .-'~- /~ \ \,v/ R°~, ~~I~ ~-~ IX (IRA rA9AK SKI( I f~~ I `~ eai mow[ o9ux c; ~ ' -F \V A ~~~ V ~ti ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Fp 1. Pt19NA-amtlm / " \ ~~ \ '\ \~, _- 'y Rp.2 9umMPmAr . ~-'F' ~ ~'~' 1 ~~ -~ Z ...,~ -.~.~ ~N- = I~..-.~, a r~~H ENCLOSURE '~~ O) ~ ~ •~ f -' ~" c ~ , r I (DmDPeeo tam Ap h): ~ r I( I11 ~ /- ,rte. ^~/.~?]'i _ 4 ~ I Mh iSe X G ~.. ~ F' I ` _ i. ` 1 ~' 1 `~A4~1l YI w V" ~'' , ~ ~ I 1 I ', I - , WASrSENOLO3URE--~ I ~~~ _ 1 1R~XENCLOSIIRE- ~ 1 _.- ~~_ s` I I __ lE(iENO jp~+etl..yeAO 1) 7 ~ (®MF9) ~. ~ I I ~ ~ ~. _.•_ PeAlnyAlloatl4nperapp. - ~'"~ I ~~I`~~ ~ UhD1ts ~„ ~ ~ ~> ~'~~ /s : n_ , ~ III ~ ' ~~ _ r ~. tun ~n>b' ~ i ~ ~(~ 1 ~-- _ I it i mom PuNmAaae.o.lonmmon s=~' __ ~{771' nea7m.~m.dl ~~ ~ ~~`J ' ~ -- I 1~ ~'~ - .. -------- PedeeVYnQlawtlm c ~ ER ~~ AGE f~ 11 2pecARSPaovloEOaROPOSeoGARAaE ~~Y I ~I ,~, ;) iit I I .i Qi MlneWlalbn LOUem ~ ~ ~' ` ~1i`>E1'GP ~~~I` ,~~ ,V ~ i~~~~ 2,--~I /I ~ ~ I II ~ !_~ 'Y%'~ t. GPP ~` 1v~4r ~~~ ~r// ~I) !E BUILDINGI ~t ~ I ' ,~. ~ ~ ~, f I oc~NS• ~~/~~~' i ~ '~,,: n31.TUn1e4almdl , I I.. I i~ I I ,~1' ~.~ ~1i71.~ PACxs +~ "~ 171 " ,y ~ I ~`~~ 21cwsPRawm-0NCnaoe 1 li II 1~'- ~:' 117`" Ipevmodl: h ~~: ~j~ 179 UNe PROUD®-I1NpER 870011 `` ~\_ l ':~ ' -'Y ~ 0~,1 ~i ENCLOSI~iE ~, ~ - ~ n}?7 ~x ~~r ~TR ,.- -. - ~ ~~ ~ i~ ,~I I i ~~..~ ~ /i~ :777 ~ 11 7~9a~0 ~' .. ,1 110 1 •I ~ I III ~_,I 6 ~ 1 r --..t.. L. I II I ~ ;:. ~ s uA77 { ~ ' ~ :~b ~ ~ 011 A~ ~ ~ '' it _ 1 eonrequ4gf I [ y `I I ti~ ~_.. :% 7 1 7 ' `c. ,/ -;- I - ,1 uasPRUnoEn.oNORA 1 r s ' 4~ I -PUecYr,~cc ~~ 1- 11 71~-: elcrcLE LacKER~BUILO~NGB OJU„~' \1~ %~7 ~ U,r ,~y~ -.~ ~ ~~{. 1 ~~li~/I' }, / ~ _~ ~il ~ BUILDING2e~ 1. 't~ !i i III .._ 1 I ,7v ~ U (pommel: ra ,.-~.oES1aNAnoN 7 ?_ 17 1~ N ~. 0 r i'-F~ [~ 1:4,p` 1~ _ ~. i~ ~ r 1 I l~. I I I_. 1 ~ I I -~ II TRASX ENCLOSURE- I~ ~" ~~URE s 7 - i mn I A " ~. ~ , ~ I ~ ~ -_:-~ ~ '~': I I ' I ~ i1t- (exdtlny: I _~"~ I I ' :fi I ' 1In k f~ 7~ ~ I~t~s~ v1c oan-cacwoE ~ r ~` ~ 1 01 ~ ~ -`u ~ ~ ~ I ~11 1 R r"~ 1 I IIt t-~ ~ .1`,l+'Mhteaq.rt ~~ 4 `/~' 1 V i -1 _ hl ~ \ I I i ~~- - ~\I, I1~,~1 ~1 1\y 77~,~I v I 1 1 ~ i~~. '~~~ 1~1 ` '1~ ~11 q l1 ~7 .~y, ~ '. 11i A II I Z` I' ~.~'~ ,'I ~r 7X1 ~~~111'~,~1' 1 1,11.11u~ I. ~E ~~~ ,.~ ~I"I~ ~p~ll~. + ~ f, ~~ III'` ~ _~a ~ ~~ oc -_ a '' ~---- -- C~'y ~~i111~"~i1 ~~ '" I 1 ~,1__~ I ~_~. _ ~~~ I ~`~ ~ ~1 Lv'.~.~ . f I I I I ;,S nr~ ~i4 I - ~~ rr 3~'i' I T I l f l in T.-.'~~, I -1L~o pezwnm4dmd 3 0 r "y,, 4 lil :I - I ~1 1`~ I I : I I i I, I , 1' ~JI I ~`1 II . - J it i _ Ie+caRSPROVIOEO-or4anwe ~r , ~~J I BUILDINGS I ~ } I 1 I I I I rf ~~~~ : ', NEW BDImL01NG C f {'~ ~ 1iF : Rse.ema nwlndl IJ ~kT}u.~~ i ' L I Y i~;. 61CVOLE LOCKERS ~ I ilj 197 CARS PROVIOEO-0N i~ r f lr - ~ II. /r~~r~, I"II I I I I I ~ ~^I '. i~l ~l T 4y'u RACK9 p sl IIj/"~' III '. Bi G40.9 PROVI0E0.UNCERB ry7 ; I: I I V 1 I ~~r l ~I. ,, AAV I I,V ICK[ (OmP4Md): ~ I~ i~l 11~ ~~tl DaPxtlnaMmdptlCady r I (' I IV~ f I I i Irk - ~ CM1epbr 791EO:Pmdn9 ~9aMtlme I k T--{ `I I h ., i?.-~~ Ilu„ -- I~ r? ~ I I ~ I I 1 I I ' ~ I i r 1`~ Y_ L ~t ~-~''4 YF- 't-°~ - , i ~~~' ~ I ~I ,{ ~r IY~, s I I~V~ y I ~ ~ I, -rt I I~ 1 ~- / ~tl { 1, ~ f .~~~.-i~P~ t~.,.. k, 1 ~ ,.. fit, ~. e-- '-~'-r-,,.~'. ~~-~ .~- - E~"~ 1 -'~,~~~__T -~.~.`s Irk ~.~, ~ ~ ~ I I ~ II~ -// IE~ I 1 I ~I ~, o~ y~ J1~ I I~ 1 m.~. I •r l ~ I N TRASH ENCLOSURE-~ ~ III ~ r ~~ ,~jU ] 7~„ I t~µ L ~ IP PmM: ~.( rk w ' I` it I i I Mtn 158 q.1} : l-~, ~ ! . I ,-i 111• I I I, I., I I I , 1 , IM ~'} I % ~~~r~ j-i s• f y.y 11f ~., I ~ l I..''a~~-.! I~~.,.d~L,_ I ~ "~ ' ~ I ~:. -Fyc= i 'K'1l„ II ~~rY'T~ J ri ~/ I h--' lr I I II ~I ~ ~ ~II ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ , f r I ~ i -. I ~ ~1 ~ ~ I` i r J-`_-i Li !. _ ~ - , ~ 1 ~_., I I I 1 -, I NCNXE LOCMFA9 ~~ aPACKS I`f,,, ~ , -- ~~ J1/'~`~J J .. - ~r ;~ r IU I ^- ~ 1 1 I I~ II I~ I li: r~~. . !~ ~I. ~ ~ I ~ Ijl l ~ I II,~ ~ ~~T' BUILDING4 BWLDING3 i,~ ~ ~' C ~~ ~ I 1 G V 112t1 annqulndl nte.a unlgmw 123 CARS PRON0E0.ON aRAOE 131 CARS FRONDED-0 / ' pp 1 I I I ~ I. I I ' ~. N C49ADE 1 r R ~~1~~ Y ~ ~ I i J g I I I? '~ Y 4 ~ r ~-~ ' SI h ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 4 rr -- ---_JIRA&I ENCLO9URE , * {. ' '~ 1 RESULTS WAY caMPUs RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO,CA Embarcadero CAPRAL PARTNERS LLC. 13019Aarawey Roml, 9uiw 250 Belmont, CSlllomle 81002 wxx.ecWk.can STUDIO FIVES Design, Inc. Lendecepe AfUtAedme Sib Planning 575 BndBewey BNd Seueallm, Calltomle 94885 1415.332,1790 1115.932,1789 ]SSUE HISTORY 02 REU,PUNNING 142008 APPLICATION 01 PUNNING 252008 PucAnaN ~~l IP a4meY _..,, , I , ----"r ~-\r ~ r ~l 7 ~' l 91, , , , --117 ~.I,,, , I ~~_;; ';,; -~r lei ,~. _llr I ~,%i1'~ i~ ~ L r ~nllll ~ ~ i,_ II `-o ~j' ,,~,1!~LI~IIIII Jell~`I~ Ali I ' - ~. iE yG I ~/ L.~..~~ el~ll Ir J~._ TRASNENCLOSURE ~ ~ III , I 'I ~ I :dr~ ~ , II I ~~ ,I r is IL,~I, PIj ~~'~t ~~ I ~'~~I~i ~' ti I ~~ /I ~ jv-i' 71'1 (Li.: ,Y., '~ _: ..~I~'11 j -- ,~,k" 1'h - r~ ! ,\ /' I. / ~t~' I" ~ m ` I I I I ~r+ N:1'tlG-0' ~~-- ~-~ ! u. .' ,,~ ~ ~ r ~_/`~, i / ,/ '`~-~ 1 ~ ~) ~I I -PARKING, REFUSE r _~ ~: /~._~ I i ,~ I a i = ~= 8 CIRCULATION r, I -, ~, -.t_i ( I --- L~ ~- L II rl I PLAN I '- ~ L12 u aamm w wlml m~ wExacNlel mmfnc anfN Mo wumPEO mN a nc mNaago ums a exam um a mn[®man mere, mare a>a mmxn RESULTS WAY ENTRY -PERSPECTIVE I~~~~ ~, .~~~ ~ ~~ -} ~~~~: _ ,~ ~ 5 ,, :~ -- _--- ~ ~'~~ ~'-,~~ a ~~ ~~,, F~ ~;,~, +,~il r-- ~,~ BUILDING BICDROP-OFF AREA -PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTNES August 14, 2008 EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC STUDIDFIVE~Design to Ohnn'~nq . anGCaD" aNilecWre KORTHSUNSERIHAGEYARCHITECTS RESULTS WAY 5~m°~ °"~~ 650 Cal'rfornia Streel Fourth Floa t ,,,]]], ~,"D San Francisco CA 94108 Cupertino, Cal'rfomia F qi]],„~ Scale: 1"=40'-0" Pf ~ ~ ~/ ra $' ~ n ~ o, ~ ~ 7 . ~ ~~ - r 1. L ~ ~ `~ tit '~G 'v : ~ ~ h ~ O ~ ' ' v 11\ 1~ L,1 ~~~ 1 ~ , T`T 2591-0^:~. ~ II 1 ~ t '~ . 9. U . I _ r _ N _ - . - ~ I _, I I I it I I I,.~~I I 7. ,1( I r _ _ ,. Ai Ig ~ I l ;~ I I i, , - ~ ~ . 77 p,. 1 i! i I I L.,...1 ! i x..1.1 } I ~ I Ii r -- c ~ a. _ ~, __ ~i~ ~i ~ i I II ~ jl. a -- - __... ~' ' - J'~- I ,. T -- ', -- -- ', t nPE N 1.9rRUmUPx Fl4WE p 2. BFA0.w0Wx19 ~FxIDUgI 0 ].9ENrInnwAU9. wrMUOq a NO RATING a rox EfARNa Nxl9•ESfFPoOR A9LEma REQUIREMENT b. XOX9EWlILWIL9.IN1EP100. p a. noon cGXSmurnoX o i. ROOFCONBTIWLTDY p ,'"r ~ ~~ 1~ C\ . +eG L B ~ ~, % R. ~~, w ~ /,, r~~~ ~z r ,. r i ~~ / 1 ;, ,~ N .>' t ` ' m' t4 P ~. ~ ~ ~ x ~~, t$~ 5 ~ ~ - ~ 1 I ~ ~ b~ ~ i~ ~~~~ ~ ~! I i l i-' I I I_ . VEIIICIL ~ I rtcee TR l3 I X YIN i L~t{"L" _ Y { ~ n 11~..L~~Iw.~,.,._ I,~~ ADClW i0 ~ A mPeLLENLS „;(, 1 , ~ir ' I i 1 11 1 ' I'rU ,T+r''T ~- ' ~ I t l ill- I i ~,_ ~i~~.,-_~ ~~ - ~,I~ W ~ BLDG.5 ~ BLDG.4 N BUILDIN05RlNOYATIONB TO BE ~~, ~~'~~ COMPLETED UNDERAeEPARATE PERMR FOR PROPOSED LOTLINE AONSTMENTS, PLEASE NEFER TO'. A0.02-PARCEL LINE '~ ~ I DIAGRAM ~I ', ~ . i~l. '. 02.00-PRELIMINARY {I i I I GRADING ANO DRNNAGEr IJ li! t f ~° ti "•, ~ _ ,, ... j,.:L.~-a yS 0 ~ ?r 7, ~ ~4 t ~ ~,L . _a --- -- ~ ~ I' I I ~ ,i,. ~E) BLDG.1 ~- ( ~ ; ~ I it F ~ IpI l , I -~ .'~ i I I ~~~ (E) r I~ I Sl j' i BLDG,2 ''- ~ ~ ~ , J I ' 'I __~ i t- ~ ; il I'~" ~, I >n! E r I ~ ~ BLD G.3 r E ' ~~~~ ~ I I a I ~ I (1~1 I I I p r i s I ~' ~~ _ ~ I ~ I~ t B I „ T~ ~ ~ 'T ~ _~~ ~i ~~ ~ I I [[p `1" ,~ ,,~T ~ Y, ~~_, , T '. :nut {I ~~i~~~f.4lY iI i' F I~ ~ •~ ~~ I ~ II I 1 . )F i I_ .I .._ ~ i i.~, ifi ' ~ ~ ~ i I _' . I ~ lr ~~~ I .--LLI I'~ ;I. i.iLs~ .II ~ L ';Il ~~~ ~~ ~~ ul ~ _.,]~ V ~i~.lL~ I':i! ~~~.L.-LIJ1L~_~ i J III I, ~ I -- 61'-0" 61'-0" ___ ___ --_________~. I _ ~~I IB 25'-0" 25'-0" 122'-0" 260'-0" 0' 0" i ( I ~ i N BUILDING A BUILDING B $ C GARAGE 1.000UPANCYGROUP:OFFICE-GROUP B(SECTION 70/.1) 1.000UPANCY GROUP OFFICE-OROUP B(SECTION 706.1( 1.000UPAN'CY OROUP:RAMPACCESS, OPEN PARKING STRUCNRE 2. BUILDING TYPE: TYPE VB-AUTOMATICSPRINIQER SYSTEM 2BUILOINO TYPE: TYPE VB-AUiOMAiIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM -GROUP 52 (SECTION 371.1) 3. BWlDING AREk 3. BUILDING AREA' 2BVILDIND TYPE: TYPE IIB-AUTOMATA; SPRINKLER SYSTEM ALLOWABLE PROPOSED 3. BUILDING AREA. 38,000 pd.IPERFL00R 2A,74Ap1.l FIRST RODR ALLOWABLE PROPOSED 29TORIES (10'MAX.®HEIGHTI z5,5113eB I9ECON0 FLOOR 29TOPEB Tl9 HEI0.4i) 77,275 pA.l PER TIER TOTAL 72,000 pef. TOTAL 31,270 pef. 50,000 pM l B TIERS 2TIER9 TOTAL 55,550 pM, I. RATING REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (TABLE 801) 4. RATING REGUIREMENT FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS RABLE 801) (IXCLUDINO MMPS) Al10WA8LE PROPOSED 73,000 pd.l PER FLOOR ~ 23TORIES (/0'MAX ~HEIGSif) 2E,037pw.I FlRSTFL00R 4gT0~E81~CI1E QHT00R TOTAL T2,000 pei. TOTAL 31,835 pet, rrPEV9 . mRUmU0.x FlUNE 0 z aEwWO Wxle•DREI00R o s aEWUrq wrus. asmlw c NO RATING xxox eEwwawxu~FxssaaR A&Em] REQIIREMENT I NON BENWOWx18.wrERIOR 0 e. noogcoswrnumx>w a ] POOP WNBra:mIOX 0 5. EXTERIOR WALL RATING BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION RABLE 602) 5. EMERIOR WALL MPNC B45ED ON FIRE SEPAgATION RRBIE 5021 TYPEVereaccuPANCT x.ruE efPAUnax 019rANtE l x<r a<x<+c NO DATING fOaK<m r REQUIREMENT x.m n 8. MAX. AgEA EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS (TABLE 704.8) FIRE 9BAMnp! CU931FIGnON OmµDEIFEEiI Oi OPfN Om] PAOrE0rE0.XP UNPIIOTECIEp.NP ]ros PRarmsfD-ISx uwROrEmm.w ero lE PRmECrEO-ax uwRmECrm.lcx 1aTDls PROSECrED.ux uwgmmrm.lsx lerom PRDTECrEO~19x uF]'ROrmrm.lex mma FROrECrfD.xL ursRDrmrm.lsx UNLIMITED ]smm PRmECrEO.nL uwRmECtm.ra PROTECTED .a PRmfCTEp ~xL uwgorECrm~X. OPENING •.wownc9PRwIGZISarsrfNlsfcralumall WILCING9 mWPPFp MMµAU1M11C9PRINfLER ~D I11lIMIlEO srsTfAl sNx19EPEPNIrFED UrVAOTEmFdOPEM`0.9 UNPROTECTED EtlMLTOl11EtABUL11E0 LIwrA1mN8 FORPmTELTEO OPENING OPENING!. 'RARE raIfODRpiEA RBIxNOO WNG9EExiERxMEFMwOWILL, EXFERIpi Np1BFMW0 WALLAm ExiER10R9rRLCNP/LFMME ARENOi REWIRmmBEf01EPEBWINEMTEO011 TA&E 1010R EOi 9NHLBf PERMff1E0m MYE MILWI7EG UxPRDrectm oPENxce rvPEVareocDlvrSCr x~FME9FPAMIYJXOmAYCE %<9 I e<x Hp I NO DATING 10<x<m o REQIIREMENT x.m D 3. MA%. AREA EXTERIORWPLL OPENINGS RABLE 704.8) fIgE9FPNUnON CUxAIFlGTNMY OIBTINCE(FEEI) DF OPd 0T0] AgTECTFD.NP UWR01ECIm.M ]i0! Pf001ECTED.ITA UlDporfClm.Fp s7als ProTECrED.ax uwmrEmm~lbx 1]mw PROTEmEn-u% Iq,RgmEmm.v+% Is Tam PPOiECIEO.r!% uRVgmECrm.]!% mroa ~am.xL ur~m,~.esx UNLIMITED amm PAOTECTEO- L uwgmEOrEG~ra PROTECTED Fm PRDTECiEp~xL uwROrECTfD. xL OPENING 'µTMµnClRIWRFA 81xrfN (lECrgN aAe9 mllgNOB mUIPPEDWRXµ WJEWTCbPMNQEA AND UNLIMITED snrDAexNSMPERxlrrm uxmarECrma.urwe UNPROTECTED Easx roMETAEUUrEOUxrtArroxe FOR PROrECSED OPENING OPEMw09. Lr.F~Eme-FDOnIDrE r BUIIgNOl NIg9EF%IERDREEIPIXOWx4 EllRAX]R 110M BEARING W.1LL A'm EYIEgIp18rNUCNRx FPANE ARE NOT REOUIRm m eF FIRE REBmNE Mim 8Y TAll9em oRms slue of PfgNrtlEOmM1£ uxL xTE uaRDTECrm aP xwcs 1YPE IIB . arRICTIAxf%AIE D zaPAUrmwRla.OOERIOR o seumlgw,uu.lxleuox o NOPATING e.xa+eP-w+DVU++s~Etrelrca :eLE~ REQUIREMENT a NONEFAmlq WAlLi.INIFImR 0 E ROpRCONBiRLCOON 0 1. ROOFD]NSIgUmIG a 6. EXTERIOR WALL RATING BASED ON FIRESEPARATION (TABLE 502j T'PEI el870CCIFANts 1 x • R AE BEPAMTgH O9rIWCE x.r I e<R<sD 1 NO RATING 19.%<m D REQUIREMENT ].m D 5. MAX AREA EXTERIOR WALL OPENIN0.R (TABLE 704.B( FREBFPAMimN CVwlIFXwTpN 019TANCEPfE1) -FOPm UNLIMITED aros ProTEtTm~xv uwROTecFm-xP pROTEOIED !ros Pgmfclm~lsx uwaorfclEO-xP OP NG Irolo PnalECrm~ax uxPROrtcIED~lsx ENI lorols PRmEClm.ux uNMmecIED-Iex AND lerom PR01ECIm~ax uxtaomclm.a% UNLIMITED mTOa PRmECIEp-xL urArorEmm.yx UNPROTECTED aTam Pgommm-NL uNTOTmrm-M OPENING .m PROrfmm~ra urlnoTmTm-NL • AUrdM11C MMM6EN Sf erEN (aECf ION mU.11 eullnwca EwIPPEG WMAVwxunclwlMpERemEMewue 1flWIi1E0 ul OPENING! EOUx m ME LA W U1E0lMAiKKA FOR PROTECim 6EXIXAa 'RARE 101.E PomIe0Rl1 RILpNW WMWE f%1ERIOA IEMINO WALL EIRERgR XpXEENINOWALLAXG EI(IERIOx 9rRUCNRx FPAI,! AP! NDT PE W IRED ro e! fele R[eImNO MTeo eY iAlu m I GR m] 9H%10E PFAYlIEpm NAVEUILMRm IMPROlE1'F.D M •rtAREra.e.FDOTrmn:m M E LAG OF DPENI N0.R M AY OPf N IMNINp 9MM(T,RE WIM A FIRE eEPUUrmx of OREA.rfq rwW I D FfFr WLALL Xm m uMITm NEY, TEXT INDICATES A0.1U9TA¢NTS TO THE SITE PLANISUILDIN09 PEA OWNER/AgCH1TECT gEWEBT. NOTES: cuaunows ARE APPgOXIMATEAND AqE B4SED oN saEMAnc DRAVwg3s. TMEBE AREASARE SUBJECT TO CXM'OE. CALCULATIONS AqE NOT BA9E0 ON A9AUIL7 FIELD DIMENSIONS. ~~~ WOm Fa°. v =uW e: d a oM Ve uZ ~e M a U w F I W } - F ~ W I CZt~U ~ ~ Q ~ lCNIQ ~~ ~ B 9`~ ~~~ a ~a ~ {g da i EEt W~ ~m d `~ U Z r O 3W U IJ 3 F J W m C } ca !L C ~~ A0.01 1. RATING REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS RARI F mI1 w wFFA"MW wnw uRWa xxXMR Mm10]0Ap)R OIRYAw UPJIeIE mWOMXAMA¢I RD WY XRq WWik0.11~01010 D.RWF WAM O]IMVMMOIIECI ~~°I~~ N _~ . .~` o I I I /rr ` ~ G"B 1V~ ~ ... .... F~. ~ I ~I/ I 21 I . ! I ~_.. "" ~ I I I' I I -~= ~ •. I - I i I, `-EAISTING PARCEL UNE `-PROPOSED PARCEL LINE DIAGRAM INDICATING EXISTING AND PRCP09ED PARCEL LINE ADJUSTMENTS EXISTING BUILDING 4 ~ ! I I I I I i i ~ I, ~ I ~ I' .. :. Y1 ; ~!.It!i ~,'Ii I I ~ii ~' liii~'',, II ~. (! ..1 ~ I . W G WHO Fv' !u~ OmO d Ui o~ mi a N F u w ~ r = W } . F N W I ~z~u o~a~ ~cmxa ~~ ~~~ a~ ~ E ~ ~~ W~ ~~ d V ~ W U J ; N J W w ~ z D 0~ ao ~W Z QJ ~J ZW N_V x S W d ~E A0.02 \ \ \ ``/\ ~ ~ '~ I ~I \ ~~ n`t ~' \ ~ V~ '~%\\ PROPOSED PARCEL LINE \ \ rO E%IS7ING PARCEL LINE ,~ .. ~ _ _ e`er ~ ~, ,~ ~. g __~ ,- ~ ~ ~ 8 8 a -- $ ~ ~ '~ _.., ~.. i ~., \ = ` o ~ '~ '{ ~ - ~ 2 28 8 A 1 ~ 4.8 5 t ~. 8 ~ ~. 7 ~ - . 8 - - ~ ~ 9 ~'-' 10 ---i --- , 11 . -- 12 121 13 - -------- - -- - 1M1 - _ _.. _ - - ... - _ _ - _ .. - _ ...__. _ _, OIN qi '~ ~ . _ . -_- __. ____~_._-.._ ._.. _. __ -__..-__--___ -~ __-__ - _._-._.-___ i __ _ sox ~ -- ----._-.._.._ _.... __ __._.. --..___ __ A _ -,._ .__ ., . _. _.._._..__ r ` __ _ - -- --.. _~ _....__._. d ~ ' ,~ _ ~ _ ~~_. ~ a ~ I L _~ - _ ~ y' /A I illy i- 1~ ~ j i i ~ m 2 i - __ .. i i .. .... ._.. ___ .. _._ _...-_.___..._.. _.- ._. __.. ..__ .__.. _.__.. __ __..._. .__._.. .._._. .....__._-____ -_ _. ...._.__....__. _..____.~ - ___.. __....-_. _..__....-_.__. 1 ~ ~ I , iL.__ PPINf~~ U - - I - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - . _ - _ ~ ~~ "~. A F ' ~' ill' ~ F = W } . " B o~a~ i 1 I, i~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rai r. ~ ~~ ~~ --- -- ~ -- -P F - - - - - - -- - - -- - - W~ - ___ _ _ ~ __ h ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~; '~ ELEV. NACN. ~ ~ 10AAGE% ~` MEN RESiR00N ME S SH OWER AOW .... ~ P ~ I ~ I _ ~~ ~ ~ W _ m ~ ixuu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I A I G01 ~~ ~ LypAiA I ~ ~ SH ' I I ~ UP ~ SiAlfl R1 I ~ ON N'S RESIROON UM 5 SHONEA AOON I ` ~ UP lI ~ $iAIR /t /~ ~ II I ./ r - y --- ---- - - +~-- -~+- --- H-- --H-- +~- - - ~F = H-- i --- - -H .i .R ,- p a a I ` I~ -*~y~L 4 =-- ----- LOBBY ~~E ~ -~ ---- - - --- ~- I - - --~-~-~ i -- - ~ ,1--r ~~ _ ----- E I ~ i W a 3 ~ ~ ` I y ~ I i ~ .-i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~:/ r ~ ~ LL L }G. ~ ~ ~ u F a _ 7~ `r r i t , ~- -~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H , I , ~ ~, ~ '~iii~~t~' r ~~ ~ ' ~.~ ~ t , ' i ~~~_ ! ~ ;%, •'' ," ,~ ~ s,-~ ~ ~,~ t rte= ~ ~ ~ ~ L--'" -T ~ ~ I -r K ABE+~ ~ I ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ , '= .. J ~ I ~ I °~ ` G I r I''' '~'C"?'"1 iL 7 Ir f 7 ~ ~ ~ H --H +I--- - - ' - - %~,~/~ - i - - - ~_ - - H ~ i 1i 7 y L A L L- _ ~ __ ~~~'~I~ x ~ f ~ ~~~ __._.._.-- i .._._ ._ _. ..-- WY 4fNd ~ ~ Z _ I F k .1 ~ y: . .. ._..., ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~\ " ~. ~ E ' - c __ ~. _ t -~ ~ r i k - I _ - I` - ~ ~ ~ - - _.~, l J - ... - __ - - -- ., r '~~ , ~ ~ F ..-. ....__ ... -._ 7\' - -- ~,,y r' ' \ N LL ~ _, -~-- --~~-~ -- ~ I 1 - ~~- .. % i . ,~ .. ~ _. _..,., _ ,~ ._- __ . , , ,. ._, .; "~ ! ~ ~4 15 ~.:n .. A. ~ . ~k BUILDING A - FlR9T FLOOR PLAN 1 ""' A2.01 ru woo xo wim NArewx~nAep Im mmnurt axa ru uwmto ce a rs.~ortbt w wrim x onx~m ~ a omcem NMON wimi maxi a ra.rai¢r ~ ~ a ~ ~ s ~ ~ a N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 2 2.9 3 4 4.8 5 8 7 8 9 10 10.4 11 12 12.1 13 14 ~ ' o ,~ ald~ dMwaaN Rdxr W ~ ~ ~m~ xa•rro. w.~, ~ maTro. a dma' n m e ~ ~ ~ ~ dMMOx <x u< a ~m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A m F U -- ~_ _ -_ - --~ ~-- ~_--- ----- - ~ _ ~_ -~_~_- - ~ --- _- ~ _~_ --~ - B ~ H = W } F W W I C Z G U C 07< YNIQ $~ - -- ~ ~ -~~-- __---_ -_ ~ R --- _ --- ~ - = - ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ---- ~ C ~~ ~~~ a~ ~gEr~~ ~ nuu ~ \ 1 / ~/ cm I A ~ MEN' RESTROOM ~ q k ~ ~ \ / ~~/ A - vrav 4 °- ~ I ~ I I I W a 3 u $ - - - - - oR - STMR TI 1E 1T ~ - ~ ~~ -H sN~rT n - i+- - - ~ WOMEN' RESIROOM - - _~ - - - - -F~ H - - ---=Ff - - - - - ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~F - -* sN~vT H oN Si,1IR 7- - - - , ~ - - ~ - - H I ~ I ~ 0 i d a t~ ~ - - ~ - ~ - ~ - - ~ -- ------ ~ i g a g cnNOar N ~---- -}-- - --- -----}- -~-- --{-~---h------ - 4 -~- --~-+--~- --- - -~- ---i-- F y y W w ~ o: ~--- ----- -~ cu~avr -- ------------ - - r--- -- - - -~----~------ -~+- ---H-- -H- - -~- - -+I--- -- - ~- -- ~ --- -- --- - -~- --- G --~- - --~- H Z g uM~uerotirdlM F /a 0 J LL Z 0 W N !8 ~~ :~ BUILDING A -SECOND FLOOR PLAN AA' ILL d.MM M MdX WIINL urzM<NM W6AM OIiM1L IM UCAL9ID ME16 AR MNQt W WY Ipl C W VAID. SRC M tlCt90 ~Apl! Mild WIGiQ M MgRtf ~~ ~~ MECn/.VICIIELAEflY Q rr~~ 1 1 s' 2B t a I ~ 4.B ~ ieE,e~an 14 12 lx~ 1 ~ ya I Q ~ Y Y ~ ~ ~ rv ~ I I ~ Y Y I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I a B s iooEtru .. . I -.. I. . i ,evlrx oYUa Wew I REPmmoEiuLr 0 ' ~ 0 0 a 0 0 ~ ~ ~ . 0 a. O 4 0 a _. _ o 0-~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 p s 9 o ' ~ ~- ~ Q. .. p s m Q Q \ Fpm MWv ~ ~ 0 ~m 0 / z ° 1 BUILDING A -WEST ELEVATION NECEmEMEMmrxtnriWOPr rxLxwEMEw au7~wex rtE aus tMe PN) a ro . ~ m Y V U< V ~ 'y~ is xEw eneax I ` J axr ro wax eaed m10 ~Jµ $i.Nm~ APNVPFi F Y r~ oma d ~ Y ~ U a ran `F _ W ~ F _- .__ _........... __....._ I w y _ F N W I a~l>r G Z G U a==~ _ - --- - -- -- YDiTQ rruiurmcwnL ~ aYO..aeP iNw 'ao: a$ ~ Li ~~ m~ W I raxxP.WUxE OEa ara I ` rRmocRrEnRV~ ~ ~ ~ BUUILDING A -EXTENDED WEST ELEVATION ~ BUILDING A • EXTENDED WEST ELEVATION 2 y ~ d° E ~ ' Ilma W y a R 14 13 121 1Z 11 ~ ~sE~ ecREO+ ~ B 7 B 6 4.8 4 3 2B 2 1 O M1101 i x . . ~ a ~y5y ~ ~ Q Q ~ i.0. RCOf V ~ Q 7 Q . . 0 .. ... . . Q Q~ 7 3W o y ~ Re F a -°r"'~ J 3 0 ~ ~ ~ _.. ... __ _ W Wm Q - ~i C aea.wxeh ~ io.w F 4 BUILDING A - EA37 ELEVATION A B C uECxwlcu xMER Igflgip ~ D E F 0 H ~0..xa .~. H D F E D fE~~ '9~N C B A ~ MATERIALS LEDEND pcLEfnLOwalNEUUnxa Ol/aNp WRWRN Opi FAi QY i0. MEtn 9GS£N ~ .. .... - _ .. .. ... ~aaNmnNO I i a EWEW ....... EL xe ._ ... _ _ .. _ _ .. .. ~ _.m~ i0.9nEEx 0%I VFN RBURFACE O 0~4E~Irp M'RINWIAiIIp $i0.P ~ EL xe ~ ~ aPM1nNREL ILWM: WEIAAIW( NunNOUnlr miauerxRMwa 2 O Q ~~ 0 $ PU O O' ~ r NMF ~~~. ' ~, ~'~. ~ ~m ~ ~ Q ~ p iEY1NR®CAL0.PFD CgaREiE P.WElB PMNIEC N UMINUM HgRON} Q _... .. O 0 _ ~ ._.__. ....._._. .... .. Q' O O ' O Qi m. . PuN1ERAWMIRIMWWON Q PAIXIEUµMMIIUMPNFL J W 8 q~ 1e $ ___ _. Qi INNRG ULMINUNCV10w f 8 rc.aw ...._ 0 0 ~.rx p vuxrto.uuMWUUwwoow a 0 -. ~ 0 ~ 0 _.. _. inw~ ai•LE _.: Q. . ._ _... ___ ___ _ _. .... _ , _. \ ~ ~ _ _ .. ~ 0 -_ 0 / i.NwY I ovouE~Ew 5 BUILDING A • NORTH ELEVATION +--~ '~° GBUOllE BUILDING A • SOUTH ELEVATION (CAFE) WEw w 6 x,P A3.11 AL NRwR W YIIILY WRY YRYMN Irp lggAfn[ NEMR A'0 NP9WPa xMl6 aF N9N 21 MO WY of r WNIGIl4 um x oNCCY6lAltllf Wlllpl911L11 OM NCNRI ~ ~ ~ a s s ~ ~ z z.s a ~ as s e ~ e s w ~ ~ ~ 4n ~ ~z ~z~ >3 u ~ ~ ~ 5a Erra I y I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ s saran enn eiwE F ~ ~ r ~ r =UEi I ~ r \ l ~ r LC. Yba _ __________ _______ ~ ______ I II II ~______~I II II II ~, ! u ___ _______ ___________ ___________ ___ ____________ ___________ __ ___ ~~ r ____ _______ ~ _____________ _ ~Z ~ ~ ~ h~~.yrya I p t ~ iEWWiaEINR ~ 11 r ~ r ~ ~x / \ \ ~ ! 1 4 ~ __-_-_ _ ______ ~~~~ _-___ I _____ ~ II III __ _______ ________lf_ U _ ______ ____________ _____________ ~ _ N iBLV1i CEIEflG , i ~ . II II rtxwrc~urao F II u u ~~ ~ II If _ W ' ____________________ ______ ____ _ _____________________________ ________________ ___ ___ ___ _______________________, ~ F 2 W } . IENMTBP/f.F BTNRAI LOBev ELNANR iEUa.1iAR00M RFSIRaa16181RHER6 iEBM'i8Pi1CE Sfn RR iB4WT SPACE F YI W 2 ~zt~u o~aa YD12a ~~ ~~~ z ~W .~ ~~ ~a W d v ~ 3 H C F E D C B A 3 W Ilya 7 (~ U ra~ieu rase N ~ 'EGMYfMEIRMaIE b A/~ ~•/ JJ ¢1Pr N4AEi aar ~ ~ li C ro Hoar E a _ ________ _____ rPxRrtaRlxo _ _____________ __ ________ _______________ ~iFIl1RiCENNO M1 ¢ ¢ ..,e ~ - -------- --------------- `iBUNf FJl1N3 - ------ ------ -- -------- --------------- ~iFRINi CFWNIi F a°u:'"' H Z --------- ----------- - ----------- - - --- G F 1'JnVITYACE CCP£ RNAVl BPACf ' t- g ~ N ~~ f A3.12 ~ ~ ~ ~ s a a ~ y ~ 5 ~ , . ~I, ~ __ . ~ 1s Q _ .09 1 2 ,, \ 3 _ . . 4 ,. 5 _ 8 _~ __ ~_:.~_ ._-.. ' v 1 `~ . -- _----_ _ ___ ~ ~..__ 8 - . _ 9 _ 9.4 ~ 10 ~ ~~ 11 t1.1 12 - 13 ~.~~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' E d i i I `i i I ~ EA. ~ f ~ 1. ~ _ , _ _ _.._ . ..__...__ . , ---.. . _ . ._,,,.. ~ ,~ ~ ,, I ` \ u a 4 MMEMBgN - ,` ' ~ ~ 4.. ~ , , , I ~ t 04 0 .. _. 0 A - +~'--- --+~-- --H- ---+~--- -FF- --H-----H--- --H----+~- ----FF----H-~- --+I-- ---FF ~•'-~ I -, W F U ~ _ - _ _ . - - f I _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - . _ - - _ - f I _ _ _ - _ - _ . - - - _ - _ _ - _ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I _. ^_ ~, ,~ F I W Y - FNwI IZt,U 0 7 Q C I YNIa ~ .. R ; . Ci - \~ ~ El£C. ROOK ~ _-~-- _ - -{fly . _- _ {I+~- . -_- -_- . - -_- . . _ _ -_- ' ~--_~_-_ 'i ~ '~... ' /"~ Q ~~ ~~~ q yn ijep! ~~ 8~7~ g' dd P \ ~ i 1~ I I MEN'S SHOWER A ~ - M MEN'S RESRIOOM ELEV. TOAAG MACH. __ ~ -- I i ,, ~~\ 1~ a a E ~ P W S W CA 4 e ---- - - - -- X ~ A ~ o ^ c - ~ CAB ~' -. __ i lE4/IM A OI ~ (' ^ u ...: ,_ _ ~~ ~~ ~ `~. ~ - i ~ ~ ~ STAIA yP SHAFT ~ ~- - IABOVE~ _ _ _ _ .......... WOMEN'S SHONE OOM NtlAIEN'S AE 1ROOM i i TAIR yl d -- _ -- D.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I_;~z~..__ -I ' •~' v v Q z - - - I ~oeer ~ M -r ~ ~ ~ ,1_. p i ~I ~ ~~ .~. ~ ~ 1 ~ - D.4 - - ~ w a ~ a E a ~ T - - - - -r^- I ~ I `"~ i n ~ `~~ --' = ~ D,8 - J 3 -- - - ~ .~ rt { ~ r T~ -- /~ ~n Y/ J M7W~ ~ I -2~_ 1 E i ,; ~ ~ ~ .t_L1 ,[_ ' -- ' y r t ' ~ t I __ E9 - -- -- -- _ - ~ _ - -z.-«- ... ~ -I ~ '~:~ r~- >?-.,' -rA7 E-r'-~ . b I - t i z ~ r ~r ~ i__~ ~. (< 1~ f.~~ J . _.-, ' t . I~ ;~ ~ ,' ~ i~ '~ I 1 f ''~ ~~ y~ ~ ~ ~x'~ +11 II r F_==~.~~ ~ ~ " f y I ~ i'~~~i _ i 0 __ -_ ~ '~ .. .,_., . - t v . ' ' ~ v , . a' -_ ._ s k . ~ ! _. . ~.- ~ I , ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ i \ `i , - ~ ~ _.... '-. . - ri A ,- - ~ ........ . _. ~ . ~ , \ _ r _. '. .... . J -"--.. i .. ~ ~ .. ~ ,... ~ r ' ~ ~ I t i , , ~~ i _ j -'_ f I __..__ .._.....- .... _. _.-._. I - I . . -_ - ' ~ _ '1 `- - ` ~ i i ~ t ,F li i ~ ~ BUILDING 8 - FlR3T FLOOR PLAN 1 ~'° A2,01 .w~ ~oiiu vrvu xrrrW ~WI4901A1IR WWM w vwwu aW v M NAIIfCl NE WI Mi [ 01i111[A14.1cmW 4®®WWLf Mlld Cl®1104 All M0116 ~ ~ s ~ ~ s ~ ~ o ~ ~ s ~ ~ .09 1 n n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BA 10 11 ri1 12 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Po Y 7 ~~ ' , P ~ G u F m o . m d m ~ ma ttr. < < m U , ~ nll i i i , warn. Cam °x r 7 ¢ ~ i ' IMENaOM Pdlf i2 ~i a~ 0 = ~ N + ~-- ---h~--- -H----1+--- --i +- --I+-- - -H- ----H ---+F- - - --I+- ---H~ -- --+~- ---F F -~A ~-- , m }- U -- - - - --- - - - -- ---- -- - - - - - - - ~ I W } . F ~ W I CZ(~U ~- ~ ~ j ~ ~ j ~ j ~ j~ fi ~ Y N 2 Q ~-- --~-'-- -~ ---- - -~F 1~-- - ~11 --- -- - ---I~- --- ~- --~-- --___d } -~ W~ ~~ ~- `-~ - - - --- _- - - ' 9 p ~ ~ / s Res~oae ~r~ j 4 C - - -- , . ¢ X g ~ X N a; a ~ ~ ~ Qo ~ ~ ~ ~,~ H , z ~ ~ os $TAIA Y2 SHAfT IYJMEN'S RES OOU $H AR STAIA ~I ~ f ~ ~ ~ -- _ -~- ---~ -_ ~_ --- -- -~ - --~~ --~ - ~ ili a ~ -- - D1 } g ~ ~ J ----- --- --- -- -- -- -- 0,8 3 - --- - - 4 7 J E - - ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ -- -- -- - - -- - - - EB , ~ ~ ogeuro `~"~ x' ~ c>xaar ~ -- ~ 2 EB - -- -- ---- -- - - -- - - - - ---- ---- - --- - -- - - - E9 g p - - €' k F d O 0 J V. 2 0 N ~~ ~~ 1 BuaLDINO B -SECOND FLOOR PLAIT ~ 02 ~ 8 ~ AB 1 2 3 4 5 8 i~~ ~" ~ B B BA 10 11 tt1 12 13 g g g ~ VIEW MPPA ra°ErNix r°M q °m 0 w m wn ~ 0 0 '.. 0 . . ~ d 3 0-~ 0 0 ~ 0 ___ _ ___ 0 O __ ~ 0 ~ aa. r°.lau ~ ~ 0 - ~ 'o S o 0 ~ ~ i, Q 0 sva T° R"A~ Q --- 0 - -- ---~ _ - , '--- 0 ~ G ° W~ m O ~ O / . .. . . a a e a q 0 0 u p / e6: LDING B • WEST ELEYA °aIOLENEW 4 RECE95EDENiM'MM Gl40W ~ r ~ ° j 2 REFFAM a7NLx U a 04 a~ F E9 EB 9 DA D "AacNNNMJI9CREEx i~cn C B A ....._..__.._..... ser raxca 13 I a W . euAEa ax vEw ~, `°~; U } O a bd 1 'a..~ r a~ w I w ~ I I. 0 0 0 °~ °-'0 0 0 ~ _ , P Faw2 ~zc~u . ... _ _ o - - 0 0 o--A m __. o . o ~,,, ° _ _..__.__ ._ .. o ~ a a Y N x a o-, ~ a _ _ . a,r.~ 0 0 ~ o o >w 0 0 ~ 4 0 ~_ ~ 0 0 ~ ,.o...A ~' o'R~P m 2 BUILDING B - OI IT.> JfH ELEVA ~,®ENIitt WRMGW°Pr ON °uwuEMEw 3 BUILDING B - EXTENDED W ST ELEVATION IvF«ruuaaoECx IMf E _~ ~ 13 12 tt1 it W BA B B 7 Mmw+IVixaEE" 8 6 4 3 2 1 IAEIYiCX~ H .. ~ _. _ AA r.Y d 0 sa hh ! i 4 ~, QQ _ 0 ', ',, ~ '~.. ~ ', ~ ~, .. I ~ ~ ...._ _. I . __ _. T.a ~~ fi.~bd } 0 2 F a O .,. ... ..... .. ELrV.vp r0 SM 4 . BUILDING B -EAST ELEVATION MI'P A B ~g~REM C C.4 D D.1 E E.9 F N4ITERIhL3lEGENG o CIFA1 WkE INaMnNG aaaa uwrmttianPwr cn / ~nYr~xPEEN .... .. ` _.., ~ .. .... ' 0 n~~mwwTlMeurnxE N . a#tl~r ','...0 QQ 9PAVWFl L01'LE pBUATINO °L.SRIG IWR OPMIIE CEWNIC FPRONM WRFI,CE. O oy~ Q ~- '. Q' O ~.m I OO _ '- O iFJINRFDCOLaiE°WNCfE}E %YE18 Q PIPNME°KUMMIbINORIZ°NfN. W ..__. O Q O -- -. _. Qi PNNAFOkIIMMMMMaWN Qi PNNIEDNAIMMIINPNH Q PNHTFO NUMMIIMCJNJPI J1'11 1' W !g jg Y T°!SIA9 Q O OO PNXMINANPMJMNN°°rl FliwE ' ~ .. t \ ~ O ~' - ^7 ~T°.sw ~ 0' ~ ~ ~ 5 BUILDING B - ELEVA71ON =-_ =-_ 'R~." MEW WEAYOC A3.11 W a.Ma xp MRM WWq'va11Ap IAip aMMN[ mAxM NE ygWPfO MAlS N.UNAM Np WiAAI [ AIPI:CIM, as a ancao MMaf MAIM NA41n 0 M 110MRI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : a s s ~d `? AB 1 2 3 ~ S 8 1 sa B 9 9A 10 11 tt1 17 13 ~ ° ~ qgt~~ ¢ S g 8 o m ~0 i r~ - z .,~iA N~R e %~-01~ ZU~ pOm ti ~ i aa~h ~i i ~ ~ ~ r I r.alan ________ _______________ l / _____ ____________ _______ ________ _______________ _______ __ <2 U~ IENIai PFR1NM ~? I \ ~ ~ / 1 1ir91M~ b 2 m / / \ ip yAe Y N n _ _______ _______________ ~ ____ _____ ____________ ______ ------- ----~r-------- lJ - F iExwrcuuxa u aPa•wu vn vu W C F W ~___________ ___ ______ _______________________________ __________________________ _________ _ = ~ - H N W I 840AEPB rczou iF1U4I5p~CE 91NXR IIXWilPACE PHIppPMBl o~a~ YtA2Q P~ ~~~ 9 ~ ~ ~ Y FF ~d ~~~ 1 BUPLDINO B - LONGrtuDINAL SECTION W g ~ d ~ d ~ U ` r ? A B C CA D D.1 E EA F a~ a 11PP U F a J 3 axi ~io vEa sn®+ ~ ~ ~ J W w 0.HV M~HAWGL QlX09URf y ~ dr 0.x+ uor ~rexAnceunn ~i~rcEUea § r w o~ ~iExAm cEUna ~iewrneouna b Pa•wea rnew O raw euuoixcc iEWNi 9YACE Cpa IENINi a'AfE W U) ig g ~ BUILDING B • uTRUDINAL BECTION Q ~ra A3.12 i ~ i ~ ~ II ~ / 1 I ~~ WM ~ I~ ~ I II I II I 1 II I II I II I I I _____~ _______ _________________ 1BNNi CEII.Mi _ ~ r ~~ ` I I I I i i I _____ _______ _____________ i ' _ I I II I II 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i BLWi PEIW U ------- TELMiA RAW ---- EIEMtt1R ------- LaBai -------------------------------- 9iAPM 1ENA•Il9WCE ~o~~ ~N ~~~~ cos w~p .09 1 ~ n n ~ ~ 'W" n ~ n BA 10 11 1t1 12 n i ~ W Y `II' YI 7 7 i ri ~ ~ ~ E~d oan+dwx ~ I ~ - ~ ~~ A m AB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Al ~ ' ' ' CANOPY ' }' --~- - --- - -~.- ~~-_ A4 - w ~ }~ I W } .. ~B --- ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 7 C C -~-~---- -~--~-r--- B2 ~ m x a --~'~-~-----~--~ --~--- B.8 a~ ~~8 B.9 ~~ ~~ -~ -- I I I I I I I ~- t- -~----~ - - -=-_~-- ---~_- ~ --- ----~ -- E-- - ~ _~ Et ~~ woMea's aes~nooM W ~ x $~ vN,x ~ ~ ~ ~' od A 4 0 ~wa.i: /~ , p ~ ~B _ C.S - - - - - od % '1 ~ 1 ~ ~, ~ ' SiA R /1 SHAFT ' ~ MEN'S flE5TP00M SHAFT' ' SI,11F rl ' i S D t--~----~-- -_ -- -------~---~ -~ ~~ _~-_--~`_---- r------- o ~~ J 3 ~- ~----~.---~--------- -----~-----~-----~----1----~---~~---~---- ,~ _~ y ~ z ~-- ~---- ~ --- ~ -- ~ - -- - -- --- -~--- - -- -- ~ ~ g Y roam. mam. mwsifuv O m Q b. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n Z ~'~ radr ox ~ o~rrmw W N ~~ 1 BUALDINO C -SECOND FLOOR FLAN A',O~ .x duaMSm xd wtna Wma wa w ~a mmmrt aimx xo uAanm v o x wnm xw wi xn a doom, um a on®vniw dmd maxi a m _. _. __. ___, ..__:~ i ~ ...._.____-_ ..u--- ~~ I i _, f --- ~ ._- i _---- . r' i r~ 1 ;% i ~ ~F ~1~ I~ f ' ' ~v ~'. !'! i' '~. I ~ 1 .._, ~ vx ~ , _f. (: }~ i ~ ~ ~ Ali ~ ; .ii g ~~ K O R T H ~~~ Embarcadero N ~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN RESULTS WAY CAMPUS cwriTUrwarnEres~~c. S U N S E R 1 oz r~ANNSn.rrucmN o~e~szaoe O 13015hnerny ROa4,SWe2W H A G E Y 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 03 NEV6EORNYIING NPIIGTgN 08142008 ~ „o.a,,,e RESULTS WAY, CUPERTINO, CA e~,t.cautnN~.9oooz swR FRwNCI8C0, cw aatoe ttR3s.00 ~'~~~~+ ARCHITECTS ats.asa.taeo 8 ~ ~ 13 12 tt1 h 10 AA 9 B 7 AEDHANGLL9CAEEx 8 S 4 3 Z 1 AB (EEreAAro " a ~ $ : $ D vEw 0 ~ 0 0 0 I. ~ 0 AA C 0 0 0 ~ ' ~ I' 0 0 0 0 0 _._ n. 4 ' _... - ~---~ 0 ~ ~ Y g d 0 0 0 0 S g B ~ ~ ~ I ' o -A --- _ _ -- '--- C o m 0 _ ~ 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 _. F d a m ~ 0 0 0 ~< uq z 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ou' 1 BUILDING C -EAST 0.EVAnON 4 REDEEEtvexiRrreTMCVAarr ~~ DELMYOEVIEW 1x+tp taa u j b4 b` F E D MErxwcusaEEX C B.B B2 AA Al A -_.. _..---...__.... ___ __._..._ n.r °~~ N F EWEW eX~ V 0 A nW~ 0 0 _ ~ 0 0 o Roor W a F = W } . F N W I 0 0 0 .___ ._. ._._ _ o a G:Z(~U 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ nirr _.__. _ __ YNTQ i 0 I 0' O O io Aw a U $s ~ ~.. __.. O ___ .. _ _.. ..._. . .. ~.. _..._. ...__. _..._ _..___ .. _ _ .. _ _ _ i ___ __ _ ._..._ . __ _ `~ N4 33d m yy Dp7 ~ W W 0 gg Q • d~ Q 0 0 sar. a A,.4xr~ A a 2 BUILDING C -SOUTH ELEVATION ~'° DvauEWex REma W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MEplWItl14~FEN .00 1 Z 9 4 6 B ,~ ~ 7 B 9 u 1D r tti tt 1B a,r _. _.... H ~ ...•m~w~ ! o ~--$ ~ ~ o i I I nar d ~ ~ ~,~ „, II '~~ .~ - 0 '. ~ _ I ~ ~ I, I .. ._. .. '~ is ~ y ~ Z Q a _. ~ ~.,,. '~. '~.. ~frrJ~ iA euq Q 0 O M 7 ~ C ~ ~ nrr•.ur Tnew~ 3 BUILDING C -WEST ELEVATION A A9 B ~°~'r"` &B C GB D E p ~sEra~q MATERIALS LEOEN~ 0 D~11OY1E1~^^~ o ~~rvmm rorFlma+ ~ a„~ &~ a °~aWf iXruanD DIAiIND UNR +0 BPINOREILOWE N9AATN0 EfAa.'DVNIT. OPIAIEI£RANIC N O ~n 8r O ~ O J """"'~ 0 O ' jp ppy~' fRIi ONMSURFACE 'Q iFXfLPFO COLUPFOCONOEiE PANELS 'O PNxRD11UMWUMIXIRQOMK F Q 0 O 0 p PuxiPnuuMWUMMUwox o PuxIFDILUMWDMPWIE Q PNNRO W.UMWUMCWIDPY J W !$ i8 OQ PAXTED N.UMIXLMWNODYI O ( ]' PRALE (] W (] QQ O ~ BUILDING C • NORTH EVA TION 4 NEW MIIIOOxiB A3.11 Ill PAM3 MD RIDp WRRM WLX010IWM CrrY.AAME OYIN Aq MRil0E4 MIR Q M AOM[[I ND WY Nn l[ OWpOA 440 Q OQSDOD xMWI YWDd OORDO D M Apll[CI ~ ~ ~ s a : s s s a ~ ~ b 11 1t1 if W 9.4 8 8 7 8 6 4 9 Z 1 .OD a ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~g d ~ yy i - s s ~,.d raR~ ,~ o8 v s y W 0 ~nd~ T~ ~UW x \ ~ s ar u y v ! _, V r 1 1 , ~ m.xos ~ i ~ p 4 I I I I II i ~ i C I I I e vr y u r I[ I II h I II ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ras V _ _________________________ I _____ I II I II __ _______ ________, r____ _______ _____ ____________ _____ ____ _______ _____ _ ~ ~ I II ~ i ~\ I II I II F \ ~ I II ~ - \ ~ I II d..~,E~ r,a W LC __________________________ _____ _ ______________________________ _______________________________ ___ ___________________________, F 2 W > .. F ~ W I 1ENWT9RACE SfARXI IOSN EIFVATgi 1ElAATAROON RESiRO0N9Mq'hR9 1ENWiSYACE BTNRp iERANSPACE ~ .Z ~ U o~a~ YrAIQ $~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ BUILDINp C - LONpITUDINAL 3ECTaN W 1 d ~ R y d V ~ A A9 B Bb C C.B D E p } Z +ivd ! w l iy u ,.a;~, J 3 4FIAY0~ b R~RVV F . 6Nd i0.PNWRi y J N W a h rnw~ady ~ ~ _____________ n __________________________ ______ ______ _________________________ >d TaaAa R.va•.xre Tn w Z NFNBIIhdNOS iERWI P O S ACE CORE lF%WtBRACE W N ~e 2 BUILDING C - uTITUDINU SECTION d,~.d A3E12 ILL WAaN XO NIRiI R1RYL IAENRC M1EII CNAfJfJR SRYFY NI11RDb141CN.0 M NMLLi NI W1 XE1! W W40. SRO M NO® NMWI NIIOI WXGI d TS MMRf ..L o ~t m C, 4 arc r•c aec arc arc i~ O m r ~ O - ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , § _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N ~ 4 I ~4 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ W 1BC so. sru~~NC~R aec onnreN~ irc sm. srNL U:NOn~ fec sro.euuiu:woTM aec ORNENeIE sec uxuwosnw. v=NCTM _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ i _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ V t:' 4 j_-____ _______________ I I I I I I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r ~T___________________________ I I _ _ O I I I I 1 - - - -- - - - - - ~ - - r - - 3 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N ~ ' ~ • - - - ~ ~ i A axu x vAa.u 1 ~ f I 4 -- I - - - - - ~ ------ - ---- - -- ---- ---- - - - - - rii n a i i ~ i ~~~ -- i - - - - - - - of ~I I ~, - ~ D - Etnbar4:adero K o R T H H oar N ''E1 LOWER PARKING LEVEL RESULTS WAY CAMPUS CAPITALPARTNEfiSLLC S o sox s o4 zs zoos - r . U N S E R 1 02 R,,,w,~,o~~~ aszszooe (y '. ~ [ ~ ~..~ 1307 ShoNwey Rme. SUYe 250 RESULTS WAY CUPERTINO CA H A G E Y 660 CALIFORNIA STREET 03 nEV~eEO auwiRSNNIGTgR 08142008 j _ _ ~ osTx.oo , , eeNNnL caummie 81002 .,v._emu~.mm SAN FRANCIBCO~ CA -41 OB ARCH t T E C T S o f s.-sa. f -so j 4 ~ ~ ~ xa m N, xc xx•a xra~ O ~ +ra Y - m - - - c v m °m x ~ $ ~§ ~ , a s - - - - - - ~ ~ `J ?' ~4 ~; a ~ lea Tea +sff xo va sro. srua ltamH onne •aiE sm. ervi ~wDll1 slo. sruLler1o111 oarvE USle aonnD Srxu iexDnl - - - ~ _ _ ~ - - - , - T I _ ~ - - - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - ~' ~ , ~ 6 I - - - - - - - - - - ~ \ J J i /~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ `/ ~ i ~ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ \I 1 _ _ l ~ _ _ _ , _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ ~ W J \J 1313' 1 _ S I\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ -x 7/A11x _ 'y ` i , , ea i ~ f ~ 1 ~\ a ~ \\ ~~ ~~ O ~ \\\ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~\ ~~ \\. O ~ OI ~ \\ `\ A \\ ~ ~ \ •~. lxed KO TH ~~~ Embarcadero R o1 5ox, so as zs zoos N UPPER PARKING LEVEL RESULTS WAY CAMPUS cAFITALVARTRERSLLa s u N S E R 1 oz Fw«wD.wurw,nx DEUZOOe 1301 Shonway Rood, yyb 750 1..1 A ~. E Y 880 CALIFORNIA STREET 03 REVaED RAINMNWIIGigN OB /42(108 @ ~ ~ RESULTS WAY, CUPERTINO, CA ewn,ml.c.eraa.twosz swn Fwwnelaeo, cw satos `~ N ,o,o,,,~ ~~Op r~.em+~cam ARCH I T E C 7 5 o f s.sts4. t sso ~ ~ ~ ~ n E S S 3 ~ ~ O O I ~ ~ ~ ~ n `l' ~ 10 11 102 103 104 105 106 ~ ~ W~ a FAY I I I I I ~ o: GWOP1'Fdl ILCE9NB'.E 4 P r i1Pd "~~~ P~aaxo R1AV ~ U ~ Id Ue PuxlEOOxroswre Pd1RE0M R,.1CE fANF9EiE srd AUPTp WPFAOECK $4 m z ~ y F u w P Sd MPt VIEROE II F =wy_ F~w2 CZ(~U o~a~ YNIQ $~ ~~~ i g~g~~ ~~ 8~~ 1 OARAOE -WEST ELEVATION id W g R U 0 2 3W Q E f ~ 0 ~ H Y 1 PMaxo v+rww Rcwusurv PROPERTY • ' N LINE ~ ~ i PA%P1LCF%iOUPPERLEVFI %ccESeeiERUauxs iHd I lssu I ~ I su.s m 9lOPE1E1% NIEOORiE ~""' fOlE ~ ,sw ~+ 11'd I I I I ~ PunECSVEalwxuww Z ~_ H S W ~~ 2 OARAOE • sourN ELEVATION A3.11 ~u u+~R.wo wiiu ww.wxMR ~uu. WISTN%4Yl%Np 11N9.E %A T A.uPIRCI 40 Wi.pf [ WRVAm ~~ W RAOVD %Mdrt %ItRX WRPf P A[ 4NIRR ~ ~ ~ E 5 8 S ~ d d g 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 ~ ~ 0 ~ aR<a ~ ~ s ~ w i Ira a'a 6a'a M'd Ifd ra Ya ~ V Q aTA66oum efALL oRWEAwLE rNV WAY aTµoAao aTALL (Td%lrot oRiW!Ais 11Ya WA e Y wA I BTALL z C n 4 m ~Wd•Rtedj URER I£1'6 wPER LEYEI EL 66a t3 i 2 ~ Ay 11!.11 I I I ALCEBSIBLEWW I ~ ~ O~ a LOW 91 b ~ El ~U ua11 W4MNAY ~ ~~ I I I ~ ~ I N F Il II II II II II II II II II I II I ] ~ Il II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I I 1 I W 0 0 II III II 11 II II II ~ ~ ~, F 2 W } srmoNRO SrAU ~ y ~eax6eal ~ y ~ ~ ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ ~ ~ y ~ y ~ I ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y N W 2 L J L J L J L_J L_J L_J L_J L_J l_J L_J L_J L_J L_J L_J F. _ _ _ CZ(7U 07<C lCNIQ P~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ re ~ .~ e ~ GARAGE -LONGITUDINAL SECTION W- ~~ 1 R h 6 a ~~ ~ ~ . ~° a A B C D E F 0 ~ PROPERTY ~ LINE ~ ~ PM%ING LAYO pENLTa WI,T > ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ la -0 1Cd tl ! ' ~ r .ra1 y Y/ J RWPALOEBa iO UPPFR IEYl LPPEfl LEY6 EL 66au ~ ~ auaE l.la% I I EL ]13i I I ~6Y6 4 ^ - - - - - - - n LONER IFl6 ~~ FL 611 EL aT! I O Q ~ -`--- E L 116 ~- --- rS ~S ~S ~S ~S ~5 L_J L_J L_J L_1 L_J LJ (~ t 0 H wore Pax Iva ewra lax s-r sLC.etsN Ica W N ~8 ~~ ss PM6 ACOE881O LQAEA LEVFI. l l ,v_ GARAGE -LATITUDINAL SECTION A3 12 2 ~.Pr . EMBARCADER~ CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC RESULTS WAY CAMPUS CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SITE SECTION 5 5tj'cS~toN~ ! NEW BURDRlG A ~ NEW PARKING DECK S~SErn~yS ~~~.~ ~ _ I- ~I ~ '~ ~, NEW BURRING B V ~xa srtE Sernoxz..__. .. _ _.-- . /RW BURDINGC ,EASRING BURDINGS SIiE SECilONS SIiE SERIONa SITE SECiIDN 3 SECTION KEY DIAGRAM SCALE: N.T,S. AUGUST 14 2008 I ~''~0. SITE SECTION 1 ~, ._.. c.IC',~ SITE SECTION 2 SITE SECTION 4 KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS 650 CALIFORNIA STREET FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL: 415.954.1960 wWW.KSHA.COM m 2008 EMBARCADERO CAPITAL PARTNERS LL RESULTS WAY CAMPUS CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA One Results Way Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of Cupertino Prepared by: /\ `~ ~IEXAdON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. September 12, 2008 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 6 3. Background Conditions .................................................................................................................... 11 4. Project Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 14 ~. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................20 Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Intersection Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ...............................................................v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ......................................... 4 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ..................................... 5 Table 3 Existing Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Background Conditions Levels of Service .................................................................................. 12 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates .............................................................................................. 16 Table 6 Project Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location .............................................. Figure 2 Existing Lane Configurations ..................... Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................... Figure 4 Background Traffic Volumes ..................... Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.. Figure 6 Project Traffic Volumes ............................. ........................................................................... 2 ........................................................................... 8 ........................................................................... 9 ......................................................................... 13 ......................................................................... 17 ......................................................................... 18 One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis v Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the One Results Way project. The project is located near the northwest quadrant of the McClellan Road/Bubb Road intersection in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains ten buildings with 355,296 square feet (s.£) of R&D/office space. The project would remove five of the existing buildings (144,210 s.f.) and add three new office buildings (155,000 s.£) for a total of eight buildings (366,986 s.f.), and a 200-space parking garage. In addition, the project would reconfigure surface parking areas, landscaping and open spaces. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections. An analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed because project trips on freeway segments would not be greater than one percent of the capacity of the segments. Project Trip Generation The standard trip generation rates that were used for the purpose of this traffic study are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. The ITE trip generation rates were applied to the proposed project. The site also was credited for the trips generated by the buildings that would be replaced. Based on the ITE rates, the project would generate 550 net daily trips, with 66 net trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 68 net trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Using the appropriate inbound/outbound splits, the project would produce 64 additional inbound and 2 additional outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 8 additional inbound and 60 additional outbound trips during the PM peak hour than the current uses on site. The trip distribution pattern used in this study was estimated using engineering judgment based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The project trips were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the estimated trip distribution pattern. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis ii Project Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis are summarized in Table ES 1 below. As specified in City of Cupertino guidelines, the level of service (LOS) grade at each intersection is based on average delay for all 12 movements, and the definition of a significant increase is based upon the critical movement delay. All of the study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions and would continue to do so with the project. The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to City of Cupertino level of service standards when compared to the existing conditions (existing development at its current level of occupancy) or to the background conditions (existing development at full occupancy). One Results Way Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ui Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ntersection eak Hour ount Date ve. Delays Existing Ave. Crit. Delay OS° Background Ave. Ave. Crit Delays Delay OS° ve. Delays Ave. Crit. Delay OS° Project Conditions Project Increase over Existing Incr. In Incr. In Crit Delay Crit V/C Project Increase over Background Incr. In Incr. In Crit Delay Crit V/C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bubb Road AM 5/20/2008 21.0 28.4 C 21.1 29.0 C 21.1 29.2 C 0.8 0.047 0.2 0.012 PM 5/20/2008 19.4 26.6 B 19.8 27.2 B 20.0 27.4 B 0.8 0.021 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 SB Ramps' AM 5/21/2008 20 0 22.6 B 19.8 22.6 B 19.8 22.6 B 0.0 0.003 0.0 0.000 PM 10/5/2006 26.7 29.6 C 26.7 29.6 C 26.6 29.6 C 0.0 0.016 0.0 0.005 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 NB Ramps` AM 5120/2008 32.1 38.2 C 33.0 39.2 C 33.4 39.6 C 1.4 0.039 0.4 0.012 PM 10/5/2006 34.7 40.1 C 34.9 40.7 C 35.0 40.9 C 0.8 0.020 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road" AM 5/20/2008 42.9 44.1 D 42.9 44.2 D 43.0 44.2 D 0.1 0.005 0.0 0.001 PM 10/5/2006 49.9 52.3 D 50.2 52.9 D 50.3 53.1 D 0.1 0 007 0.2 0.002 Results Way and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 3.2 2.5 A 6.4 3.8 A 7.2 3.9 A 1.4 0 013 0 1 0.001 PM 5/22/2008 11.6 12.6 B 16.4 17.6 B 17 7 18.8 B 6.2 0.106 1.3 0.031 McCellan Road and Byrne Avenue" AM 5/22/2008 12.2 1.9 B 12.3 1.9 B 12.4 1 9 B n/a n/a n/a n/a PM 5/22/2008 10.0 1.1 B 10.1 1.0 B 10.2 1.0 B n/a n/a n/a n/a McCellan Road and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 26.8 31.2 C 27.0 31.3 C 28 0 31.3 C 0.1 0.001 0.0 0.002 PM 5/22/2008 26.9 30.7 C 271 31.0 C 27.2 31.1 C 0.4 0.027 01 0.008 McCellan Road and Stelling Road AM 5/20/20D8 30.8 34.0 C 31.0 34 3 C 31.1 34.5 C 0.5 0.013 0.1 0.004 PM 5120/2008 31.7 35.7 C 32.2 36.2 C 32.4 36.4 C 0.7 0.019 0.2 0.006 Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road" AM 5/22/2008 13.1 13.1 B 13.2 13.2 8 13.3 13.3 B 0.2 0.003 0.1 0.001 PM 5/22/2008 9.6 9.6 A 9.7 9 7 A 9.7 9 7 A 0.1 0 013 0.0 0.004 When traffic is added to movements with low delay in an intersection, the average delay may decrease. ` Denotes CMP Intersections " Denotes Unsignalized Intersections a Average control delay (seconds per vehicle) including all movements for intersections co ntrolled by a signal or four-way stop. At intersections undertwo-way stop control, average delay is reported for the worst controlled lane group. ° Level of service (based on average delay). One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis v 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the One Results Way project. The project is located near the northwest quadrant of the McClellan Road/Bubb Road intersection in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains ten buildings with 355,296 square feet (s.£) of R&D/office space. The project would remove five of the existing buildings (144,210 s.f.) and add three new office buildings (155,000 s.f.) for a total of eight buildings (366,986 s.£), and a 200-space parking garage. In addition, the project would reconfigure surface parking areas, landscaping and open spaces. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections. An analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed because project trips on freeway segments would not be greater than one percent of the capacity of the segments. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The traffic analysis is based on peak-hour levels of service for seven signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections. The study intersections identified by City staff are listed below. Study Intersections 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Bubb Road 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 SB Ramps* 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 NB Ramps* 4. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road* 5. Bubb Road/Results Way 6. McClellan Road/Stelling Road 7. McClellan Road/Bubb Road One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 1 NORTH Not to Scale Stevens Creek Blvd Q 6 ~ ~ 6 rn ` ~ c_ m °' d McClellan Rd HYannisport pr LEGEND ® =Site © =Study Intersection Figure 1 SITE LOCATION AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS ~~ Hexagon One Results Way ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. 8. McClellan Road/Byrne Avenue (unsignalized) 9. Bubb Road/Hyannisport Drive (unsignalized) Asterisk (*) denotes CMP intersections. Traffic conditions were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes were obtained from CMP counts and peak hour turning- movement counts conducted in May 2008. These volumes represent the existing development at its current level of occupancy. • Background Conditions: Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing volumes the projected volumes to represent the existing development at full occupancy. • Project Conditions: Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, field reconnaissance and the City of Cupertino. The following data were collected from these sources: • existing traffic volumes • lane configurations • signal timing and phasing Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Signalized Intersections All the signalized study intersections are subject to the City of Cupertino level of service standards. The City of Cupertino level of service methodology is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for signalized intersections using the TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The City of Cupertino methodology employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Cupertino level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. The correlation between average stopped delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 3 Three of the study intersections are CMP intersections and, therefore, also are analyzed according to the CMP requirements. The CMP level of service methodology is the same as that used by the City of Cupertino, except that the CMP level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS E or better. However, even CMP intersections located within the City of Cupertino are expected to meet the City's level of service requirement. Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Average Level of Control Delay Service Description Per Vehicle (sec.) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during 10.0 or less the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle 10.1 to 20.0 lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. C Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle 20.1 to 35.0 lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays 35.1 to 55.0 may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E This is considred to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay 55.1 to 80.0 values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. F This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This Greater than 80.0 condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. Unsignalized Intersections The unsignalized study intersections were analyzed with the TRAFFIX level of service software, which uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology for unsignalized intersections. The level of service at all-way stop control intersections is based on the average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2. The City of Cupertino has not established a level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 4 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Level of Average Delay Service Description of Operations Per Vehicle (Sec.) A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Freeway Segments The freeway closest to the project site is SR 85. According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is required if a project is estimated to add project trips to any freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Based on the project trip generation estimates and the project trip distribution pattern discussed in Chapter 4, the estimated trips on nearby freeway segments attributable to the project would be well below the one percent threshold. Therefore, an analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions in terms of the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the transportation system and describes the recommended mitigation measures. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the report. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 5 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Local and regional access to the site is provided by the following roadways: SR 85 is a north-south freeway that extends from Mountain View to south San Jose, terminating at US 101. SR 85 is a six-lane freeway with four mixed-flow lanes and two HOV lanes. It connects to I-280, SR 17, SR 87, and US 101. SR 85 provides access to the project site via the interchange at Steven Creek Boulevard. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a four-lane east/west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends from Cupertino eastward to I-880, at which point it makes a transition into San Carlos Street to Downtown San Jose. Access to the site is provided via Bubb Road. McClellau Road is a two-lane, east-west arterial that extends from S. Foothill Boulevard to S. DeAnza Blvd. McClellan is adjacent to the southern portion of the project site. Bubb Road is a north-south local street that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard southward to Rainbow Drive. Bubb Road intersects Results Way, which provides access to the site. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Within the project study area, striped bike lanes are provided along McClellan Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road. On these streets, bicyclists share the roadway with motor vehicles. Although not specifically designated as bike routes, most neighborhood streets are suitable for bicycle travel due to the low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist primarily of sidewalks, pedestrian push buttons and signal heads at intersections. Sidewalks are found along Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road and the west One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 6 side of Bubb Road. Sidewalks do not exist on the east side of Bubb Road. There is a pedestrian path that runs along the west side of the railroad tracks adjacent to the project site. Existing Transit Service Transit service within Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). However, there are no VTA transit stops in the project vicinity. The closest bus route that serves the project area is Route 51, which runs along Stevens Creek Boulevard and has 30-60 minute headways. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by field reconnaissance. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 2. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Cupertino and supplemented with manual turning-movement counts at intersections where counts were unavailable. All traffic counts were conducted when school was in session. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 3. Traffic count data are included in Appendix A. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffrc Impact Analysis ~ 1 ~j4 ~ Stevens t Creek r Blvd 1 -- ~ r' r' z~ ~~ 2 ~~ ~ ~ itevens r Creek r Blvd ~ ~/ `"a t= ~~ ~~ s 3 t l ~ itevens Creek ~ Blvd J 1 n ~~ ~~ om ~Z 4 «S- itevens r-- Creek ~ 1 4 r Blvd r 1 7TH -~ s ,~1~, ~ dl~- i 1 ~ '- r 'T' ~- McClellan r McClellan Rd Rd McClellan Rd 7T ~ ~ 'ltd' ~ 7TA a ;_ ~ _ m m ID LEGEND ® =Site © =Study Intersection ~~ Hexagon ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1 NORTH Not to Scale Figure 2 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS One Results Way 1 2 3 4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ CD vf` r _ N `~ ~ N N L 98 247 v ~ ~ L 39 78 ( ) 671 763 °r`' ~ ~--- 727(639) ~ ~ Stevens L 524 809 ( ) ~ - 524 726 ( ) Stevens I Creek II ~ ~--- 5771053 ( ) Stevens I ~ ~ ( ) 473 Stevens ~ 129(323) Creek ~ B d ~ -- Blvd 1 4 326(535) 1 Creek ) r' 462( Creek r lv 1 Bl d 1 15 250(247) v ) 7 ~ ~ ~ 8 9 1 ) 3 24 ---- 687( 1264( 7 ) -~ 505 -~ 99( 97(218) 84(134) ~ ,~:, ~ ~ 286(173) Z ~ o ~ ~ V,~ a~N00 ~O ~ N a N N~LL7 ~ ~ 1~0N ~ ~ c0D ~ a0 ~ d ~ ~ C W m Q>u7N N V lA .4,,7 Q, ~ ~. M M m lr~ ~'Z ~ 5 g 7 8 ~ CD : W ~~CD M~-I~ ~M~ CDMN ~ N ~, ~ ~ ~ L 40(22) ~ °' in L 95(67) ~ ~ ~ L 162(188) , ,~ 1 Results Way ~ ~- ~ 154(178) McClellan II Rd ~ 1 ~- 337(217) r-- 198(169) McClellan Rd ~ 1 l- ~ 293(388) 58(142) 7(100) --1 ~ ~ 1 ) McClellan Rd 280 220) ~ ~ ~- 2$$(403) - 331( 50 ~ ---- - 2(22) ~ a, ~, 58(0) Z 22(30) ~ N ~ ~ 41(88) ~ o N ' ~'-' U V > ~ N~N ~ 000 ~ W C ~ MN ~ N lA M m m ~ I9 M ~ N N N ~ L 6(1) NN nnisptbft [~ 6(0) 238(64) -J ~ t ~- 53(11) --3 -~ N N O O C Q>~ D_' ,. M ~ N LEGEND ® =Site © =Studylntersedion XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes NORTH Not to Scale Figure 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~~ Hexagon One Results Way ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection level of service calculations are included in Appendix C. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing Peak Count Ave. Intersection Hour Date Delay LOS Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bubb Road Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 SB Ramps* Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 NB Ramps* Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road" Results Way and Bubb Road McCellan Road and Byrne Avenue** McCellan Road and Bubb Road McCellan Road and Stelling Road Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road*' AM 5/20/2008 21.0 C PM 5/20/2008 19.4 B AM 5/21 /2008 20.0 B PM 10/5/2006 26.7 C AM 5/20/2008 32.1 C PM 10/5/2006 34.7 C AM 5/20/2008 42.9 D PM 10/5/2006 49.9 D AM 5/22/2008 3.2 A PM 5/22/2008 11.6 B AM 5/22/2008 12.2 B PM 5/22/2008 10.0 B AM 5/22/2008 26.8 C PM 5/22/2008 26.9 C AM 5/20/2008 30.8 C PM 5/20/2008 31.7 C AM 5/22/2008 13.1 B PM 5/22/2008 9.6 A * Denotes CMP Intersections ** Denotes Unsignalized Intersections One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 10 3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the projected volumes to represent the existing development at full occupancy. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Background Transportation Network It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background conditions, including roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be unchanged from existing conditions. Background Traffic Volumes Background AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the estimated additional trips associated with the site's current vacancy rate. The trips generated by the existing occupied buildings on site are already accounted for in the existing peak hour counts. Background peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service The intersection level of service results under background conditions are summarized in Table 4. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 11 Table 4 Background Conditions Intersection Level of Service Intersection Peak Count Hour Date Background Ave. Delay LOS Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bubb Road AM 5/20/2008 21.1 C PM 5/20/2008 19.8 B Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 SB Ramps" AM 5/21/2008 19.8 B PM 10/5/2006 26.7 C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 NB Ramps' AM 5/20/2008 33.0 C PM 10/5/2006 34.9 C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road AM 5/20/2008 42.9 D PM 10/5/2006 50.2 D Results Way and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 6.4 A PM 5/22/2008 16.4 B McCellan Road and Byrne Avenue"" AM 5/22/2008 12.3 B PM 5/22/2008 10.1 B McCellan Road and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 27.0 C PM 5/22/2008 27.1 C McCellan Road and Stelling Road AM 5/20/2008 31.0 C PM 5/20/2008 32.2 C Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road*` AM 5/22/2008 13.2 B PM 5/22/2008 9.7 A Denotes CMP Intersections '* Denotes Unsignalized Intersections One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 12 1 2 3 4 ~~~ N ~ M cGNti ~ ~ CO M ~ Nv rNN L 98247 v ~ a°vo L 39(78) 671 763 ~ ~ ~- 778(650) ~ ~ Stevens L 524(809) 539 729 Stevens Creek II ~ l ~--- 584 1055 ( ) s ~ ~- ( ) 490 543 S s ~ ~ r 129(323) Creek ~ d 1 Bl ~--- ( ) Blvd - 1 333(537) j Ceeek ( ) r eek C r v ~ Blvd 1(15) ~ ~ ~ Blvd 654(517) -1 r I ~- 251(254) 346(743) -~ I 687(724) -- 1272(919) -- 994(1518) ~ I 97(218) 99(137) -Z ~ ~ 0 293(206) Z ~ g~ Z ~ ~ OCO~ d ie d N~~ ~ I~~M v ~ ~ ~ ~ o oE 4 1 mE M ~ M rn NV~ d ~ ~ . .. ~1~ M m d'V) D!Z ~ 5 6 7 8 ~ m~D ~CMCN cD~O ~M~ cOMN M ~ ~ r ~ ~ L 40(22) ~~ ~ ~ .°-' ~ L 124(73) ....~(0 ,~ it ~ L 162(188) N ,~ 1 Results way ,~ ~, ~--- 157(191) McClellan Rd ~ 1 ~-- 337(217) r-- 198(169) McClellan Rd ~ 1 l- ~- 308(391) 58(142) 24(186) --1 ~ ~ 1 ) McClellan Rd 140(53) 227 280 ~ ~ ~ 254(148) --1 291 416 I 346( 53 -- ) -~ ( ( ) -- 11(68) ~ N ~ 58(0) Z 22(30) ~ N ~ ~ 42(95) ~ c ~ ~ ~~ v rev > a N~ch ~N ~ ~ rn N~ ~ ~ c a m m m m I9 0 ~ N ~ N L 6(1) N I nnispdrft 1~ 6(0) 238(64) -1 ~ 1 r- 53(11) Z -, `R N N OOH Q) v ~ M ~ N LEGEND ® =Site © =Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes NORTH Not to Scale Figure 4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~~ Hexagon One Results Way ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. 4. Project Conditions This chapter describes project traffic conditions. Included are descriptions of the significance criteria that define a significant impact, estimates ofproject-generated traffic, and identification of any significant impacts. Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the net additional traffic generated by the project. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis the criteria for impacts at intersections are based on the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County level of service standards. Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment. City of Cupertino The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Cupertino if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under background conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay to increase by four or more seconds and the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .O1 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average stopped delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average stopped delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .0l or more. Level of service grade is based upon average delay but the significance threshold is based on critical movement delay. The two measures are slightly different. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 14 CMP The definition of a significant impact at a CMP intersection is the same as for the City of Cupertino, except that the CMP standard for acceptable level of service at a CMP intersection is LOS E or better. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to LOS E or better. Project Trip Estimates The location and magnitude of traffic produced by a new development are estimated using athree-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Project Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates that were used for the purpose of this traffic study are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system was estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates to the size of the development. The site also was credited for the trips generated by the buildings that would be replaced. Based on the ITE rates, the project would generate 550 net daily trips, with 66 net trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 68 net trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Using the appropriate inbound/outbound splits, the project would produce 64 additional inbound and 2 additional outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 8 additional inbound and 60 additional outbound trips during the PM peak hour than the current uses on site. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the area and the locations of complementary land uses. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of primary project trips and the net assignment of project trips at the study intersections. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 15 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Daily Daily Rate /a/ Trips Peak-Hr Rate /a/ AM Peak Hour In Out Total Peak-Hr Rate /a/ PM Peak Hour In Out Total Proposed Use General Office 155,000 s.f. 1101 1,707 1.55 211 29 240 149 39 192 231 Existing Uses Manufacturing (building 6/7) 33,730 s.f. 3.82 129 0.73 19 6 25 0.74 9 16 25 General Office (buidings 8 &9) 58,284 s.f. 11.01 642 1 55 79 11 90 1.49 15 72 87 Reasearch and Development Center (building 10) 47,618 s.f. 8 11 386 1.24 49 10 59 1 08 8 43 51 Exsting Uses Total: 1157 147 26 174 31 132 163 Net Project Trips: 560 64 2 66 8 60 68 Notes: /a/ Rate per 1,000 s.f. for proposed and existing uses. Project Traffic Volumes Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. Background traffic volumes plus project trips are typically referred to simply as project traff c volumes; this is contrasted with the term project trips, which is used to signify the traffic that is produced specifically by the project. The project traffic volumes are shown graphically in Figure 6. Project Intersection Levels of Service The results of the level of service analysis under project conditions are summarized in Table 6. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours under project conditions. When traffic is added to movements with low delay in an intersection, the average delay may decrease. The intersection level of service calculations are included in Appendix B. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Within the project study area, striped bike lanes are provided along McClellan Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road. The existing bike lanes are sufficient to accommodate bikes traveling to and from the project site. Hexagon does not anticipate a significant number of pedestrians traveling to and from the project site. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist primarily of sidewalks, pedestrian push buttons and signal heads at intersections and are sufficient for the proposed project. Existing Transit Service The proposed project would not create enough demand to warrant transit service extension. One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 16 1 2 3 4 N M O ' Stevens .- Stevens ~ 1--- 22(3) Stevens ~ 6(1) ( 7 Stevens I ~ 3(0) Creek 35(4) Creek Creek Creek N 3(0) Blvd Blvd Blvd 0(12) -1 ~ Blvd 0(3) ~ 1(18) ~ 0(6) -- 0(3) ~ 6(1) -Z ~ ~,; ~ 1(15) ~ ~, ~:, O ..~ . y ~ ~ y ~ a CO ~ 'O ~ O ~ ~~ ~'~ m D:N trZ ~ 5 6 7 8 lt) v N o 0 o 2 t- 13 M Results ~ ~ ~(6) McClellan ~ I ( ) McClellan ~ ~ 6(1) Way McClellan R d Rd 1 Rd 1(39) 6(1) ~ T 0(3) --1 6(1) -~ I 0(6) ~ 1(21) v o [~J 0(3) ~ o ('7 ~ N N ~ Q ~ ~ pl C d m C m ~ m .~. N 9 0 Hyannisport Dr 1 T a o ~° o LEGEND ~Oo~o ° 10% H H 10% 0 1~ NORTH Not to Scale ® ~ ~ =sae ~ © =Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 5 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ~~ Hexagon ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. One Results Way ° '~0 j Stevens Creek Blvd a d ~. m ~ 2 3 4 p ~ti~ N~M CDN~ ~ 7 ( °' ~ v ~ ~~ ~ `" ~ ~ t 524(809) ~Nr~ ~ N N C s L 98(247) ~ ~ s ~ ~ 671 863 ( ) ' 578(494) s ~ ~ ~ 800 653 ( ) 129(323) Stevens Creek Blvd 1 ~1 h- 545(730) reek ~ 1 ~ Blvd ~--- 587(1055) 336(537) 1 Creek r Creek ,~ 1 Blvd 1(15) 1 ~ ~ Blvd 654(529) 1 T (- 251(257) 346(746) ~ 1 687(724) -- I 1273(937) -- 994(1524) ~ 97(218) ,~ = 105(138) ~ ~ ~ ~:, 294(221) ~ ~ o ~ v ~ ~ ~ , N ~ M ONO) c0~ n ai c0 t0 N~~ -O ~ tiO~c'~ ~ ~ a0 ~ ~ m ~ ~ pMp m N V ~ ~ lA ~ ja. N~ ~ M M - N ~ 00 KN 0_Z ~ g 6 7 8 O V~ ~ ~~ N COQ O)M1~ CDMN N N ~ ~ ~ L 40(22) ~° ~' ~ L 137(75) ~ ~ ~ L 162(188) Results Way ~ 157 197 ( ) I McClellan ~ 1 Rd ~ 337(217) ~ 198(169) I RdcClellan ~ 1 ~ ~--- 314(392) 58(142) 25(225) ~ ~ r 51 ) McClellan Rd 227) 280 ~ ~ ~ 291(422) 352 54 ~ ---- ( ~ ( ) 12(89) -Z N ~ 58(0) -Z 22(30) ~ N ~ ~ 42(98) Z o ~ M v O . i~ 'O ~ ~1~ 'O ~ O V Q Q. NON D! ~ OO ~ aO G1 ~ ~ ~ N ~ N In ~ ~ rD ~, m ~ m d ~ 9 M N N ' , N N N L 6(1) NORTH Not to Scale f Hyannisplrft C~ 6(0) 238(64, -1 ~ I 53(11) ~ -- ~ N N ODD ~ M ~ ~ N m Stevens Creek Blvd Q' Q ~ 7' c m a v) McClellan Rd HYannisport Dr LEGEND ® =Site © =Study Intersection XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6 BACKGRO UND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~~ Hexagon One Results Way ~~ Transportation Consultants, Inc. Table 6 Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour Count Date Background Ave. Delay LOS Ave. Delay Project Conditions Incr.ln LOS Crit Delay Incr.ln Crit V/C Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bubb Road AM 5/20/2008 21.1 C 21.1 C 0.2 0.012 PM 5/20/2008 19.8 B 20.0 B 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 SB Ramps' AM 5/21/2008 19.8 B 19.8 B 0.0 0.000 PM 10/5/2006 26.7 C 26.6 C 0.0 0.005 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Route 85 NB Ramps' AM 5/20/2008 33.0 C 33.4 C 0.4 0.012 PM 10/5!2006 34.9 C 35.0 C 0.2 0.006 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Road* AM 5/20/2008 42.9 D 43.0 D 0.0 0.001 PM 10/5/2006 50.2 D 50.3 D 0.2 0.002 Results Way and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 6.4 A 7.2 A 0.1 0.001 PM 5!22/2008 16.4 B 17.7 B 1.3 0.031 McCellan Road and Byrne Avenue** AM 5/22/2008 12.3 B 12.4 B n/a n/a PM 5/22/2008 10.1 B 10.2 B n/a n/a McCellan Road and Bubb Road AM 5/22/2008 27.0 C 28.0 C 0.0 0.002 PM 5/22/2008 27.1 C 27.2 C 0.1 0.008 McCellan Road and Stelling Road AM 5!20/2008 31.0 C 31.1 C 0.1 0.004 PM 5/20/2008 32.2 C 32.4 C 0.2 0.006 Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road** AM 5/22/2008 13.2 B 13.3 B 0.1 0.001 PM 5/22/2008 9.7 A 9.7 A 0.0 0.004 * Denotes CMP Intersections ** Denotes Unsignalized Intersections One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 19 5. Conclusions This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the One Results Way project. The project is located near the northwest quadrant of the McClellan RoadBubb Road intersection in Cupertino, California. The project site currently contains ten buildings with 355,296 square feet (s.£) of R&D/office space. The project would remove five of the existing buildings (144,210 s.f.) and add three new office buildings (155,000 s.f.) for a total of eight buildings (366,986 s.f.), and a 200-space parking garage. In addition, the project would reconfigure surface parking areas, landscaping and open spaces. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Cupertino and the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County. The study included an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections. An analysis of freeway levels of service was not performed because project trips on freeway segments would not be greater than one percent of the capacity of the segments. The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that none of the signalized study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project according to City of Cupertino level of service standards when compared to the existing conditions (existing development at its current level of occupancy) or to the background conditions (existing development at full occupancy). One Results Way Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis 20 One Results Way Technical Appendices September 12, 2008 Appendix A Traffic Counts AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: JR & Michael Intersection Name: Bubb & Hyannisport /Shannon Ct Weather: clear City: Cupertino Bubb Shannon Ct. Start Time 7:00 7' 15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Ali"f0-CF.NSUg TrafFc Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Bubh HvannisnnA Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 76 189 2 267 3 1 1 5 0 253 45 298 49 0 103 152 722 7' 15 - 8:15 120 229 2 351 6 0 6 12 0 286 39 325 53 0 238 291 979 7:30 - 8:30 98 228 2 328 7 0 8 15 0 327 26 353 40 0 223 263 959 7:45 - 8:45 93 190 1 284 6 0 8 14 0 364 18 382 27 0 199 226 906 8:00 - 9:00 81 162 0 243 4 0 7 11 0 357 19 376 40 0 290 330 960 Peak Volumes: 120 229 2 351 6 0 6 12 0 286 39 325 53 0 238 291 979 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Bubb Out In Total 530 351 881 Right Thru Left 120 229 2 r `~I ~ ~ ~I N rv ~ ~ o ~ ~~ 0 ~ n N C CI N ` = O O 1 C _ _ N ~~ l6 I - T I t~ ~ I N lO O ~ 'o ~ 39 286 0 Left Thru Riaht 288 325 613 Out In Total North A roach East A roach South A proach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 28 0 39 0 1 0 1 0 54 9 63 8 0 27 35 51 96 0 147 0 1 0 1 0 114 30 144 32 0 109 141 61 148 1 210 1 1 0 2 0 178 44 222 46 0 162 208 76 189 2 267 3 1 1 5 0 253 45 298 49 0 103 152 131 257 2 390 6 1 6 13 0 340 48 388 61 0 265 326 149 324 2 475 7 1 8 16 0 441 56 497 72 0 332 404 154 338 2 494 7 1 8 16 0 542 62 604 73 0 361 434 157 351 2 510 7 1 8 16 0 610 64 674 89 0 393 482 v, m 7 O 7 n PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: JR & Michael Intersection Name: Bubb 8 Hyannisport Weather: clear City: Cupertino R~~hh Channnn (`4 Start Time 4:00 4.15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 AtI'1'O-('H;NSII~ Tia~c Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 R~.hh u..~....:~......a North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 59 3 86 0 0 0 0 0 57 9 66 8 0 31 39 37 142 4 183 0 0 0 0 0 111 14 125 19 0 40 59 40 199 4 243 0 0 1 1 0 151 16 167 21 0 51 72 56 253 4 313 0 0 1 1 0 202 18 220 25 0 62 87 68 313 6 387 0 0 1 1 2 248 21 271 33 0 80 113 90 399 6 495 1 0 1 2 2 291 26 319 34 0 96 130 104 462 6 572 1 0 1 2 2 343 33 378 36 0 117 153 128 526 6 660 1 0 1 2 2 384 39 425 36 0 126 162 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00 - 5:00 56 253 4 313 0 0 1 1 0 202 18 220 25 0 62 87 621 4' 15 - 5:15 44 254 3 301 0 0 1 1 2 191 12 205 25 0 49 74 581 4:30 - 5:30 53 257 2 312 1 0 1 2 2 180 12 194 15 0 56 71 579 4'45 - 5:45 64 263 2 329 1 0 0 1 2 192 17 211 15 0 66 81 622 5:00 - 6:00 72 273 2 347 1 0 0 1 2 182 21 205 11 0 64 75 628 Peak Volumes: 72 273 2 347 1 0 0 1 2 182 21 205 11 0 64 75 628 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Bubb r 0 a H C C N T 2 Out In Total 247 347 594 Right Thru Left 72 273 2 ~I ~ ~ ~ s=l °; ; N ~ o _ 2 -i CI r L O O I~ ~ I~ (` C I A I° it x 21 182 2 Left Thru Right 284 205 489 Out In Total Bubb v, m 7 7 O 7 <7 AM Neak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: Tony & Byron Intersection Name: Bubb & McClellan Weather: Clear City: Cupertino Start Time 7:00 7' 15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Ruhh MrC.lallan Ruhh nu~rt~-cr:NSUs Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Mrr`Inllan North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 34 5 75 11 85 25 121 19 49 7 75 5 48 17 70 87 108 17 212 27 274 92 393 81 150 26 257 19 182 71 272 100 126 26 252 44 317 105 466 125 209 29 363 22 224 101 347 115 181 44 340 70 359 174 603 175 305 32 512 28 258 116 402 121 269 51 441 95 409 248 752 220 383 39 642 39 293 133 465 134 302 71 507 116 512 282 910 297 470 50 817 40 395 175 610 153 316 77 546 139 654 303 '1,096 348 603 57 1,008 44 504 226 774 160 324 87 571 160 755 327 1,242 385 665 59 1,109 45 605 259 909 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 115 181 44 340 70 359 174 603 175 305 32 512 28 258 116 402 1,857 7:15-8:15 85 235 46 366 84 324 223 631 201 334 32 567 34 245 116 395 1,959 7:30-8:30 47 194 54 295 89 238 190 517 216 320 24 560 21 213 104 338 1,710 7:45 - 8:45 53 190 51 294 95 337 198 630 223 394 28 645 22 280 125 427 1,996 8:00-9:00 45 143 43 231 90 396 153 639 210 360 27 597 17 347 143 507 1,974 Peak Volumes: 53 190 51 294 95 337 198 630 223 394 28 545 22 280 125 427 1,996 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 Bubb d U Out In Total 614 294 908 Right Thru Left 53 190 51 of ~ ~I r N '~ ~° ~ Id ~ CI 2 N V -~ C _ ~3 ~ ~ C O ~ t~ Q' N ~ I,'Y' A lO 28 394 223 Left l"hru Right 410 645 1,055 Out In Total m m PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: Tony & Byron Intersection Name: Bubb & McClellan Weather: Clear City: Cupertino Ruhh MrClullan Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 AUTO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 R~~F~h Mn!`lell~n North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 35 22 73 9 53 41 103 39 46 6 91 15 31 25 71 27 89 59 175 23 114 88 225 59 79 13 151 28 74 46 148 34 133 88 255 41 157 115 313 91 110 19 220 35 113 58 206 42 183 128 351 62 202 166 430 117 148 24 289 41 173 71 285 55 228 169 452 74 248 199 521 148 180 31 359 50 212 78 340 61 261 225 547 96 319 238 653 175 202 42 419 59 273 97 429 67 289 264 620 108 374 284 766 204 226 45 475 65 340 108 513 69 321 297 687 113 419 308 840 234 253 51 538 76 414 122 612 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 42 183 126 351 62 202 166 430 117 148 24 289 41 173 71 285 1,355 4:15-5:15 39 193 147 379 65 195 158 418 109 134 25 268 35 181 53 269 1,334 4:30-5:30 34 172 166 372 73 205 150 428 116 123 29 268 31 199 51 281 1,349 4:45-5:45 33 156 176 365 67 217 169 453 113 116 26 255 30 227 50 307 1,380 5:00-6:00 27 138 171 336 51 217 142 410 117 105 27 249 35 241 51 327 1,322 Peak Volumes: 33 156 176 365 67 217 169 453 113 116 26 255 30 227 50 307 1,380 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Bubb U Out In Total 233 365 596 Right Thru Left 33 156 176 ~~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ CI O L N ~ ~' A W I7 M F-' N V C OI m N L ~ e+f ` r I v+ IO tY ° ~ °' 26 116 113 Left Thru Right 355 255 610 Out In Total A N CUbb AI1A Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: Irene & Jo Intersection Name: Bubb & Results Weather Ciear City: Cupertino Ruhh o..~..u~ Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 ,urro-cH;ivsus Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 North A roach East A roach South A^~roach West Ap roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 80 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 77 3 80 0 0 1 1 14 192 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 226 4 230 1 0 1 2 22 259 0 281 0 0 0 0 0 397 8 405 2 0 1 3 30 322 0 352 0 0 0 0 0 454 10 464 2 0 1 3 42 459 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 710 15 725 2 0 3 5 58 510 0 568 0 0 0 0 0 898 17 915 2 0 4 6 79 554 0 633 0 0 0 0 0 1,106 20 1,126 2 0 7 9 101 593 0 694 0 0 0 0 0 1,288 30 1,318 4 0 8 12 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 30 322 0 352 0 0 0 0 0 454 10 464 2 0 1 3 819 7:15 - 8:15 35 379 0 41Q 0 0 0 0 0 633 12 645 2 0 2 4 1 063 7:30 - 8:30 44 318 0 362 0 0 0 0 0 672 13 685 1 0 3 4 , 1 051 7 45 - 8:45 57 295 0 352 0 0 0 0 0 709 12 721 0 0 6 6 , 1 079 8:00 - 9:00 71 271 0 342 0 0 0 0 0 834 20 854 2 0 7 9 , 1,205 Peak Volumes: 71 271 0 342 0 0 0 0 0 834 20 854 2 0 7 9 1,205 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Bubb d Out In Total 841 342 1,183 Right Thru Left 71 271 0 °I ~ °;~ r N ~° Id _ ~ `~ °' 2 L ° o I~ 0 1= O ~ ~ L N ° I~ c IO 20 834 0 Left Thru R a 273 854 1,127 Out In Total z G PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: Irene & Antonio Intersection Name: Bubb & Results Weather: Clear City: Cupertino Liuh6 Results Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 AUTO-CIsNSUS Tralfc Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Bubh Results North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 121 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 100 1 101 2 0 8 10 9 216 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 t71 2 173 2 0 19 21 10 316 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 252 2 254 5 0 26 31 12 409 0 421 0 0 0 0 0 337 4 341 9 0 36 45 17 526 0 543 0 0 0 0 0 395 5 400 13 0 60 73 21 854 0 675 0 0 0 0 0 476 8 484 22 0 78 100 30 767 0 797 0 0 0 0 0 552 13 565 23 0 107 130 31 877 0 908 0 0 0 0 0 609 13 622 31 0 136 167 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00 - 5:00 12 409 0 421 0 0 0 0 0 337 4 341 9 0 36 45 807 4 15 - 5 15 9 405 0 414 0 0 0 0 0 295 4 299 11 0 52 63 776 4 30 - 5:30 12 438 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 305 6 311 20 0 59 79 840 4:45 - 5:45 20 451 0 471 0 0 0 0 0 300 11 311 18 0 81 99 881 5:00 - 6:00 19 488 0 487 0 0 0 0 0 272 9 281 22 0 100 122 890 Peak Volumes: 19 488 0 487 0 0 0 0 0 272 9 281 22 0 100 122 890 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EsT EBR WBL WBT WBR 9 272 0 0 468 19 100 0 22 0 0 0 Bubb d d' Out In Total 372 487 859 Riaht Thru Left 19 468 0 cl ~ ~~ ° N ° ~°s ° I~ ~~ ~ FI ° ° Ic ° ~; OI N '°y N ° Ix ° lO Q 9 272 0 Left Thru Right 490 281 771 Out In Total N C Bubb AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter: Irene 8 Jo Intersection Name: Bubb & Stevens Creek Weather: clear City: Cupertino Ruhh R}uvanc Crool~ Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Al~'1'(f-('F;NSl1ti Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Ruh4. C~e~..n n~ f`.....L North A p roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 15 21 4 119 97 220 63 1 10 74 18 89 0 107 12 12 27 51 8 308 225 541 193 4 35 232 41 209 4 254 20 15 45 80 12 452 296 760 328 9 71 408 53 376 6 435 23 21 63 107 18 576 403 997 435 12 96 543 73 489 7 569 29 30 79 138 24 759 532 1,315 557 14 137 708 112 634 7 753 35 35 109 179 31 925 636 1,592 729 16 184 929 126 812 7 945 57 36 126 219 38 1,080 732 1,850 863 17 211 1,091 131 993 8 1,132 65 36 143 244 57 1,247 865 2,169 1,001 18 243 1,262 157 1,176 8 1,341 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 23 21 63 107 18 576 403 997 435 12 96 543 73 489 7 569 2,216 7:15 - 8:15 27 26 64 117 20 640 435 1,095 494 13 127 634 94 545 7 646 2,492 7:30 - 8:30 23 23 82 128 23 617 411 1,051 536 12 149 697 85 603 3 691 2,567 7:45 - 8:45 37 21 81 139 26 628 436 1,090 535 8 140 683 78 617 2 697 2,609 8:00 - 9'00 42 15 80 137 39 671 462 1,172 566 6 147 719 84 687 1 772 2,800 Peak Volumes: 42 15 80 137 39 671 462 1,172 566 6 147 719 84 687 1 772 2,800 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Bubb a U C d d N Out In Total 46 137 183 Right Thru Left 42 15 80 a~+l ~ M ~ '~ ~I ~ N W ~ ~ ~'~ N ~ C lav C~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C ~ N I7 n F ~ DI W .-I ~ N I~ ~` W lO a 147 6 566 Left Thru Right 561 719 1,280 Out In Total v, m m 7 N n N PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter: Irene 8 Antonio Intersection Name: Bubb & Stevens Creek Weather: clear City:_Cupertino Ruhh e~.,........ r.,...~ Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6 00 AU'1'Od'F.NSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 North A roach East A roach South A roach West Av roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 18 26 25 127 84 236 120 5 19 144 31 181 5 217 5 6 34 45 44 290 158 492 226 13 39 278 64 351 7 422 8 8 50 66 58 445 228 731 301 16 61 378 86 514 10 610 10 14 63 87 76 625 317 1,018 381 18 85 484 117 665 15 797 13 18 76 107 89 803 411 1,303 522 21 107 650 147 855 17 1,019 14 22 104 140 110 1,013 529 1,652 324 32 122 478 175 1,019 22 1,216 15 27 123 165 131 1,221 656 2,008 740 36 145 921 215 1,212 24 1,451 16 34 138 188 154 1,388 790 2,332 868 39 170 1,077 251 1,389 30 1,670 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Totai Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00 - 5'00 10 14 63 87 76 625 317 1,018 381 18 85 484 117 665 15 797 2,386 4:15 - 5:15 10 13 58 81 64 676 327 1,067 402 16 88 506 116 674 12 802 2,456 4:30 - 5:30 9 16 70 95 66 723 371 1,160 98 19 83 200 111 668 15 794 2,249 4:45 - 5:45 7 19 73 99 73 776 428 1,277 439 20 84 543 129 698 14 841 2,760 5:00 - 6:00 6 20 75 101 78 763 473 1,314 487 21 85 593 134 724 15 873 2,881 Peak Volumes: 8 20 75 101 78 763 473 1,314 487 21 85 593 134 724 15 873 2,881 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 85 21 487 75 20 6 15 724 134 473 763 78 Bubb Y d U N C d Out In Total 174 101 215 Riaht Thru Left 6 20 75 of ~ ~I ~ ~ N m ~ ° I~ T c ~ ~ ~" C A of ~ ~{ ~ ~ I ~ I° ~ W ~ ~, 85 21 487 Left Thru Right 827 593 1,220 Out In Total Bubb y N N n N AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5122/08 Counter: Logan & Jane Intersection Name: Byrne & McClellan Weather: clear City: Cupertino Rvrnc ~u..l~b.n~.. Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 :11~'I'O-('ENtitlti Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 North A roach East A roach South A roach West A'c,roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 10 2 25 0 27 0 0 0 0 11 52 5 68 21 0 37 58 27 100 0 127 0 0 0 0 48 240 15 303 24 0 47 71 38 136 0 174 0 0 0 0 59 280 17 356 31 0 51 82 39 149 0 188 0 0 0 0 62 317 18 397 48 0 58 106 42 179 0 221 0 0 0 0 69 383 30 482 51 0 68 119 48 222 0 270 0 0 0 0 80 490 40 610 55 0 80 135 50 240 0 290 0 0 0 0 80 519 41 640 59 0 85 144 54 265 0 319 0 0 0 0 81 550 44 675 ~~~. wcic Baia wurncu as uuouyns oUT men pulled into school parking after intersection Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 31 0 51 82 39 149 0 188 0 0 0 0 62 317 18 397 667 7:15 - 8' 15 44 0 52 96 40 154 0 194 0 0 0 0 58 331 25 414 704 7:30 - 8:30 30 0 31 61 21 122 0 143 0 0 0 0 32 250 25 307 511 7:45 - 8:45 31. 0 33 64 12 104 0 116 0 0 0 0 21 239 24 284 464 8:00 - 9:00 28 0 34 62 15 116 0 131 0 0 0 0 19 233 26 278 471 Peak Volumes: 44 0 52 96 40 154 0 194 0 0 0 0 58 331 25 414 704 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Byrne C N d U V Out In Total 65 96 161 Right Thru Left 44 0 52 col ~ N ~ ~'I J N ~ O I~rpZ1 J ~-1 I I.~. ~ `I ~ v ~ t M ~ °i 1 I~ A I= H A C 7I ~ L ~ O frD I OWO ~O ~ w 0 0 0 Left 1"hru Riaht 58 0 58 Out In Total C) n A d 7 PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/22/08 Counter: Looan Intersection Name: Byrne 8 McClellan Weather: clear City: Cupertino Rvrne McClellan Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6 00 AUTO-Ct:NSUti T~alfic Monifo~ing and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Rvrne McClellan North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 8 7 53 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 34 4 38 5 0 13 18 14 105 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 64 7 71 10 0 14 24 17 139 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 91 9 100 15 0 15 30 20 181 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 124 15 139 19 0 17 36 28 222 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 155 19 174 23 0 22 45 33 272 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 201 20 221 28 0 27 55 39 317 0 356 0 0 0 0 0 241 24 265 32 0 31 63 47 345 0 392 0 0 0 0 0 275 26 301 school was out Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 15 0 15 30 20 181 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 124 15 139 370 4'15 - 5:15 15 0 13 28 21 169 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 121 15 136 354 4'30 - 5'30 18 0 9 27 19 167 0 186 0 0 0 0 0 137 13 150 363 4:45 - 5:45 18 0 13 31 22 178 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 150 15 165 396 5:00 - 6:00 17 0 16 33 27 164 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 151 11 162 386 Peak Volumes: 18 0 13 31 22 178 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 150 15 165 396 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Byrne A N U Out In Total 37 31 88 Riaht Thru Left 18 0 13 .~. I ~ ~ x y JI ~n ~ N N N A -' w m W ~ O Si !- ~ CI ` FI ~ ~ IC O I~ OI 00 o °-, 0 o m I m w IO Q: x 0 0 0 Left Thru Right 0 0 0 Out In Total n (7 iii Byrne AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter Logan 8 Jane Intersection Name: Stelling & McClellan Weather: clear City Cupertino Stelling McClellan Start Time T00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Stelling All"1'O-('h:NtiUti Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Mr.Clallan North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 6 7 37 16 58 1 75 4 44 61 109 14 26 15 55 44 14 22 80 38 170 6 214 12 111 151 274 39 95 61 195 59 30 35 124 70 210 14 294 24 222 177 423 61 170 115 346 75 53 48 176 103 266 24 393 31 314 214 559 68 207 142 417 90 74 80 244 136 327 41 504 54 421 265 740 80 265 204 549 105 91 133 329 197 403 60 660 76 559 307 942 91 343 285 719 125 129 161 415 242 507 69 818 103 689 388 1,180 101 418 340 859 139 145 194 478 265 559 82 906 128 815 418 1,361 109 495 395 999 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 75 53 48 176 103 266 24 393 31 314 214 559 68 207 142 417 1,545 7:15 - 8:15 66 68 73 207 120 269 40 429 50 377 204 631 66 239 189 494 1,761 7:30-8:30 61 77 111 249 159 233 54 446 64 448 156 668 52 248 224 524 1,887 7:45 - 8:45 66 99 126 291 172 297 55 524 79 467 211 757 40 248 225 513 2,085 8:00-9'00 64 92 146 302 162 293 58 513 97 501 204 802 41 288 253 582 2,199 Peak Volumes: 64 92 146 302 162 293 58 513 97 501 204 802 41 288 253 582 2,199 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 C N d U v stemng Out In Total 916 302 1,218 Right Thru Left 64 92 146 HI JI N N N ~S I~ ' r p - C W 7 ~ ~ C ~ ~ 3 ~ F N W ~ O ~ tJ D v oNO Ir ~ cn ! 204 501 97 Left Thru Right 191 802 993 Out In Total A n N d PM Peak-Hour Volume CountllVorksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter Logan & Rana Intersection Name: Stelling & McClellan Weather clear City Cupertino Stag Time 4:00 4:15 4'.30 4' 45 5'00 5 15 5.30 5.45 6:00 ACTO•CE~SCS Traffic Monifonng and Ana/ysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 NoRh A ch Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 East roach Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 South roach Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 y~egt eh Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 28 49 48 125 25 58 16 99 15 45 18 78 13 93 30 136 54 114 ' 102 270 58 130 35 223 38 89 33 160 25 179 65 269 87 177 166 430 88 182 55 325 44 132 57 233 47 269 100 416 123 256 224 603 118 288 92 498 62 177 79 318 68 350 127 545 169 368 281 818 160 303 116 579 73 222 100 395 90 453 166 709 222 468 355 1.045 201 479 148 828 91 259 123 473 110 550 204 864 265 290 590 689 427 503 1,282 1,482 249 306 580 676 182 234 1,011 1,216 115 130 318 391 149 181 582 702 141 156 654 753 235 268 1,030 1,177 Peak Hour RIgM Ttvu Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Lest Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4.00-5:00 123 256 224 603 118 288 92 498 62 177 79 318 68 350 127 545 1 964 4.15-5.15 141 319 233 693 135 245 100 480 58 177 82 317 77 360 136 573 , 2 063 4.30-5.30 168 354 253 775 143 349 113 605 53 170 90 313 85 371 139 595 , 2 288 4 45-5:45 178 413 261 852 161 398 127 686 71 186 92 349 94 385 135 614 , 2 501 5:00-6:00 167 433 279 879 188 388 142 718 68 214 102 384 88 403 141 632 , 2,613 Peak Volumes: 167 433 279 879 188 388 142 718 68 214 102 384 88 403 141 632 2,613 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL 4N6T UVBR 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 ~aa ~aa A d U f Stelting Out In Total 543 879 1,422 Rioht Thru Left 167 433 279 ml f m N NI J ~ ~ ~ 1. S A ~ O m H p ~ C ~ of ~ ~ ~ N I~ o I° 102 214 68 LeR Thru Right 663 384 1,047 Out In Total 3 Cf d Stelting -- AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter: Kevin & Rana Intersection Name: Stevens Creek &Stelling Weather: clear City: Cupertino Stelling Stevens Croak Start Time 7:00 T15 7'30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 Ctallinn All'1'O-('1?Ntiliti Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Cfovnnc (`resL North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 22 10 69 9 49 27 85 11 13 41 65 6 30 21 57 99 64 27 190 21 141 72 234 18 88 107 213 21 92 67 180 127 98 36 261 36 222 106 364 30 174 164 368 30 136 118 284 161 141 65 367 53 351 155 559 51 248 216 515 47 293 169 509 210 200 103 513 70 494 248 812 81 325 267 673 81 328 214 623 258 292 142 692 85 621 367 1,073 113 456 357 926 117 427 291 835 302 366 217 885 119 793 444 1,356 147 613 456 1,216 135 551 356 1,042 328 398 302 1,028 151 928 481 1,560 173 707 513 1,393 144 638 419 1,201 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 161 141 65 367 53 351 155 559 51 248 216 515 47 293 169 509 1,950 7:15 - 8:15 173 178 93 444 61 445 221 727 70 312 226 608 75 298 193 566 2,345 7:30 - 8:30 159 228 115 502 64 480 295 839 95 368 250 713 96 335 224 655 2,709 7'45 - 8'45 175 268 181 624 83 571 338 992 117 439 292 848 105 415 238 758 3,222 8:00 - 9:00 167 257 237 661 98 577 326 1,001 122 459 297 878 97 345 250 692 3,232 Peak Volumes: 167 257 237 861 98 577 326 1,001 122 459 297 878 97 345 250 692 3,232 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 297 459 122 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 Stelling d U N C d d Out In Total 807 661 1,468 Right Thru Left 167 257 237 I ^ d JI N N N ~ II ~ N IO d H S I CI ~ F M V -i C O _ I7 of ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ I o ~ A 297 459 122 Left Thru Ri4ht 680 878 1,558 Out In Total 7 N (7 N PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: Counter Intersection Name: Weather: City: Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 :Ui'1'O-CG,NSUS Tialfc Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 n North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Right Thru- Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15-5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 - 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s:oo-s:oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Volumes: 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n n Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OI O JI O H CI O t O F O O O _ Out In Total 0 0 0 Right Thru Left 0 0 0 1~ 0 0 0 Left Thru R g 0 0 0 Out In Total 0 ~ --I p ~' O O ~ N O ~ O I3 C O I~ O lO O AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/20/08 Counter: Antonio & Diana Intersection Name: 85 NB 8 Stevens Creek Weather: clear City: Cupertino r1wAn~a Fri} C~e..e..~ r.....~ Start Time 7:00 7 15 7.30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 There is a road coming out of the college next to the southern off ramp, which was also counted and fabled DeAnza exit, Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 south East A roach South A roach West AJ roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 53 71 0 124 39 3 47 89 0 97 119 216 0 9 7 16 166 274 0 440 99 6 103 208 0 289 257 546 0 16 7 23 259 350 0 609 148 12 169 329 0 452 462 914 0 20 7 27 365 459 0 824 206 14 230 450 0 622 573 1,195 0 28 10 38 493 574 0 1,067 290 16 317 623 0 821 739 1,560 0 42 12 54 617 697 0 1,314 446 20 405 871 0 1,209 924 2,133 0 55 19 74 772 843 0 1,615 515 21 459 995 0 1,408 1,067 2,475 0 75 24 99 889 983 0 1,872 589 30 532 1,151 0 1,613 1,222 2,835 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 0 20 7 27 365 459 0 824 206 14 230 450 0 622 573 1,195 2 496 7.15 - 8:15 0 24 8 32 440 503 0 943 251 13 270 534 0 724 620 1,344 , 2 853 7:30 - 8:30 0 33 5 38 451 423 0 874 347 14 302 663 0 920 667 1,587 , 3 162 7:45 - 8'45 0 39 12 51 513 493 0 1,006 367 9 290 666 0 956 605 1,561 , 3 284 8:00 - 9:00 0 55 17 72 524 524 0 1,048 383 16 302 701 0 991 649 1,640 , 3,461 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 524 DeAnza Exit Y ~) U d Out In Total 1,189 72 1,261 Riaht Thru Left 0 55 17 O O NI J a t0 N N ~ A O I H N a » ~ d `I o ~ ~ LI o a I2 ~ I= „ F OI OD Q-i~ ~ ~ Ix ~ IO 302 16 383 Left Thru Right 55 701 758 Out In Total N N Vi (7 A N x PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: Counter: Intersection Name: Weather: City: Start Time 4:00 4:15 4:30 4'45 5 00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4'00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15-5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45-5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00-6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Volumes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p w l o l o F J CI O ,C O H L ~ O O AUTO-CF:NtiUti Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 n n o ~ns o I ~ -a O ~ O I7 C O I~ O lO Out In Total 0 0 0 Right Thru Left 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 Left Thru Right 0 0 0 Out In Total North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O u AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 5/21 /08 Counter: Irene & Jo Intersection Name: 85 SB ~ Stevens Creek Weather: clear City: Cupertino 85 SB Stevens Creek Start Time 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 85 SB A U'1'O-(' I? Ntit1 ti Tialfc Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Stevens Creek North A roach East A roach South A roach West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 63 133 0 70 10 80 0 0 0 0 24 144 0 168 165 0 181 346 0 176 24 200 0 0 0 0 40 337 0 377 242 0 260 502 0 296 46 342 0 0 0 0 87 563 0 650 335 0 359 694 0 431 79 510 0 0 0 0 116 773 0 889 452 0 495 947 0 620 134 754 0 0 0 0 157 1,009 0 1,166 683 0 710 1,393 0 777 152 929 0 0 0 0 228 1,286 0 1,514 870 0 866 1,736 0 949 186 1,135 0 0 0 0 298 1,669 0 1,967 1,132 0 1,030 2,162 0 1,158 208 1,366 0 0 0 0 402 2,037 0 2,439 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00 - 8:00 335 0 359 694 0 431 79 510 0 0 0 0 116 773 0 889 2,093 7' 15 - 8:15 382 0 432 814 0 550 124 674 0 0 0 0 133 865 0 998 2,486 7:30 - 8:30 518 0 529 1,047 0 601 128 729 0 0 0 0 188 949 0 1,137 2,913 7:45 - 8:45 628 0 606 1,234 0 653 140 793 0 0 0 0 211 1,106 0 1,317 3,344 8:00 - 9:00 797 0 671 1,468 0 727 129 856 0 0 0 0 286 1,264 0 1,550 3,874 Peak Volumes: 797 0 671 1,468 0 727 129 856 0 0 0 0 286 1,264 0 1,550 3,874 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 671 0 797 0 1 264 286 129 727 0 85 SB Out In Total 0 1468 1,468 Rioht Thru Left 797 0 671 Y U N G d d ~O v M JI ~ CI 3 I r 1- N 7 OI N ~ L 'Q-, ~ N ~ o s ~ I a I= C O N I ~ W I t 0 mo' N K 0 0 0 Left Thru Right 415 0 415 Out In Total N m N n N x PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: Counter: Intersection Name: Weather: Start Time 4.00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. # 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 North A roach East A roach South A roach V West A roach Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total Ri ht Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15-5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430-5'30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45-5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O I O JI O 2 CI O t O F L O O O _ Q' Out In Total 0 0 0 Riaht Thru Left 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 Left Thru R g 0 0 0 Out In Total 0 O I~ O I ~ ~ O S O _ ~3 C O I~ p lO O Appendix ~ bevel ®f Service Calculati®ns COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Signat=SpliVRights=Overlap Final Vol: 42 15 80"` Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overla p Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol. Cy cle Time (sec): 90 1 1 0 39 Lo ss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 1 687"' 2 ~ Critica l V/C: 0.545 ~ 1 671 0 Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 28.4 0 84 1 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 21.0 ~ 2 462"' LOS: C ~) ~~ La nes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 147"' 6 566 Signal=Spl iURigh ts=Overlap Approach: North Bou nd So uth Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 « 8:00-9 :00 Base Vol: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.97 0.94 Lanes: 0.96 0.04 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1650 67 2677 1663 1900 1488 1663 3800 1488 2992 3469 202 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.06 0.15 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.16 0.45 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.33 0.50 0.28 0.61 0.61 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.55 0.47 0.55 0.09 0.31 0.32 0.55 0.11 0.55 0.32 0.32 Uniform Del: 34.6 34.6 17.5 39.3 37.7 38.3 44.9 24.5 12.2 27.3 8.4 8.4 IncremntDel: 2.2 2.2 0.3 4.2 0.2 1.3 49.6 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 36.8 36.8 17.8 43.5 37.9 39.7 94.5 25.0 12.2 28.1 8.4 8.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.8 36.8 17.8 43.5 37.9 39.7 94.5 25.0 12.2 28.1 8.4 8.4 LOS by Move: D D B D D D F C B C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 7 3 0 2 0 8 1 7 5 5 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 t 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 2 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Si gna I =Sph VRi gh is=0verl a p Final Vol: 6 20 75"" lanes: 1 0 11 0 t T I Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 15 Cycle Time (sec): 90 1 0 78 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 i 724"` 2 ~ Critical V/C. 0.525 ~_ _~ 1 763 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.6 0 134 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19 4 2 473"' LOS: B -t 1 f~ ~- Lanes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 85 21"' 487 Signal=Spl iVRights=Overlap Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 Base Vol: 85 21 487 75 20 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 85 21 487 75 20 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 85 21 487 75 20 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 85 21 487 75 20 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 85 21 487 75 20 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 85 21 487 75 20 6 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 0.80 0.20 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1387 343 2677 1663 1900 1488 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.09 0.09 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.52 0.12 0.04 Uniform Del: 37.4 37.4 18.6 39.4 38.0 35.7 IncremntDel: 2.5 2.5 0.3 3.6 0.3 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.9 39.9 18.9 42.9 38.3 35.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.9 39.9 18.9 42.9 38.3 35.8 LOS by Move: D D B D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 6 3 1 0 East Bc L - T 0 0 x:00-6:00 15 724 1.00 1.00 15 724 0 0 0 0 15 724 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 724 0 0 15 724 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 724 j- - ---- - 1900 1900 0.88 1.00 1.00 2.00 1663 3800 0.01 0.19 **** 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.52 43.2 22.6 5.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 48.4 22.9 1.00 1.00 48.4 22.9 D C 1 8 Fund West Bound - R L - T - R 0 0 0 0 134 473 763 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 473 763 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 473 763 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 473 763 78 0 0 0 0 134 473 763 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 473 763 78 -----jj--------------- 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.78 0.79 0.96 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.81 0.19 1488 2992 3310 338 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.23 **** 0.48 0.30 0.64 0.64 0.19 0.52 0.36 0.36 13.4 26.1 7.6 7.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.5 26.7 7.7 7.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.5 26.7 7.7 7.7 B C A A 2 7 6 6 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 3 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Signal=Spl iURights=Overlap Final Vol: 42 15 80"' La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overla p Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cycle Time (sec): 90 1 1 0 39 Lo ss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 1 687"' 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.578 ~ 1 671 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 29.0 ~ 0 99 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21.1 ~ 2 543"' LOS: C ~~ La nes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 150 6"' 580 S i g n a l =S p I i U R i g h t s=0 ve r l a p Approach: North Bo und So uth Bound E ast Bound We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R - L ---- - T - ------- R ----~ L - ----- T ----- - R ----- ----------------- Min. Green: 0 ----- 0 -----~~ 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 -- 0 ----- ~ 0 ---- 0 ------- 0 ----~~ 0 ----- 0 ----- j 0 ----- ----------------- Volume Module: » ----- Count -----j Date: --- 20 May 2008 « ~~ 8:00-9 :00 Base Vol: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 147 6 566 80 15 42 1 687 84 462 671 39 Added Vol: 3 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 81 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 687 99 543 671 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 687 99 543 671 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 687 99 543 671 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 ---- 687 - 99 -~~ 543 __ 671 39 i ------------~---------- Saturation Flow Module: -----i~ - ii i Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.97 0.94 Lanes: 0.96 0.04 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1651 66 2677 1663 1900 1488 1663 3800 1488 2992 3469 202 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.18 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.16 0.47 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.31 0.47 0.31 0.62 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.58 0.46 0.58 0.09 0.33 0.31 0.58 0.14 0.58 0.31 0.31 Uniform Del: 35.2 35.2 16.1 39.7 38.1 38.8 44.9 26.0 13.6 25.9 7.9 7.9 IncremntDel: 3.1 3.1 0.3 6.0 0.3 1.5 47.7 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.3 38.3 16.4 45.7 38.4 40.3 92.6 26.7 13.7 26.8 7.9 7.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.3 38.3 16.4 45.7 38.4 40.3 92.6 26.7 13.7 26.8 7.9 7.9 LOS by Move : D D B D D D F C B C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 7 3 0 2 0 9 2 8 5 5 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 4 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Si gnat=Spli URights=Overlap Final Vol: 6 20 75"' Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 ~~'~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Fnal Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vo l: 1• Cycle Time (sec): 90 15 1 J 0 78 Lo ss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 1 724"` 2 ~ Critical V/C: 0.540 ~ 1 763 0 T~ Avg Crii Del (sec/veh): 27.2 0 ~ 137 1 ~ Avg Delay(seGveh): 19.8 ~ 2 490"' LOS: B ~} ~ ~ ~ f~ La nes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 98 21"' 560 Si gna I =Spl i URi gh ts=Overlap Approach: Nor th Bou nd So uth Bound East Bound We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min . Green : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 M ay 2008 « 5:00-6 :00 Base Vol: 85 21 487 75 20 6 15 724 134 473 763 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 85 21 487 75 2G 6 15 724 134 473 763 78 Added Vol: 13 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 __----------j Saturation Flow Mo - dule: ---j ---- ------ ----- j---- ------- ---- ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.96 0.93 Lanes: 0.82 0.18 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1423 305 2677 1663 1900 1488 1663 3800 1488 2992 3310 338 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves• **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.43 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.35 0.48 0.30 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.54 0.13 0.04 0.37 0.54 0.19 0.54 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 36.8 36.8 18.5 39.6 38.2 35.9 43.2 23.3 13.4 26.1 8.0 8.0 IncremntDel: 2.7 2.7 0.3 4.2 0.4 0.1 5.4 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.5 39.5 18.8 43.8 38.6 36.0 48.6 23.7 13.5 26.8 8.1 8.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.5 39.5 18.8 43.8 38.6 36.0 48.6 23.7 13.5 26.8 8.1 8.1 LOS by Move : D D B D D D D C B C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 7 3 1 0 1 8 2 7 6 6 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Signal=Spl it/Rights=Overlap Final Vol: 42 15 80"' Lanes: 1 00 1 0 1 JIi I• ~I ~` '~ Signal=Protect T T F Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Ove rlap Vol Cn t Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 1 Cycle Time (sec): 90 1 0 39 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 1 687"' 2 ~ Critical V/C. 0.592 ~ ~ i 67 1 0 ~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 29.2 ~ 0 105 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21 1 ~ 2 578 "' LOS: C ~.y L anes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 150 6"' 581 S i g n a l =S p l i t/ Ri g h t s=0 ve rl a p Approach: No rth Bound So uth Bound East Bound W est Bound Movement : ----------- L ----- - T ------ - R ----- L ---- - T ---- - R L - T - R L - T - R Min . Green : 0 l---- 0 ------ 0 ----- 0 ~~---- -- 0 ---- ----- 0 ij---------- 0 0 -----~ 0 ~---- 0 ----- 0 ------, 0 Volume Modu l e: 8: 00-9:00 -- ----- ~---------- -----~ ~---- ----- ------~ Base Vol: 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 687 99 543 671 39 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse : 150 6 580 80 15 42 1 687 99 543 671 39 Added Vol: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 0 0 PasserByVol : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut : 150 6 581 80 15 42 1 687 105 578 671 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 6 581 80 15 42 1 687 105 578 671 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol : 150 6 581 80 15 42 1 687 105 578 671 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: ----------- 150 -~----- 6 ----- 581 -----~ 80 ~----- 15 42 1 687 105 578 671 39 Saturation Flow Module: ----- -----j ~---------- -----~ ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.97 0.94 Lanes: 0.96 0.04 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1651 66 2677 1663 1900 1488 1663 3800 1488 2992 3469 202 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.15 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.31 0.46 0.33 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.59 0.45 0.59 0.10 0.34 0.31 0.59 0.15 0.59 0.31 0.31 Uniform Del: 35.5 35.5 15.5 39.9 38.3 38.9 44.9 26.5 14.2 25.3 7.6 7.6 IncremntDel: 3.6 3.6 0.3 6.8 0.3 1.6 46.9 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.0 39.0 15.8 46.7 38.6 40.5 91.7 27.3 14.3 26.3 7.7 7.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.0 39.0 15.8 46.7 38.6 40.5 91.7 27.3 14.3 26.3 7.7 7.7 LOS by Move: D D B D D D F C B C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 7 3 0 2 0 9 2 9 5 5 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 2 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #1: Stevens Creek and Bubb Road Signal =Spl i URi gh is=0verl a p Final Vol: 6 20 75"' L anes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n!a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time (sec): 90 15 1 0 78 Lo ss Time (sec): 12 0 1 724"' 2 ~ Critica l V/C: 0.546 ~ 1 763 0 Avg Cnt Del (seGveh): 27.4 ~ 0 138 1 ~~ '~' Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 ~ 2 494"' LOS: B Lanes: 0 1 0 0 2 Final Vol: 104 21"' 593 Signal =Spl iURi gh ts=Overlap Approach: North Bo und So uth Bound East Bou nd West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 98 21 560 75 20 6 15 724 137 490 763 78 Added Vol: 6 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 104 21 593 75 20 6 15 724 138 494 763 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 21 593 75 20 6 15 724 138 494 763 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 104 21 593 75 20 6 15 724 138 494 763 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 104 ------------~---- 21 - 593 ----- 75 --- 20 6 15 724 138 494 763 78 Saturation Flow Module: „ - ------ ----- ~~ ---- ~~ ----- -- ---j Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.79 0.96 0.93 Lanes: 0.83 0.17 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1438 ------------I----- 290 - 2677 1663 1900 1488 1663 3800 1488 2992 3310 338 Capacity Analysis Modul --~ e: ---- ------ ----- ~~----------- ----~~ -- --- ----- Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.17 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.43 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.35 0.48 0.30 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.55 0.51 0.55 0.13 0.04 0.37 0.55 0.19 0.55 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 36.5 36.5 18.5 39.7 38.3 36.0 43.2 23.6 13.3 26.2 8.1 8.1 IncremntDel: 2.7 2.7 0.4 4.5 0.4 0.1 5.5 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.2 39.2 18.8 44.2 38.6 36.1 48.7 24.0 13.5 26.9 8.2 8.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.2 39.2 18.8 44.2 38.6 36.1 48.7 24.0 13.5 26.9 8.2 8.2 LOS by Move : D D B D D D D C B C A A HCM21cAvgQ : 4 4 8 3 1 0 1 8 2 7 6 6 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 5 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd S i g n a l =S p I i V Ri g h ts=Ignore Fina l Vol. 0 0 671"' Lanes: ~~ 1 0 0 ~ 1 ~ 2 I7 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Includ e Vol Cnt Date: 5/21/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol Cy cle Time (sec): 110 0 0 ~ 0 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 9 ~ 0 0 1264"" 3 ~ Critica l V/C: 0 417 ~ 2 727 1 Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 22.6 0 ~ 286 0 ~., Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 ~ 2 129"" LOS: B '~1 ~ ~ r~ Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Fina l Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Spl iURights=Include Approach: North Bou nd So uth Bound East Bound west Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------i,----- Min. Green: 0 ------ 0 ----~ 0 ---- 7 ------ 10 ----- 10 ~---- 0 ------- 10 ---- 10 --- 7 -- 10 -----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 M ay 2008 « 8:00-9 :00 Base Vol: 0 0 0 671 0 797 0 1264 286 129 727 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 671 0 797 C 1264 286 129 727 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 671 0 797 0 1264 286 129 727 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1264 286 129 727 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1264 286 129 727 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1264 286 ~ 129 727 0 ------- I----------- Saturation Flow Module: ----~~ ---- ------ ----- ;~---- ------- ----~ 1 ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.87 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.23 0.77 2.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 4950 0 1750 0 6114 1383 3150 3800 0 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.59 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 17.7 46.6 11.2 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 17.7 47.6 11.3 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 17.7 47.6 11.3 0.0 LOS by Move : A A A C A A A B B D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 4 3 1 0 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 6 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Futu re Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal =Spl d/Rights=Ignore Final Vol: 0 0 971 "' Lanes: 1 0 0 1 2 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Inclu de Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol. Cycle Time (sec): 110 1 • 0 0 ~ 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 ~.~ 0 879"' 3 ~ Critical V/C. 0.478 ~ 2 539 1 ~r- Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 29.6 0 173 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.7 ~ 2 323" ' LOS. C ~~ ~ ~ f~ Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Fin al Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Spl it/Rights=lncl tide Approach: North Bo und South Bo und East Bou nd west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 0 10 10 7 10 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 5 Oct 2006 « 5 .15-6:15 Base Vol: 0 0 0 971 0 753 0 879 173 323 639 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 971 0 753 0 879 173 323 639 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 971 0 753 0 879 173 323 639 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 971 0 0 0 879 173 323 639 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 971 0 0 0 879 173 323 639 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 ------------' 0 0 971 0 ~ 0 0 879 173 i 323 639 0 Saturation Flow Module: ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.87 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.32 0.68 2.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 4950 0 1750 0 6265 1233 3150 3800 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.51 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.33 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 31.9 37.8 16.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 32.1 38.4 16.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 32.1 38.4 16.1 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A C C D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 6 5 3 0 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 7 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Si gna I = Spl i URi g hts=lg n ore Fina l Vol: 0 0 671"' L anes: 1 0 0 1 2 ~~ ~ ~ 7 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Includ e Vol Cnt Date: 5/21/2008 Rights=Inclu de Lanes: Final VoP Cy cle Time (sec): 110 0 0 0 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ 0 1272°` 3 ~ Critical V/C. 0 420 ~ 2 778 1 Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 22.6 ~ 0 293 0 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 19.8 ~ 2 129"` LOS: B 1 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Fina l Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=SpliURights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 0 10 10 7 10 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 May 2008 « 8:00-9 :00 Base Vol: 0 0 0 671 0 797 0 1264 286 129 727 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 671 0 797 0 1264 286 129 727 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 8 7 0 51 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 671 0 826 0 1272 293 129 778 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1272 293 129 778 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1272 293 129 778 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 671 0 0 0 1272 293 129 778 0 ------------j----------- Saturation Flow Module: ----~~ ---------- ----- ~~---- ------- ----~~ ----- ----- -----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.87 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.22 0.78 2.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 4950 0 1750 0 6094 1404 3150 3800 0 ------------~----- Capacity Analysis ------ Module ----I : ---------- ----- ~~---- ------- ----~~ ----- ----- -----~ Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.60 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.6 46.7 11.3 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.6 47.6 11.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 17.6 47.6 11.4 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A B B D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 4 3 1 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 8 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operati ons (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Spl iURights =Ignore Final Vol: 0 0 971"" Lan es: 1 0 0 1 2 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Righ ts=Include Lanes : Fnal Vol : Cycle Time (sec): 110 0 0 0 0 Lo ss Time (s ec): 9 0 ~ 0 91g~~• 3 ~ Cnhcal V/C. 0.489 ~ 2 650 1 Avg Crit Del (seWveh): 29.6 0 206 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.7 ~ 2 323"` LOS: C Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Spl iURights =lncl ude Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 7 10 10 0 10 10 7 10 0 Volume Module : » Count Date: 5 Oct 2006 « 5.1 5-6:15 Base Vol: 0 0 0 971 0 753 0 879 173 323 639 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 971 0 753 0 879 173 323 639 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 40 33 0 11 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 971 0 759 0 919 206 323 650 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 971 0 0 0 919 206 323 650 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 971 0 0 0 919 206 323 650 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 - 0 ------ 0 ----j 971 j----- 0 ---- 0 ------j~ 0 919 ----------- 206 ----~j 323 ----- 650 ----- 0 -----~ ------------; Saturation Fl ---- ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.87 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 3.24 0.76 2.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 - 0 ----~ 4950 ~----- 0 ---- 1750 ------~~ 0 6124 ----------- 1373 ----~~ 3150 ---- 3800 ------ 0 -----~ ------------j Capacity Anal ----- ysis ----- Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.17 0.00 Crit Moves: ***'` **'`* **"'~ Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.52 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.33 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 38.3 15.5 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 31.2 38.8 15.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 31.2 38.8 15.6 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A C C D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 7 7 6 2 0 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 3 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal =Spl iURights=Ignore Final Vol: 0 0 671 "` Lanes: 1 0 0 1 2 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol. ~ Cycle Tlme (sec): 110 0 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ 0 1273"` 3 ~~~"~~///"' Cntical V/C: 0.420 ~ 2 800 1 Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 22.6 ~ 0 294 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.8 ~ 2 129"' LOS. B ~,~rs~A Lanes: 0 0 Final Vol: 0 Sign Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl=SpliURights=Include South Bound L - T - R 7 10 10 671 0 826 1.00 1.00 1.00 671 0 826 0 0 13 0 0 0 671 0 839 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 671 0 0 0 0 0 671 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 671 0 0 j'--------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.87 1.00 0.92 3.00 0.00 1.00 4950 0 1750 0.14 0.00 0.00 **** 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 29.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 29.4 0.0 0.0 C A A 7 0 0 East Bc L - T 0 10 0 1272 1.00 1.00 0 1272 0 1 0 0 0 1273 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 1273 0 0 0 1273 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 1273 1900 1900 0.92 1.00 0.00 3.22 0 6091 0.00 0.21 **** 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.42 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 17.6 1.00 1.00 0.0 17.6 A B 0 4 and West Bound - R L - T - R 10 7 10 0 293 129 778 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 293 129 778 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 294 129 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 294 129 800 0 0 0 0 0 294 129 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 294 129 800 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.78 2.00 2.00 0.00 1407 3150 3800 0 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.00 **** 0.50 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.00 17.5 46.7 11.4 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 17.6 47.6 11.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.6 47.6 11.5 0.0 B D B A 4 3 1 0 iraffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1' 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 4 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #2: SR 85 SB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Split/Rights=Ignore Final Vol: 0 0 971"` Lanes: 1 0 0 1 2 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cycle Time (sec): 110 0 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 937"' 3 ~_ 1 221 0 ~1~ Cnhcal V/C. 0.494 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 29.6 ~ ~t 1 f- ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 26.6 LOS. C Lanes: 0 0 Final Vol: 0 Sign Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A HCM21cAvgQ : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 il=SplitlRights=lncl ude South Bound L - T - R 7 10 10 971 0 759 1.00 1.00 1.00 971 0 759 0 0 2 0 0 0 971 0 761 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 971 0 0 0 0 0 971 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 971 0 0 1900 1900 1900 0.87 1.00 0.92 3.00 0.00 1.00 4950 0 1750 0.20 0.00 0.00 **** 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 25.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 25.0 0.0 0.0 C A A 9 0 0 0 >~ 2 653 ~- 0 2 323"' E L 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 1900 0.92 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A 0 sst Bound - T - R 10 10 919 206 1.00 1.00 919 206 18 15 0 0 937 221 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 937 221 0 0 937 221 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 937 221 1900 1900 1.00 0.95 3.21 0.79 6066 1431 0.15 0.15 **** 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.49 30.7 30.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 30.9 30.9 1.00 1.00 30.9 30.9 C C 7 7 West Bound L - T - R 7 10 C 323 650 C 1.00 1.00 1.OC 323 650 C 0 3 C 0 0 C 323 653 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OC 323 653 C 0 0 C 323 653 C 1.00 1.00 1.OC 1.00 1.00 1.OC 323 653 C --------------- 1900 1900 190C 0.83 1.00 0.92 2.00 2.00 0.00 3150 3800 0 --------------- 0.10 0.17 0.00 **** 0.21 0.52 O.OC 0.49 0.33 O.OC 38.5 15.3 O.C 0.6 0.1 O.C 0.0 0.0 O.C 1.00 1.00 O.OC 39.1 15.4 O.C 1.00 1.00 1.OC 39.1 15.4 O.C D B A 6 2 C Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3- 9 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 H CM Opera tions (Futu re Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Sgnal= SphVRig h ts=Ignore Final Vol: 0 55 17"' L anes: 0 0 ~~ 1 ~ 1 0 4~ Signal=Protect ^ Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol. Cy cle Time (sec): 110 649"` 2 ~ 1 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ ~ 0 991 3 ~ Critica l V/C. 0.663 ~ 3 524^' 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.2 0 0 0 ~1, Avg D elay (sec /veh): 32.1 ~ 0 0 LOS: C 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1 Fna l Vol: 302 16"' 383 Signal=Spl i VRigh ts=lncl ude Approach: North Bo und So uth Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---- Min. Green: 10 ------ 10 -----~ 10 ---- 10 ------ 10 ----- 10 - ---- 7 10 ----~j 10 ---- 7 ------ 10 -----~ 10 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 « 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 524 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 524 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 524 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 302 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 302 ---------- 16 383 17 55 0 649 991 0 0 524 0 --j---------- Saturation Flow Module: -----jj ---- ----- jj----------- ----~j -- ----~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.59 0.03 1.38 0.49 1.51 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1037 55 2408 873 2826 0 3150 5700 0 0 5700 1750 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.29 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.71 0.39 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.71 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 Uniform Del: 27.1 27.1 22.9 46.4 46.4 0.0 35.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 45.9 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.5 2.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 29.6 29.6 23.0 46.7 46.7 0.0 37.7 22.6 0.0 0.0 49.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.6 29.6 23.0 46.7 46.7 0.0 37.7 22.6 0.0 0.0 49.2 0.0 LOS by Move : C C C D D A D C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 16 16 7 1 1 0 12 5 0 C 7 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-10 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=SptiURi ghts=Ignore Final Vol: 0 213 54"'" La nes: 0 0 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Sig nal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Rig hts=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cycle Time (sec): 110 491"' 2 1 0 Lo ss Time (s ec): 9 0 0 1505 3 ~ Critical V/C: 0 723 ~ 3 726"' 0 Avg Cnt Del (sec/v eh): 40.1 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.7 ~ 0 0 L OS: C La nes: 0 0 1! 0 1 Final Vol: 256 "` 0 566 Signal=Spl i VRights=Include Approach: Nor th Bou nd South Bound East Bound West Bou nd Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Volume Module: » Count Date: 5 Oct 2006 « 5:15:-6:15 Base Vol: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 809 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 809 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 809 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 256 0 566 54 213 - 0 ------ 491 1505 ----------- 0 ----jj 0 726 ----- 0 -----~ ------------~----------- Saturation Flow Module: ----~ ----- --- j~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.47 0.00 1.53 0.42 1.58 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 831 0 2669 748 2951 0 3150 5700 0 0 5700 1750 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.43 0.00 0.43 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.00 0.50 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 Uniform Del: 26.2 0.0 23.0 48.0 48.0 0.0 40.1 27.6 0.0 0.0 42.8 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.3 0.0 0.2 6.9 6.9 0.0 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 28.5 0.0 23.2 54.9 54.9 0.0 43.9 28.4 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.5 0.0 23.2 54.9 54.9 0.0 43.9 28.4 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 LOS by Move : C A C D D A D C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 17 C 10 6 6 0 10 11 0 0 9 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-11 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Spl it/Rights=Ignore Final Vol: 0 55 17"' Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 ~~1`~. Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 110 654"` 2 ~ 1 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ p 994 3 ~ Critical V/C: 0.690 ~ 3 539"` 0 Avg Crit DeI (sec/veh): 39.2 ~ 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.0 ~ 0 0 LOS. C Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1 Final Vol: 339 16"' 383 Signal=Spl it/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 10 10 10 Volume Module: » Count Date: Base Vol: 302 16 383 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 302 16 383 Added Vol: 37 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 339 16 383 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 339 16 383 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 339 16 383 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 339 16 383 ------------j---------------j Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 0.62 0.03 1.35 Final Sat.: 1086 51 2363 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.31 0.16 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.74 0.39 Uniform Del: 26.9 26.9 22.0 IncremntDel: 3.1 3.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 29.9 29.9 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.9 29.9 22.2 LOS by Move: C C C HCM21cAvgQ: 18 18 7 South Bound L - T - R --------------- 10 10 10 20 May 2008 « 17 55 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 55 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 17 55 0 0 0 0 17 55 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 17 55 0 --------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.49 1.51 0.00 873 2826 0 0.02 0.02 0.00 **** 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 46.4 46.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.00 46.7 46.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.7 46.7 0.0 D D A 1 1 0 East B L - T __ 7 10 3:00-9:00 649 991 1.00 1.00 649 991 5 3 0 0 654 994 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 654 994 0 0 654 994 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 654 994 1900 1900 0.83 1.00 2.00 3.00 3150 5700 I~---- 0.21 0.17 **** 0.28 0.41 0.74 0.43 36.0 23.4 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 39.5 23.6 1.00 1.00 39.5 23.6 D C 12 5 Dund West Bound - R L - T - R --- 10 7 10 10 0 0 524 524 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 524 524 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 524 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 539 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0 0 5700 1750 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 **** 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 A A D A 0 0 7 0 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-12 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd S i g n a l =S p 6 t/R fi g h t s= I g n o r e Fina l Vol: 0 213 54"' Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Includ e Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol Cycle Time (sec): 110 517"' 2 ~ 1 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ 0 1518 3 ~ Critical V/C' 0.737 ~ 3 729"' 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.7 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.9 ~ 0 0 LOS. ., "~ 1 ~~ ~ `~' I Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1 Final Vol: 264"' 0 566 Signal=Spl i VRigh ts=Include Approach: North Bound So uth Bound East Bou nd West Bo und Movement : L - ------------~---- T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 10 ------------~----- 10 ---- ----II 10 10 ---- 10 ----- 10 ~~--- - 7 10 ----~ 10 ---- 7 ------ 10 ----- 10 Volume Module: » Count j Date: ---- 5 Oc - t 2006 ----- « 5 ~~--------- :15:-6:15 - ~- -- Base Vol: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 809 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 256 0 566 54 213 0 491 1505 0 0 726 809 Added Vol: 8 0 0 0 0 0 26 13 0 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 264 0 566 54 213 0 517 1518 0 0 729 809 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 264 0 566 54 213 0 517 1518 0 0 729 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 264 0 566 54 213 0 517 1518 0 0 729 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 264 0 566 54 213 0 517 1518 0 0 729 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.48 0.00 1.52 0.42 1.58 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 845 0 2655 748 2951 0 3150 5700 0 0 5700 1750 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.00 0.50 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 Uniform Del: 26.5 0.0 23.2 48.2 48.2 0.0 39.8 27.3 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.6 0.0 0.2 7.7 7.7 0.0 4.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 29.1 0.0 23.4 56.0 56.0 0.0 43.9 28.1 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.1 0.0 23.4 56.0 56.0 0.0 43.9 28.1 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 LOS by Move : C A C E E A D C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 18 0 10 6 0' 0 11 11 0 0 9 0 iraffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 5 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HC M Operati ons (Future Volume Alternative) Proleci AM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Spl iURi ghts=Ignore Final Vol 0 55 17"' Lan es: ~~ 0 0 1 1 0 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rig hts=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol : Cycle Time (sec): 110 1 0 654'"" 2 Lo ss Time (s ec): 9 0 0 994 3 ~ Cntical V/C: 0 702 ~ 3 545*"' p ~~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.6 ~ 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.4 ~ 0 0 L OS. C ~1 ~~ Lan es: 0 0 1! 0 1 Final Vol: 355'*" 16 383 Signal=SphURights=lncl ude Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound East Bound west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 10 -- 10 ------ 10 ----~~ 10 ----- 10 ----- 10 -----~ 7 10 i----------- 10 ---- 7 ----- 10 ------ 10 ----~ ------------~--- Volume Module: 8:0 0-9:00 Base Vol: 339 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 539 524 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 339 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 539 524 Added Vol: 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 355 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 545 524 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 355 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 545 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 355 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 545 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 355 16 383 17 55 0 654 994 0 0 545 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.63 0.03 1.34 0.49 1.51 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1104 50 2346 873 2826 0 3150 5700 0 0 5700 1750 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.76 0.38 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.76 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 Uniform Del: 26.7 26.7 21.7 46.4 46.4 0.0 36.5 23.9 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 IncremntDel: 3.3 3.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 30.1 30.1 21.8 46.7 46.7 0.0 40.3 24.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 30.1 30.1 21.8 46.7 46.7 0.0 40.3 24.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 0.0 LOS by Move: C C C D D A D C A A D A HCM2kAvgQ: 19 19 7 1 1 0 13 5 0 0 8 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 6 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Future Volume Alternative) Protect PM Intersection #3: SR 85 NB Ramps/Stevens Creek Blvd Signal=Split/Rights=Ignore Final Vol. 0 213 54"' Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include ~ Vol Cnt Date: Cycle Time (sec): n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol: 110 529" 2 1 0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0 ~ p 1524 3 ~~"- Cnhcal V/C: 0.743 ~ 3 730"' 0 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 40.9 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.0 ~ 0 0 LOS. C - -z t s- ,- Lanes: 0 0 Final Vol: 266'° Signs Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 10 10 10 Volume Module: Base Vol: 264 0 566 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 264 0 566 Added Vol: 2 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 266 0 566 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 266 0 566 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 266 0 566 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 266 0 566 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.48 0.00 1.52 Final Sat.: 848 0 2652 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.00 0.21 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.00 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.00 0.51 Uniform Del: 26.7 0.0 23.3 IncremntDel: 2.7 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 29.5 0.0 23.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.5 0.0 23.6 LOS by Move: C A C HCM2kAvgQ: 18 0 10 1! 0 1 0 566 d=Split/Ri ghts=Include South Bound L - T - R 10 10 10 54 213 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 54 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 213 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 54 213 0 0 0 0 54 213 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 54 213 0 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.42 1.58 0.00 748 2951 0 0.07 0.07 0.00 **** 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 48.3 48.3 0.0 8.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.00 56.4 56.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 56.4 56.4 0.0 E E A 6 6 0 East B L - T 7 10 517 1518 1.00 1.00 517 1518 12 6 0 0 529 1524 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 529 1524 0 0 529 1524 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 529 1524 1900 1900 0.83 1.00 2.00 3.00 3150 5700 0.17 0.27 **** 0.23 0.40 0.74 0.67 39.6 27.2 4.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 43.8 27.9 1.00 1.00 43.8 27.9 D C 11 11 Dund West Bound - R L - T - R ------j~--------------- 10 7 10 10 0 0 729 809 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 729 809 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 809 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 0 730 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0 0 5700 1750 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 **** 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.0 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 A A D A 0 0 9 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-t 3 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Signat=Protect/Rights=lncl tide Final Vol 16 7 257"' 23 7 Lan es: 0 1 1 0 1 ~~ Signa l=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rig hts=Include Lanes: Final Vol Cycle Time (sec): 120 0 98 250"' 1 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 345 2 ~ Cnhcal V/C: 0.609 ~ 2 577"` 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 44 .1 0 97 p ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 42 .9 2 326 L OS: D Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 297'•' 459 0 Si gna 1=ProtectlRi gh ts=Ignore Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bou nd East Bound we st Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Volume Module : » Count Date: 20 Ma y 2008 « 8 :00-9:00 Base Vol: 297 459 122 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 297 459 122 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 297 459 122 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 297 459 0 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 297 459 0 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 297 459 0 237 257 167 250 345 97 326 577 98 Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.19 0.81 1.00 2.32 0.68 2.00 2.55 0.45 Final Sat.: 1750 3700 --- 0 ----~ 1750 ~---- 2242 ------ 1457 ----- 1750 4369 ~----------- 1229 ----~~ 3150 ---- 4786 ------ 813 -----j ----------------- Capacity Analysis --- Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.61 0.61 Uniform Del: 37.6 41.3 0.0 39.7 44.6 44.6 41.0 42.4 42.4 38.7 43.9 43.9 IncremntDel: 2.2 0.8 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.8 42.2 0.0 41.3 46.2 46.2 43.6 42.7 42.7 39.1 44.9 44.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.8 42.2 0.0 41.3 46.2 46.2 43.6 42.7 42.7 39.1 44.9 44.9 LOS by Move: D D A D D D D D D D D D HCM21tAvgQ : 11 8 0 9 8 8 9 5 5 5 8 8 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-14 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Futu re Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Signal =Protect/Rights=Include Final Vol: 235 547•" 349 Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cycle Time (sec): 120 247"' 1 0 247 L oss Time (sec): 12 0 1 736 2 ~ Critica l V/C. 0.859 ~ 2 1053""" 1 ~ Avg Crit Del (sec /veh): 52.3 ~ 0 218 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.9 ~ 2 535 LOS: D ~~ Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Rna l Vol: 329"' 344 0 Signa I =ProtecVRi ghts=l gnore Approach: North Bo und South Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - ------------j----- T ----- - R ----- L ---- - T ---- - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 7 ----------------- 10 ----- j 10 ----- 7 -- 10 ----- 10 jj ---- 7 10 ------jj 10 ---- 7 ------ 10 -----j 10 Volume Module: » Count jj Date: ---------- 5 Oct 2006 ----- « 5 jj---------- :30-6:30 ----- - ---- ----- Base Vol: 329 344 363 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 329 344 363 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 329 344 363 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 329 344 0 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 329 344 0 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 329 ------------j----- 344 ---- 0 349 547 235 247 736 218 535 1053 247 - Saturation Flow Module: -----j ---- ------ ----- jj---------- -----jj ----- ----- -----j Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.38 0.62 1.00 2.29 0.71 2.00 2.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 1750 ------------j----- 3700 ----- 0 ----- 1750 -- 2587 1112 1750 4319 1279 3150 4535 1064 Capacity Analysis jj Module: --- ----- ----- jj---------- -----jj ----- ----- -----j Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.86 Uniform Del: 45.1 48.0 0.0 34.9 43.2 43.2 48.8 44.3 44.3 44.3 41.6 41.6 IncremntDel: 17.3 2.3 0.0 2.3 8.2 8.2 21.9 3.4 3.4 5.9 5.2 5.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 62.4 50.4 0.0 37.2 51.5 51.5 70.7 47.6 47.6 50.2 46.8 46.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 62.4 50.4 0.0 37.2 51.5 51.5 70.7 47.6 47.6 50.2 46.8 46.8 LOS by Move : E D A D D D E D D D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 15 7 0 12 17 17 12 12 12 12 17 17 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Assoaates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-15 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rig hts=Include 251`"" 1 * J 0 348 2 1 97 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Si gna I=Protect/Ri gh is=1 nct u d e 174 257"' 237 0 1 1 0 1 Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 120 Loss Time (sec): 12 Cntical V/C: 0.8"3 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 44.2 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 42.9 LOS: D ~I~~ 1 0 1 1 0 297"" 459 0 Signal =Protect/Ri ghts=l gnore Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 --- -- ----~--------------- j------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 « Base Vol: 297 459 122 237 257 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 297 459 122 237 257 167 Added Vol: 0 0 1 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 297 459 123 237 257 174 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 297 459 0 237 257 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 297 459 0 237 257 174 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 297 459 0 237 257 174 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.17 0.83 Final Sat.: 1750 3700 0 1750 2205 1493 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.19 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.61 0.61 Uniform Del: 37.8 41.3 0.0 39.7 44.5 44.5 IncremntDel: 2.3 0.8 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.1 42.2 0.0 41.3 46.1 46.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.1 42.2 0.0 41.3 46.1 46.1 LOS by Move: D D A D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 11 8 0 9 8 8 Signal=Protect Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 98 i 2 584"' 0 2 333 East B L - T 7 10 3:00-9:00 250 345 1.00 1.00 250 345 1 1 0 0 251 346 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 251 346 0 0 251 346 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 251 346 1900 1900 0.92 0.99 1.00 2.32 1750 4372 0.14 0.08 **** 0.23 0.19 0.61 0.41 41.1 42.7 2.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 43.8 42.9 1.00 1.00 43.8 42.9 D D 9 5 cund West Bound - R L - T - R 10 7 10 10 97 326 577 98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 97 326 577 98 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 97 333 584 98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 97 333 584 98 0 0 0 0 97 333 584 98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 97 333 584 98 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.68 2.00 2.55 0.45 1226 3150 4794 805 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.12 **** 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.41 0.44 0.61 0.61 42.7 38.5 43.9 43.9 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.9 38.9 44.9 44.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.9 38.9 44.9 44.9 D D D D 5 6 8 8 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 ? 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-16 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Final Vol: Lanes Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include 254"` 1 0 743 2 1 218 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ude 237 547""` 349 0 1 1 0 1 ~`-~ Vol Cnt Date: 10/5/2006 Cycle Time (sec): 120 Loss Time (sec): 12 Critical V/C: 0.864 Signal=Protect Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol. 0 247 i 2 1055"' 0 2 537 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 52.9 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 50.2 LOS: D ~t'~'~ o , , o 329"" 344 0 Si gna I=ProtecURights=1 gnore Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 7 10 10 volume Module: » Count Date: Base Vol: 329 344 363 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 329 344 363 Added Vol: 0 0 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 329 344 370 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 329 344 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 329 344 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 329 344 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3700 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.09 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.15 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.63 0.00 Uniform Del: 45.2 48.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 18.1 2.4 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 63.4 50.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 63.4 50.5 0.0 LOS by Move: E D A HCM21cAvgQ : 16 7 0 South Bound L - T - R 7 10 10 5 Oct 2006 « 5: 349 547 235 1.00 1.00 1.00 349 547 235 0 0 2 0 0 0 349 547 237 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 349 547 237 0 0 0 349 547 237 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 349 547 237 --------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.38 0.62 1750 2581 1118 --------------- 0.20 0.21 0.21 **** 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.63 0.86 0.86 35.1 43.4 43.4 2.4 8.6 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.5 52.0 52.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.5 52.0 52.0 D D D 12 17 17 East Bc L - T 7 10 30-6:30 247 736 1.00 1.00 247 736 7 7 0 0 254 743 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 743 0 0 254 743 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 743 1900 1900 0.92 0.99 1.00 2.29 1750 4328 0.15 0.17 **** 0.17 0.22 0.86 0.78 48.6 44.1 22.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 70.9 47.5 1.00 1.00 70.9 47.5 E D 12 13 and West Bound - R L - T - R 10 7 10 10 218 535 1053 247 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 218 535 1053 247 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 218 537 1055 247 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 218 537 1055 247 0 0 0 0 218 537 1055 247 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 218 537 1055 247 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.71 2.00 2.41 0.59 1270 3150 4536 1062 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 **** 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.86 44.1 44.3 41.8 41.8 3.3 5.8 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47.5 50.1 47.2 47.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47.5 50.1 47.2 47.2 D D D D 13 12 18 18 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 7 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operat ions (Future Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #4: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Signal=Pr otect/Rights=lncl ude Final Vol: 17 7 257"' 237 Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 7 Signal=Protect Sig nal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes : Final Vol . Cycle Time (sec): 120 251"' 1 0 98 Lo ss Time (s ec): 12 0 i 346 2 ~ Cnhcal V/C: 0.614 ~ 2 587"' 1 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 44.2 0 97 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.0 `r 2 w 336 L OS. D f~ La nes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 297" ' 459 0 Si gna I =Protect/Rights=Ignore Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bou nd West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R -- L - T - ~----------- R ----~I L - ----- T - ------ R ----~ ------------~ Min. Green: ----- 7 -- ------ 10 ------ ----~~ 10 ----i ----- 7 ~---- ----- 10 - --- ~ 10 -----l 7 10 ~----------- 10 ----~ 7 ---- 10 -- 10 ----~ ------------~ Volume Module --- : 8:0 0-9:00 i Base Vol: 297 459 123 237 257 174 251 346 97 333 584 98 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 297 459 123 237 257 174 251 346 97 333 584 98 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 297 459 123 237 257 177 251 346 97 336 587 98 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 297 459 0 237 257 177 251 346 97 336 587 98 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 297 459 0 237 257 177 251 346 97 336 587 98 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 297 459 0 237 257 177 251 346 97 336 587 98 Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.16 0.84 1.00 2.32 0.68 2.00 2.56 0.44 Final Sat.: 1750 3700 0 1750 2190 1508 1750 4372 1226 3150 4798 801 Capacity Anal ysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves• **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.61 0.61 Uniform Del: 37.8 41.3 0.0 39.7 44.5 44.5 41.2 42.8 42.8 38.5 43.8 43.8 IncremntDel: 2.4 0.8 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 40.2 42.1 0.0 41.3 46.1 46.1 43.9 43.0 43.0 38.9 44.9 44.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.2 42.1 0.0 41.3 46.1 46.1 43.9 43.0 43.0 38.9 44.9 44.9 LOS by Move: D D A D D D D D D D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 11 8 0 9 8 8 9 5 5 6 8 8 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 8 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM InLersecnon ~: Stevens Creek Blvd/Stelling Rd Signal=ProtecVRi ghts=lncl ude Fi nal Vol: 237 547" " 349 Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 ~~ ~ 17 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Incl ude Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include L anes: Final Vol: 257'"" Cycle Time (sec): 120 1 J 0 247 ~ ~# Loss Time (sec): 12 1 746 2 ~ Critical V/C. 0.866 ~ 2 1055 '"" 1 Avg Crit Del (sec /veh): 53.1 0 218 0 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 50.3 ~ 2 537 LOS: D ~I Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 329"` 344 0 Signal =ProtecVRights=1 gn ore Approach: No rth Bound South Bo und East Bound W est Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Volume Module: Base Vol: 329 344 370 349 547 237 254 743 218 537 1055 247 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 329 344 370 349 547 237 254 743 218 537 1055 247 Added Vol: 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 329 344 373 349 547 237 257 746 218 537 1055 247 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 329 344 0 349 547 237 257 746 218 537 1055 247 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 329 344 0 349 547 237 257 746 218 537 1055 247 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 329 344 0 349 547 237 257 746 218 537 1055 247 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.38 0.62 1.00 2.30 0.70 2.00 2.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 1750 3700 0 1750 2581 1118 1750 4332 1266 3150 4536 1062 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.87 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.87 0.87 Uniform Del: 45.3 48.1 0.0 35.2 43.4 43.4 48.5 44.1 44.1 44.2 41.8 41.8 IncremntDel: 18.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 8.8 8.8 22.4 3.3 3.3 5.8 5.6 5.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 63.7 50.6 0.0 37.6 52.2 52.2 70.9 47.4 47.4 50.1 47.4 47.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 63.7 50.6 0.0 37.6 52.2 52.2 70.9 47.4 47.4 50.1 47.4 47.4 LOS by Move: E D A D D D E D D D D D HCM21cAvgQ: 16 7 0 12 17 17 13 13 13 12 18 18 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-17 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way S i g n a l = P ro tecU Ri g h ts= I n c l u d e Final Vol: 71 271 0"' La nes: 0 1 1 0 0 Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Signal=Protect Vol Cnt Oate: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes Cycle Time (sec): 90 : Final Vol : 7'== 1 0 0 Lo ss Time (s ec): 12 0 ~~ 0 0 0 ~ Cntical V/C: 0.511 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.5 0 2 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 ~ 0 0 LOS: A ~~ Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 20 834"' 0 Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ude Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound Ea st Bou nd West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 --- 0 ---- 0 ------~ 0 j----- 0 - 0 ----~~ 0 ----- 0 0 ---- ------------~----- Volume Module: » --- Count --~~ Date: -- 22 Ma y 2008 « 8 :00-9: 00 Base Vol: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 20 834 0 -- j 0 ----- 271 ---- 71 ------j 7 ~----- 0 ------ 2 ----~j 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----j ------------j----------- Saturation Flow Module: -- j Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 0.43 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 0 2840 744 1663 0 1488 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.51 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 37.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 44.4 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 37.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 73.4 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 73.4 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move : D A A A A A E A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 0' 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-18 Level Of Service Computation Repon 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rig hts=Overlap "' * 100 1 J 0 0 0 ~ 0 22 1 Lanes: Final Vol: Si gnat=ProtecURights=lncl ude 19 468"' 0 0 1 1 0 0 ~~~-`~~ Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 90 Loss Time (sec): 12 Critical V/C. 0.228 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.6 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.6 LOS. B ~~~~ 1 0 1 0 0 9"` 272 0 Signat=ProtecURights=Include Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: Base Vol: 9 272 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 9 272 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 9 272 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 9 272 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 9 272 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 9 272 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.14 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.60 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.24 0.00 Uniform Del: 43.1 8.3 0.0 IncremntDel: 3.0 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 46.1 8.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.1 8.4 0.0 LOS by Move: D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 3 0 South Bourd L - T - R 0 0 0 --------------- 22 May 2008 0 468 19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 468 19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 19 0 0 0 0 468 19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 19 --------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.00 1.92 0.08 0 3534 143 --------------- 0.00 0.13 0.13 **** 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.0 9.2 9.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 9.2 9.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 9.2 9.2 A A A 0 3 3 Signal=Protect Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East B L - T 0 0 x:00-6:00 100 0 1.00 1.00 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 0 0 0 100 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 0 1900 1900 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 1663 0 0.06 0.00 **** 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.00 26.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 26.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.3 0.0 C A 2 0 cund West Bound - R L - T - R 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.78 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1488 0 0 0 ------I~---------- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 C A A A 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-19 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Vo lume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way Si gnat=ProtecURights=lncl ude Final Val: 167 271 0"` Lan es: 0 1 1 0 0 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes : Final Vol : ~ Cycle Time (sec): 90 24"` 1 ~ 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 0 0 0 y4 Cntical V/C: 0.523 ~- 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (seGveh): 3.8 0 11 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.4 ~ 0 0 LOS. A ~I ~ t~ La nes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 71 834"' 0 Signal =ProtecURights=1 n cl ud e Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bou nd we st Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - - R ----- L - T - ----------- R ---- L - ----- T ----- - R -----~I ------------ Min. Green: ----- 0 ------ 0 ---- 0 --------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module : » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 8: 00-9:00 Base Vol: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 834 0 0 271 71 7 0 2 0 0 0 Added Vol: 51 0 0 0 0 96 17 0 9 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 834 0 0 271 167 24 0 11 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 834 0 0 271 167 24 0 11 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 834 0 0 271 167 24 0 11 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 71 834 0 0 271 167 24 0 11 0 0 0 Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.89 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 0 2158 1330 1663 0 1488 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.20 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.52 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 29.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 43.2 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 29.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 53.7 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2 53.7 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move : C A A A A A D A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 7 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-20 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way S i g n a l = P rotecU Ri g h t 5= I n c l u d e Final Vol: 39 468"' 0 Lanes: 0 1 11 # 0 0 It~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 522/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time (sec): 90 186"' 1 0 0 Lo ss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Critical V/C. 0.303 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 17.6 0 68 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 16.4 ~ 0 0 LOS: B 4~,y Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Final Vol: 20 "' 272 0 Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound So uth Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 9 272 0 0 468 19 100 0 22 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 9 272 0 0 468 19 100 0 22 0 0 0 Added Vol: 11 0 0 0 0 20 86 0 46 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 272 0 0 468 39 186 0 68 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 272 0 0 468 39 186 0 68 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 272 0 0 468 39 186 0 68 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 20 272 0 0 468 39 186 0 68 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 0 3374 281 1663 0 1488 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.37 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 42.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 15.4 15.4 20.2 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 44.6 13.4 0.0 0.0 15.5 15.5 20.4 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.6 13.4 0.0 0.0 15.5 15.5 20.4 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: D B A A B B C A B A A A HCM21cAvgQ : 1 4 0 0 5 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3- 9 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way Final Vol: Lanes: Sgnal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rig*hts=Overlap 25"` 1 J 0 0 0 -- ft 0 12 1 Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=ProtecVRights=l ncl ude 209 271 0"' 0 1 1 0 0 ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 90 Loss Time (sec): 12 Critical v/C. 0.52a Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 3.9 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 LOS: A ~, ~~ 1` - ~ 1 0 1 0 0 93 834"` 0 Signal=Protect/Rights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 71 834 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 71 834 0 Added Vol: 22 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 93 834 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 93 834 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 93 834 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 93 834 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.44 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.84 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.52 0.00 Uniform Del: 27.5 2.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.3 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 27.8 2.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.8 2.4 0.0 LOS by Move: C A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 7 0 South B L - T 0 0 0 271 1.00 1.00 0 271 0 0 0 0 0 271 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 271 0 0 0 271 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 271 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.00 1.11 0 1952 0.00 0.14 **** 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.23 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 8.5 1.00 1.00 0.0 8.5 A A 0 3 cund - R 0 167 1.00 167 42 0 209 1.00 1.00 209 0 209 1.00 1.00 209 1900 0.89 0.89 1505 0.14 0.60 0.23 8.5 0.1 0.0 1.00 8.5 1.00 8.5 A 3 Signal=Protect Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East B L - T 0 0 24 0 1.00 1.00 24 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 0 0 0 25 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 0 1900 1900 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 1663 0 0.02 0.00 **** 0.03 0.00 0.52 0.00 43.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 53.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.3 0.0 D A 2 0 cund - R 0 11 1.00 11 1 0 12 1.00 1.00 12 0 12 1.00 1.00 12 1900 0.78 1.00 1488 0.01 0.27 0.03 24.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 24.2 1.00 24.2 C 0 West Bound L - T - R 0 0 C --------------- 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A A 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-10 Level Of Sernce Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #5: Bubb Road and Results Way Signal=Protect/Rights=lncl tide Final Vot: 44 468"' 0 Lanes: 0 1 1 0 0 I~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final VoP Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 90 0 0 225"' 1 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 ~~, 0 0 0 ~ Critical V/C' 0.33a ~- _ 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.8 -~~ 0 gg 1 Avg Delay (sedveh): 17.7 0 0 LOS: B ~~ts-> Lanes: 1 0 Final Vol: 23"' Signal= Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 272 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 272 0 Added Vol: 3 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 23 272 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 23 272 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 272 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 23 272 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.14 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.46 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.31 0.00 Uniform Del: 41.9 15.2 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.9 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 44.8 15.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.8 15.4 0.0 LOS by Move: D B A HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 0 o 0 272 0 'rotecVRights=lncl tide South Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 0 468 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 39 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 468 44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 44 0 0 0 0 468 44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 468 44 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.00 1.82 0.18 0 3338 314 0.00 0.14 0.14 **** 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.0 17.6 17.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 17.7 17.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 17.7 17.7 A B B 0 5 5 East Bc L - T 0 0 186 0 1.00 1.00 186 0 39 0 0 0 225 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 0 0 0 225 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 0 1900 1900 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 1663 0 0.14 0.00 **** 0.41 0.00 0.33 0.00 18.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 18.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 18.7 0.0 B A 5 0 and west Bound - R L - T - R 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 68 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 89 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.78 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1488 0 0 0 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 B A A A 2 0 0 0 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-21 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Signal=Stop/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 44 0 52 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final VoP Lanes: Rights=Include Val Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 25 0 ~ 0 40 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 ~ ~ 1 331 0 ~ Critical V/C. 0.000 ~ 0 154 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.9 ~ 0 58 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 ~ 0 0 LOS: B ~,y Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 S i g n a l =Stop/Rights= I n cl u d e Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 7:15-8:15 Base Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 584 xxxx 174 194 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 477 xxxx 875 1391 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 471 xxxx 875 1391 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx 0.05 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 597 xxxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachL05: * B Peak Hour Delay Signal w arrant Report ********************************************* ************* ********************** Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Aven ue ********************************************* ************* ********************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met l ------~---------- ~~--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound i----------- East Bou ----~---------------~ nd west Bound Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-22 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ---------------~I---------------II ----------II---- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lare s: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=96] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=704] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ************************:r********,r********************************************** Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --- ---I------ ---~~---------------', ',------ ----i~ ---------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 --------- ~I---------------~ Major Street Volume: 608 Minor Approach Volume: 96 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 352 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably mere likely to meet ore or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. fraffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1'. 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-23 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 15 0 1 150 0 0 0 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude 18 0 13 0 0 1! 0 0 ~~~-~ Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 100 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C: 0.000 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1 1 LOS: B ~1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Signal=Uncontrol Rights=Include ~` Lanes: Final Vol. 0 22 1 0 178 0 0 0 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: --------------- 22 May 2008 « ----- 4:45-5: ------ 45 ----~ j----- ----- ----- Base Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 369 xxxx 189 200 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 635 xxxx 858 1384 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 630 xxxx 858 1384 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move : * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 745 xxxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxxxxxx 0.0 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.0 xxxxx 7.6 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * B * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.0 xx xxxx xx xxxx ApproachLOS: * B Peak Hour Delay Signal W arrant Report ****************************** *************** ******* ****** ***** *********** ****** Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Aven ue ****************************** *************** ******* ****** ***** *********** ****** Future Volume Alternative: Pea k Hour Warrant NOT Met -- ----~---------------~~ Approach: North Bound --------------- South Bound ~~----- Ea ------ st Bou ----j nd ---------- West Bo -----~ und Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-24 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~,- ---------il---------------~I---------------,'I---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx -----~---------------~---------------;~,---------------jl-------- -~~ Approach [southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1) FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=31] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=396] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --- ------- -------j- ---------Iii---------------j ---------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Major Street Volume: 365 Minor Approach Volume: 31 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 488 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one o-r more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-25 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: 25 0 Rights=Include ~ 1 * 346 0 0 58 0 Lanes: Final Vol: S i g n a l =Stop/Rights= I n c l u d e 44 0 52 0 0 1! 0 0 ~' ~- ~- ~. Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 10C Loss Time (sec): 0 Cntical V/C: 0.000 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 1.9 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 LOS: B ~1 ~~ ~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S i g n a l =Stop/Rights= I n c l u d e Signal=Uncontrol Rights=lncludej Lanes: Final Vol. 0 40 1 0 157 0 0 0 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - -- T - R ---------- L - j----- T - R ---------- L j---- - T ------ - R ----- --------------------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: -- - 22 May 2008 « 7:15-8: 15 Base Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 331 58 0 154 40 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 3 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 602 xxxx 177 197 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 466 xxxx 871 1388 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 459 xxxx 871 1388 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx 0.05 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx ~ --- xxxx ----- xxxx ----- ------------~--------------- Level Of Service Module: ----- ----- ~~----- ----------~ I- - 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move : * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 587 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x xxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.3 xx xxxx x xxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Peak Hour Delay Signal W arrant Report ****************************** *************** ******* *********** *********** ****** Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Aven ue ****************************** *************** ******* *********** ***** ****** ****** Future Volume Alternative: Pea k Hour Warrant NOT Met -- ------ I ------------~--------------- Approach: North Bound --------------- South Bound ~~---------------~ East Bound ~-- West Bo und Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14.00:27 2008 Page 3-26 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------------------- --j- - --- ---------------j---------------, Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx -- ----- --------------- i----- -----; ---------------i~--------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=96] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=722] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue *******************~******************************:r****r********:r**********~r**** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------~---------------~~---------------jl---------------II---------------j Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346' S8 0 157 40 ------------~---------------~~---------------I~---------------~---------------~ Major Street Volume: 626 Minor Approach Volume: 96 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 344 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-27 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Signal=StoplRights=lncl ude Final Vol: 18 0 13 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 ~~-`~. Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Uncontrol Rights=lnctude Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Signal=Uncontrol Rights=Include Lanes: Fnal Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 22 15 0 1 _ i Loss Time (sec): 0 ~- 1 153 0 ~ Critical V/C 0.000 ~ 0 191 0 Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 1.0 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (seGveh): 1 0 ~ 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R --------------- L - T - R ~---------------~I L - ~----- T ----- - R -----~ ------------~---------------~ Volume Module: » Count Date: ~ 22 May 2008 « 4:45-5:45 Base Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 150 0 0 178 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 385 xxxx 202 213 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 622 xxxx 844 1369 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 617 xxxx 844 1369 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ~~ xxxxx LOS by Move : * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 731 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.1 xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * B * A * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.1 xxxxxx x xxxxx * ApproachLOS: * B * Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ********************************************* *********************** ************ Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue ********************************************* *********************** ************ e Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant lum, - NOT Met ~--------------- ~~---- ------ ----- ---------------~ North Bound Approach ~-------------- South Bound ~ East Bound w est Bound Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep '.1 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-28 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I~---------------', 'I---------------~ ------I,~--------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------,--------------- ---------------i ---------------',,---------------~I Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=31] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=412] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------i;---------------~~---------------I~---------------~ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sigr, Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 Major Street Volume: 381 Minor Approach Volume: 31 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 477 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet cre or mere of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-11 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Pro)ect AM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 25 0 1 352 0 0 58 0 Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=StoplRighls=Include 44 0 52 0 0 1! 0 0 ~'~-~~ Vol Cnt Date: n/a Cycle Time (sec): 100 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C. 0.000 Avg Cnt Del (seGveh): 1.9 Avg Delay (seGveh): 1.9 LOS: B ~'1 ~~ ~ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Signal=Uncontrol Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: 0 40 1 0 157 0 0 0 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Volume Module: 7:15-8:15 Base Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 346 58 0 157 40 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 352 58 0 157 40 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 352 58 0 157 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 352 58 0 157 40 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx Fo1lowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 608 xxxx 177 197 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 462 xxxx 871 1388 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 456 xxxx 871 1388 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx 0.05 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------~---------------j Level Of Service Module: ~---------------~~ ----- ------ ----~ ~----- ------ ----~ 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 583 xxxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx x xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx x xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.4 xxxxx x xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.4 xx xxxx x xxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Peak Hou ***************************** r Delay Signal Warrant *********************** Report ****** ***** ************ ***** Intersection #6 McClellan Roa d and Byrne Avenue ***************************** ****************** *********** ***** ************ ***** Future Volume Alternative: Pe ak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------~-------- Approach: North Bound j---------------~ South Bound ----------- East Bou - -j nd ~----------- West Bou ----~ nd Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-12 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 352 58 0 157 40 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx - --------------- ---------------I, ---------------~i,---------------i Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=96] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=728] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hear cr 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------j---------------~~------------------------------~~----- ~I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 52 0 44 25 352 58 0 157 40 Major Street Volume: 632 Minor Approach Volume: 96 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 342 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 t 14:01 :50 2008 Page 3-13 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #6: McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Final Vol: 18 0 13 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 T I~ Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: rT Cycle Time (sec): 100 15 0 J 0 22 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 1 154 0 ~ Critical V/C: 0.000 ~ 0 197 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 ~ 0 0 LOS. B ~I I ~ I~ Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol: 0 0 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 153 0 0 191 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 154 0 0 197 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 154 0 0 197 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 154 0 0 197 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 392 xxxx 208 219 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 616 xxxx 837 1362 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 611 xxxx 837 1362 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 725 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * B * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.2 xxxxxx xx:xxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Peak Hour Delay Signal W arrant Report ********************************************* *********************************** Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Aven ue ********************************************* *********************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met - ------------~---------------~--------------- Approach: North Bound South Bound ~~---------------~! East Bound ------- --I west Bound Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-14 Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------I~---------------,---------------i,---------------i Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lar_e s: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 154 0 0 197 22 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ---------------------------I~---------------~~---------------I---------------I Approach[southbound][lanes=l][control=Stop Sign] Signal warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=31] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal warrant Rule #3: (approach count=3][total volume=419] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] Intersection #6 McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue ***********:r*********************************************,r**************~******:r Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ---------------------------~I~---------------',~~---------------~~---------- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 0 0 13 0 18 15 154 0 0 197 22 Major Street Volume: 388 Minor Approach Volume: 31 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 472 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 1 1400:27 2008 Page 3-29 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Sign a I =Protect/Rights=0verl a p Final Vol. 53 190 51"` La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 4`~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes : Final Vo l: ~ Cycte Time (sec): 90 125 1 0 95 Lo ss Time (s ec): 12 0 ~ 1 280"' 0 ~ Critical V/C. 0.608 ~ 1 337 1 Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 31.2 0 22 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.8 ~ 1 198"` L OS. C ~I La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 28 394"' 223 Si gna 1=ProtecU Ri gh i s=0verl a p Street Name: Bubb Road Mc Clella n Roa d Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound East Bou nd We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - - T ----- - R ----- L ---- - T - ------- R ----j~ L - ----- T ----- - R -----~ ----------------- Min . Green : 0 ------ 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 0 0 - , 0 ~ -- 0 0 --~ 0 -- 0 0 ----~ ------------~----- Volume Module: » ------ Count ----~j Date: ----- 22 Ma ~ -- y 2008 « 7 , :45-8 :45 Base Vol: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 28 394 223 51 190 53 125 280 22 198 337 95 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 1.55 0.45 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 1663 1651 130 1663 2791 787 Capacity Analysis Module : Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.10 C.04 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.34 0.54 0.05 0.34 0.52 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.61 0.28 0.61 0.30 0.07 0.41 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.41 Uniform Del: 40.7 24.6 11.3 41.9 22.1 10.9 32.5 28.2 28.2 33.0 25.6 25.6 IncremntDel: 1.8 1.7 0.2 12.2 0.3 0.0 0.9 2.2 2.2 3.3 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.5 26.3 11.5 54.1 22.4 10.9 33.5 30.3 30.3 36.3 25.9 25.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.5 26.3 11.5 54.1 22.4 10.9 33.5 30.3 30.3 36.3 25.9 25.9 LOS by Move: D C B D C B C C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 4 3 4 1 4 8 8 6 5 5 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-30 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Signa I =ProtecURi ghts=Overlap Final Vol: 33 156 1?6"' Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 ~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Inclu de Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include La nes: Final V ol. Cycle Time (sec): 90 SO 1 0 67 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 T ~ 1 22T"* 0 ~ Critica l V/C: 0.478 ~ 1 217 1 ~~ Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 30 7 0 30 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.9 ~ 1 169" * LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Final Vol 26 116"* 113 Si g na I=P r otecURi g hts=Overla p Street Name: Bubb Road McClellan Road Approach: No rth Bound So uth Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - ------~---- - T ------ - R -----~i L ---- - T --- - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 ------------~---- 0 ------ 0 ----- ~ 0 ---- --- 0 ----- 0 ~~---- 0 ------ 0 -----~~ 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -----I 0 Volume Module: » Count ~ Date: ------ 22 May 200 ----- 8 « ~~---- 4:45-5 ------ :45 -----~~ ----- ----- -----j Base Vol: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.95 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.52 0.48 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 1663 1561 206 1663 2728 842 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.13 0.34 0.22 0.29 0.44 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.38 0.38 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.48 0.22 0.48 0.28 0.05 0.21 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.21 0.21 Uniform Del: 40.7 36.5 21.2 30.5 24.5 14.7 34.2 25.5 25.5 31.0 19.1 19.1 IncremntDel: 1.6 1.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.4 37.9 21.4 31.5 24.7 14.7 34.6 26.1 26.1 32.1 19.2 19.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.4 37.9 21.4 31.5 24.7 14.7 34.6 26.1 26.1 32.1 19.2 19.2 LOS by Move: D D C C C B C C C C B B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 6 6 5 3 3 I rarrix /.tl.U915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 74:00:27 2008 Page 3-31 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM OperaUOns (Future Volume Alternatroe) Background AM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 140 1 0 280""" 0 ~. 1 11 0 ~~ Lanes: Final Vol: Si g na I =ProtecVRi gh is=Overt a p 56 191 56"` 1 0 1 0 1 ~'1`~ Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 90 Loss Time (sec): 12 Cnhcal V/C: 0.607 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.3 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.0 LOS: C ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 0 1 0 1 28 401"" 223 Sig n a 1=ProtecU Ri g hts=0ve rl a p Signal=Protect Rights=Include L Lanes: Final Vol: 0 124 1 1 337 0 1 198'"" Street Name: Bubb Road Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R - I-- --------~~--------------- Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « ' Base Vol: 28 394 223 51 190 53 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 394 223 51 190 53 Added Vol: 0 7 0 5 1 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 401 223 56 191 56 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 401 223 56 191 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 401 223 56 191 56 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 28 401 223 56 191 56 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.10 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.35 0.54 0.06 0.35 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.61 0.28 0.61 0.29 0.07 Uniform Del: 40.6 24.3 11.0 41.5 21.5 10.4 IncremntDel: 1.7 1.6 0.2 11.1 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~..00 Delay/Veh: 42.3 25.9 11.2 52.7 21.7 10.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.3 25.9 11.2 52.7 21.7 'x.0.5 LOS by Move: D C B D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 4 3 4 1 McClel] East Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 ~I---------------~ ':45-8:45 125 280 22 1.00 1.00 1.00 125 280 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 140 280 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 280 11 0 0 0 140 280 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 280 11 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.04 1663 1722 68 0.08 0.16 0.16 **** 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.46 0.61 0.61 32.8 28.8 28.8 1.1 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 34.0 31.1 31.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 34.0 31.1 31.1 C C C 4 8 8 an Road West Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 198 337 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 198 337 95 0 0 29 0 0 0 198 337 124 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 198 337 124 0 0 0 198 337 124 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 198 337 124 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 1.45 0.55 1663 2596 955 j--------------- 0.12 0.13 0.13 **** 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.46 0.46 33.0 26.7 26.7 3.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.OC 36.3 27.0 27.C 1.00 1.00 1.OC 36.3 27.0 27.C D C C 6 6 6 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-32 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operati ons (Future Vo lume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Si g na 1=Pr otecURi g h i s=0verl a p Final Vol: 46 163 202`"` Lan es 1 0 1 0 1 ~~ Signal=Protect Signat=Protect Final VoP Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Righ ts=Include Lanes : Final Vol . Cycle Time (sec): 90 53 1 0 73 Lo ss Time (s ec): 12 0 1 227"' 0 ~ Cntical V/C 0 497 ~ 1 217 1 ~~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.0 0 ~ 30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27 1 ~ 1 169`"` LOS: C La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 26 118"` 113 Signal =ProtecURi g h is=0verl a p Street Name: Bubb Road Mc Clellan Road Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bou nd We st Bound Movement : L - T - R i i L - T - - R -----~ L - T - ----------- R ----~ L - ----- T ----- - R ----- -- ---------- Min. Green: 0 ------ 0 ---- i 0 ,----- 0 ---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 4: 45-5:45 Base Vol: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 26 116 113 176 156 33 50 227 30 169 217 67 Added Vol: 0 2 0 26 7 13 3 0 0 0 0 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.95 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.48 0.52 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 1663 1561 206 1663 2663 896 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.12 0.33 0.24 0.31 0.45 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.27 0.50 0.23 0.50 0.27 0.07 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.23 Uniform Del: 40.7 36.7 21.9 29.2 23.3 13.9 34.4 26.4 26.4 31.7 20.2 20.2 IncremntDel: 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.2 38.4 22.1 30.2 23.5 14.0 34.9 27.1 27.1 32.8 20.3 20.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.2 38.4 22.1 30.2 23.5 14.0 34.9 27.1 27.1 32.8 20.3 20.3 LOS by Move: D D C C C B C C C C C C HCM21tAvgQ : 1 4 3 6 3 1 2 7 7 5 3 3 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates. Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-15 Level Of Serwce Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Protect AM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Si g na I =ProtecUPo gh is=Overt a p Final Vol: 56 191 56^` La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: ~ Cycle Time (sec): 90 146 1 0 137 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 1 280"' 0 ~ Critical V/C 0.6C9 ~ 1 337 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/ veh): 31.3 0 11 0 ~ Avg Delay (secl veh): 28.0 ~ 1 198`"' LO . C S l La nes: 1 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 28 404'"' 112 S gnat =ProtecURights=Overt a p Street Name: Bubb Road McClella n Road Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bo und Movement : L - I T - R L - T - R -- L ---- - T - ------- R ---- L - ----- T --- - R ----- ------------ Min . Green : 0 ----- 0 -----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 --- 0 ~~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 7:45-8 :45 Base Vol: 28 401 223 56 191 56 140 280 22 198 337 124 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 401 223 56 191 56 140 280 22 198 337 124 Added Vol: 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 13 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 404 223 56 191 56 146 280 22 198 337 137 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 404 112 56 191 56 146 280 11 198 337 137 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 404 112 56 191 56 146 280 11 198 337 137 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 28 404 112 56 191 56 146 280 11 198 -- 337 - -- 137 ----- ------------~----- Saturation Flow Mo ----- dule: -----~~ ---- ------ ----- ~---- ------- ----~~ --- - - j Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.94 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.41 0.59 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 1663 1722 68 1663 2517 1023 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.21 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.35 0.54 0.06 0.35 0.53 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.28 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.61 0.14 0.61 0.29 0.07 0.48 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.48 0.48 Uniform Del: 40.6 24.2 10.1 41.6 21.4 10.4 32.9 28.9 28.9 33.1 27.0 27.0 IncremntDel: 1.7 1.7 0.1 11.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.3 2.3 3.3 0.4 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.3 25.9 10.2 52.9 21.6 10.4 34.1 31.2 31.2 36.4 27.4 27.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.3 25.9 10.2 52.9 21.6 10.4 34.1 31.2 31.2 36.4 27.4 27.4 LOS by Move: D C B D C B C C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 10 2 3 4 1 4 8 8 6 6 6 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-16 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Protect PM Intersection #7: McClellan Road at Bubb Road Signal=ProtecURights=Overlap Final Vol 52 t66 214"" Lan es: 1 0 1 0 1 I,~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes : Final Vol : Cycle Time (sec): 90 54 1 0 75 Lo ss Time (s ec): 12 0 ~~ 1 227"' 0 ~ Cntical V/C: 0.505 ~ 1 217 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31 1 0 30 0 Avg D elay (sec/v eh): 27.2 1 169"' ~ ~ LOS: C ~~ ~ ~~ Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Final Vol: 26 118'"' 113 Signal =ProtecURights=0 ve rl a p Street Name: Bubb Road Mc Clellan Roa d Approach: Nor th Bou nd Sou th Bound Ea st Bou nd We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T --- - R ------ L - ----- T - ---- R L - ----- T - --- - R ----- -- ---------- Min. Green: 0 ----- 0 j 0 ----- 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 26 118 113 202 163 46 53 227 30 169 217 73 Added Vol: 0 0 0 12 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 118 113 214 166 52 54 227 30 169 217 75 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 118 113 214 166 52 54 227 30 169 217 75 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 118 113 214 166 52 54 227 30 169 217 75 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 26 118 113 214 166 52 54 227 30 169 217 75 Saturation Flow Mo dule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.94 0.91 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.47 0.53 Final Sat.: 1663 1900 1488 1663 1900 1488 1663 1561 206 1663 2642 913 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.12 0.32 0.25 0.32 0.46 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.27 0.51 0.23 0.51 0.27 0.08 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.23 0.23 Uniform Del: 40.6 36.9 22.2 28.7 22.8 13.7 34.5 26.7 26.7 32.0 20.7 20.7 IncremntDel: 1.6 1.8 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.2 38.7 22.5 29.7 23.0 13.7 35.0 27.5 27.5 33.2 20.8 20.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.2 38.7 22.5 29.7 23.0 13.7 35.0 27.5 27.5 33.2 20.8 20.8 LOS by Move: D D C C C B D C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 3 5 3 1 2 7 7 5 3 3 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-33 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 H CM Opera tions (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Signal=Pr otect/Ri ghts=lncl ude Final Vol: 64 92 146"' La nes: 0 1 1 0 1 ~~ Signal=Protect Sig nal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rig hts=Overlap Lanes : Final Vol: ~ Cyc le Time ( sec): 90 253"' 1 1 162 Lo ss Time ( sec): 12 0 0 288 0 J~ Cntical V/C 0.646 ~ 1 293"' 1 ~ Avg Cnt DeI (seGveh): 34.0 0 41 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 30.8 ~ 1 58 LOS: C La nes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 204 501'"' 97 Signal=Pr otect/Rig hts=l ncl ude Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound East Bou nd West Bou nd Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 « 8: 00-9:00 Base Vol: 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 501 97 146 92 64 253 288 41 58 293 162 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 204 501 97 146 92 - 64 ------ 253 288 ----------- 41 ----~ 58 ----- 293 ------ 162 ----i ----------------- Saturation Flow Mo --- dule: - ---- ---- j Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.16 0.84 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3025 586 1663 2048 1425 1663 1546 220 1663 1900 1488 Capacity Analysis Modul e: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.15 0.11 Crit Moves: **** *** * **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.24 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.43 0.43 0.65 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.29 Uniform Del: 26.1 29.8 29.8 36.8 37.7 37.7 31.0 19.9 19.9 39.9 30.8 19.7 IncremntDel: 0.6 1.6 1.6 6.3 0.8 0.8 3.7 0.5 0.5 2.8 3.2 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 26.7 31.4 31.4 43.2 38.5 38.5 34.7 20.4 20.4 42.7 34.1 20.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.7 31.4 31.4 43.2 38.5 38.5 34.7 20.4 20.4 42.7 34.1 20.0 LOS by Move: C C C D D D C C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 5 9 9 5 3 3 8 7 7 2 8 3 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copynght (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 334 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Signal=ProtecURights=l nclude Fin al Vol: 167 433 279"` Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 ~~ ~ ~ l~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Inclu de Cy Vol Cnt cle Time Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: (sec): 90 141 1 1 188 L oss Time (sec): 12 0 ~ 0 403"' 0 ~ Cntica l V/C. 0 707 ~ 1 388 1 Avg Cnt Del (seclveh): 35.7 0 88 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.7 ~ 1 142" ' LOS: C ~,1 ~~ ~ (~ Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 102 214"' 68 Signal=P rotecURights=lncl ude Approach: No rth Bo und South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 200 8 « 5: 00-6:00 Base Vol: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.94 G.91 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.43 C.57 1.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 - ------j---- 2706 ------ 860 - 1663 2557 986 1663 1438 314 1663 1900 1488 Capacity Analysis ----~~ Module: ----- ----- -----~~ ----------- ----~~ ----- ---- - Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.20 0.13 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.37 0.60 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.56 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.56 0.21 Uniform Del: 39.4 38.5 38.5 31.4 30.0 30.0 35.4 22.8 22.8 38.0 22.8 8.1 IncremntDel: 10.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 11.0 1.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.6 44.3 44.3 37.2 31.8 31.8 38.2 26.1 26.1 49.0 23.8 8.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.6 44.3 44.3 37.2 31.8 31.8 38.2 26.1 26.1 49.0 23.8 8.2 LOS by Move : D D D D C C D C C D C A HCM21cAvgQ : 4 5 5 9 9 9 5 13 13 6 9 3 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 1 14:00:27 2008 Page 335 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include 254"` i 0 291 0 1 42 0 ~. Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ude 71 92 146"` 0 1 ~~ ~ 1 0 1 ~ ~~~ Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 90 Loss Time (sec): 12 Critical V/C. 0.656 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.3 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.0 LOS. C ~~r~ 1 0 1 1 0 211 501"' 97 Signal=ProtecURights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: Base Vol: 204 501 97 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 204 501 97 Added Vol: 7 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 211 501 97 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 211 501 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 211 501 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 211 501 97 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.96 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.67 0.33 Final Sat.: 1663 3025 586 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.66 0.66 Uniform Del: 26.6 30.1 30.1 IncremntDel: 0.7 1.7 1.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 27.3 31.9 31.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.3 31.9 31.9 LOS by Move: C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 9 South Bound L - T - R 0 0 0 20 May 2008 « 146 92 64 1.00 1.00 1.00 146 92 64 0 0 7 0 0 0 146 92 71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 146 92 71 0 0 0 146 92 71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 146 92 71 --------------- 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 1.00 1.11 0.89 1663 1951 1506 --------------- 0.09 0.05 0.05 **** 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.66 0.45 0.45 37.0 37.9 37.9 6.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.9 38.8 38.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.9 38.8 38.8 D D D 5 3 3 Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap "~_ Lanes: Final Vol: 1 162 0 1 308"` 0 1 58 East B L - T 0 0 8:00-9:00 253 288 1.00 1.00 253 288 1 3 0 0 254 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 291 0 0 254 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 291 __ __ 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 1.00 0.87 1663 1543 0.15 0.19 **** 0.23 0.41 0.66 0.47 31.2 19.6 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 35.3 20.1 1.00 1.00 35.3 20.1 D C 8 7 cund West Bound - R L - T - R 0 0 0 0 41 58 293 162 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 58 293 162 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 42 58 308 162 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42 58 308 162 0 0 0 0 42 58 308 162 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42 58 308 162 1900 1900 1900 1900 0.93 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 223 1663 1900 1488 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.11 **** 0.41 0.07 0.25 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.29 19.6 39.9 30.4 19.3 0.5 2.7 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.1 42.6 33.8 19.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.1 42.6 33.8 19.6 C D C B 7 2 9 3 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-36 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Opera tions (Futu re Volume Alternative) Backgroun d PM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Signal=Protect/Rights=l nclude Final Vol: 169 433 279••• L anes: 0 1 1 0 1 4~1- Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Fnal Vol: lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/20/2008 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time (sec): 90 148 1 ~ 1 188 L ass Time (sec): 12 0 ~ ~ 0 416"' 0 ~ Critica l V/C: 0 720 1- 1 391 1 ~ Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 36.2 ~ 0 95 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 32.2 ~ 1 142"' LOS: C ~) ~~ L anes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 104 214"' 68 Signal=ProlectlRights=lncl ude Approach: North Bo und So uth Bourd East Bound west Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 20 May 2008 « 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 102 214 68 279 433 167 141 403 88 142 388 188 Added Vol: 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 13 7 0 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 - --- 2706 860 1663 2549 995 1663 1424 325 1663 1900 1488 I - -------~----- Capacity Analysis ---------- Module: ---- ------ ----- ~~------ ----~ ----- ----- Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.21 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.37 0.60 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.68 0.68 0.56 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.56 0.21 Uniform Del: 39.6 38.7 38.7 31.8 30.5 30.5 35.0 22.5 22.5 38.2 22.8 8.3 IncremntDel: 11.6 6.4 6.4 6.5 2.1 2.1 2.8 3.6 3.6 12.2 1.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.1 45.1 45.1 38.3 32.6 32.6 37.8 26.1 26.1 50.4 23.9 8.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.1 45.1 45.1 38.3 32.6 32.6 37.8 26.1 26.1 50.4 23.9 8.4 LOS by Move : D D D D C C D C C D C A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 6 0' 9 9 9 5 14 14 6 9 3 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Ucensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 1401:50 2008 Page 3-17 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Prolect AM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Si gnat=ProtecURights=lnctude Final Vol: 74 92 146"` Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 ~~ ~ ~- ~. Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date. n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes. Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 90 254`*' 1 ~ 1 162 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 ~~ 0 291 0 ~ Critical V/C. 0.659 ~ 1 314*° 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.5 0 42 0 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.1 ~ 1 58 LOS: C ~~ ~ (~ Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 214 501"` 97 Signal=ProtecURights=l nclude Approach: North Bound Movement: L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 Volume Module: 8:00-9:00 Base Vol: 211 501 97 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 211 501 97 Added Vol: 3 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 214 501 97 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 214 501 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 214 501 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 214 501 97 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.96 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.67 0.33 Final Sat.: 1663 3025 586 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.66 0.66 Uniform Del: 26.8 30.2 30.2 IncremntDel: 0.7 1.8 1.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 27.5 32.0 32.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.5 32.0 32.0 LOS by Move: C C C HCM21cAvgQ : 6 9 9 South B L - T 0 0 146 92 1.00 1.00 146 92 0 0 0 0 146 92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 146 92 0 0 146 92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140' 92 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 1.00 1.08 1663 1912 0.09 0.05 **** 0.13 0.10 0.66 0.46 37.1 37.9 7.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.2 38.8 1.00 1.00 44.2 38.8 D D 5 3 cund - R 0 71 1.00 71 3 0 74 1.00 1.00 74 0 74 1.00 1.00 74 1900 0.88 0.92 1538 0.05 0.10 0.46 37.9 0.9 0.0 1.00 38.8 1.00 38.8 D 3 East B L - T 0 0 254 291 1.00 1.00 254 291 0 0 0 0 254 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 291 0 0 254 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 291 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 1.00 0.87 1663 1543 0.15 0.19 **** 0.23 0.41 0.66 0.46 31.4 19.5 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 35.5 20.0 1.00 1.00 35.5 20.0 D B 8 7 Fund - R 0 42 1.00 42 0 0 42 1.00 1.00 42 0 42 1.00 1.00 42 1900 0.93 0.13 223 0.19 0.41 0.46 19.5 0.5 0.0 1.00 20.0 1.00 20.0 B 7 West Bound L - T - R 0 0 C 58 308 162 1.00 1.00 l.OC 58 308 162 0 6 C 0 0 C 58 314 162 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 314 162 0 0 0 58 314 162 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 314 162 1900 1900 1900 0.88 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1663 1900 1488 0.03 0.17 0.11 **** 0.08 0.25 0.38 0.46 0.66 0.28 39.9 30.3 19.2 2.7 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.6 33.7 19.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.6 33.7 19.4 D C B 2 9 3 Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-18 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project PM Intersection #8: Stelling Road and McClellan Road Signa I=ProtecVRi ghts=lncl ude Fin al Vol: 169 433 279"' Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1 4`- Signal=Protect Final Vol. Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: Cycle Time (sec): n/a 90 Signal=Protect Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol: 151 1 1 188 Loss Time ( sec): 12 0 ~ ~ 0 422"'" 0 ~ Critical V/C' 0 726 ~ i 392 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/ veh ): 36.4 ~ 0 98 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 32.4 ~ 1 142" ` LOS: C ~,,I ~ ~ I Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 Final Vol: 104 214'° 68 Signal =ProtecVRi ghts=l ncl u d e Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bou nd West Bound Movement : L ---------------- - T ------ - R ----- L ~~---- - T -- - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 ------------j---- 0 ------ 0 0 ~---- ---- 0 ----- 0 ~j----------- 0 0 ~ ----~ 0 ~---- 0 ------ 0 -----j 0 Volume Module: ~ - ---- - ~ ;----------- ----~ ---- ------ -----~ Base Vol: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 104 214 68 279 433 169 148 416 95 142 391 188 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 3 0 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 104 214 68 279 433 169 151 422 98 142 392 188 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 214 68 279 433 169 151 422 98 142 392 188 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 104 214 68 279 433 169 151 422 98 142 392 188 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 104 214 68 279 433 169 151 422 98 142 392 188 Saturation Flow M odule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.88 1.00 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 ---------------- 2706 ----- 860 1663 2549 995 1663 1420 330 1663 1900 1488 Capacity Analysis ------ Module: ~----- ----- ----- ~~----------- ----~~ ----- ----- -----j Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.21 0.13 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.37 0.60 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.68 0.56 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.56 0.21 Uniform Del: 39.6 38.8 38.8 32.0 30.6 30.6 34.8 22.4 22.4 38.3 22.8 8.4 IncremntDel: 12.1 6.7 6.7 6.8 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.7 3.7 12.8 1.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.8 45.5 45.5 38.8 32.9 32.9 37.6 26.1 26.1 51.1 23.9 8.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.8 45.5 45.5 38.8 32.9 32.9 37.6 26.1 26.1 51.1 23.9 8.5 LOS by Move: D D D D C C D C C D C A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 6 6 9 9 9 5 14 14 6 9 3 Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 1 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-37 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Final Vol. 120 229"' 2 La nes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Final Vol Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cy cle Time (sec): 100 238"' 0 0 6 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ Cnhcal V/C. 0.513 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.1 0 53 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.1 ~ 0 6"' LOS. B ~~ Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 39"' 286 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound We st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------------- Min. Green: 0 ---------- 0 0 ---------- 0 0 ----- 0 j----------- 0 0 ---- 0 --- 0 0 ----~ 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 200 8 « 7:15-8:15 Base Vol: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.12 0.88 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.34 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 Final Sat.: 79 576 0 4 447 234 517 0 624 253 0 253 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.50 0.50 xxxx 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.46 xxxx 0.08 0.02 xxxx 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 13.1 13.1 0.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 0.0 8.6 9.2 0.0 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.1 13.1 0.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 0.0 8.6 9.2 0.0 9.2 LOS by Move: B B * B B B B * A A * A ApproachDel: 13.1 13.0 13.4 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.1 13.0 13.4 9.2 LOS by Appr: B B B A AllWayAvgQ: 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peak Hour Volu me Signal warrant Report [Urban] ****************** ************ ********** ***** ************************ ***** ****** Intersection #9 Bubb Road and Hyannispor t Dri ve ****************** ************ ********** ***** ******************* ***** ***** ****** Future Volume Alternative: Pea k Hour War rant NOT Met Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 1 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-38 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------- ,----- ----,I---------------ji---------------;~---------------, Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Initial Vol: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 -------i-------- II-- -----li---------------~i---------------~ Major Street Volume: 676 Minor Approach Volume: 291 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 416 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-39 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=l ncl ude Fina l Vol: 72 273 2"' L anes: 0 0 1! 0 0 I~ Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include ~ Cy Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: cle Time (sec): 100 64"' 0 0 1"' Lo ss Time (sec): 0 1 ~ 0 0 0 -~ Critical V/C. 0.413 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.6 0 11 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.6 ,r 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 21"' 182 2 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bou nd West Bound Movement : L - ------------~----- T - R -------- -I L - T - - R L - T - R L - T - R ' Min. Green: 0 -------~----- - ~~ 0 0 ----- --------- 0 0 -----~j 0 ----------- 0 0 ----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 0 ----- ~, 0 Volume Module: » -----j Count Date: ---------------~ 22 May 2008 « 5: ------ 00-6:00 ----~~ ---- ------ ----- Base Vol: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Saturation Flow Mo dule: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.78 0.21 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 80 697 8 5 661 174 546 0 668 0 0 685 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.12 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.1 10.1 10.1 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.1 10.1 10.1 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 LOS by Move : A A A B B B A * A * * A ApproachDel: 9.0 10.1 9.3 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.0 10.1 9.3 7.7 LOS by Appr: A B A A Al1WayAvgQ: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pe ak Hour Volu me Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ****************** ************ ********** ******* *********** ****** ********** ****** Intersection #9 Bu bb Road and Hyannispor t Drive ****************** ************ ********** ******* *********** ****** ********** ****** Future Volume Alte rnative: Pea k Hour War rant NO T Met Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-40 ---------------------------;~ ---------';I--- ---------------~I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- -j---------------~~- ---------li---------------I-------------- i -1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 - -----~---------------~I------ ---i;-------- i ---------I Major Street Volume: 552 Minor Approach Volume: 75 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 479 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-41 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Background AM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Fina l Vol: 120 230"' 2 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Final Vol. Lanes: Poghts=Includ e Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol ~ Cy cle Time (sec): 100 238"' 0 0 6 ~ La ss Time (sec): 0 1 ~ ~` 0 0 0 ~ Critical V/C 0.515 ~ 1! 0 0 ~ Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh) 13.2 0 53 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.2 ~ 0 6"' LOS. B "~ 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 39"' 293 0 S i g n a l =Stop/Rights= I n cl u d e Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 ----------------- 0 0 -------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » --~~ Count Date: --------- 22 May 2008 « ~~---- - 7:15-8:15 ----j ----- - ----~ Base Vol: 39 286 0 2 229 :120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 286 0 2 229 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 39 ------- ~----- 293 0 ---------- 2 230 --- - 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Saturation Flow Mo jj dule: - ----- ----- j~ ----- ji -- --- -----~ Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.12 0.88 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.34 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 Final Sat.: 77 577 0 4 446 233 515 0 622 252 0 252 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.51 0.51 xxxx 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.46 xxxx 0.09 0.02 xxxx 0.02 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 13.4 13.4 0.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 0.0 8.6 9.2 0.0 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.4 13.4 0.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 0.0 8.6 9.2 0.0 9.2 LOS by Move : B B * B B B B * A A * A ApproachDel: 13.4 13.0 13.4 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.4 13.0 13.4 9.2 LOS by Appr: B B B A AllwayAvgQ: 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pe ak Hour Volu me Signal warra nt Report [Urban] ****************** ************ ********** ****************** ****** ***** ***** ****** Intersection #9 Bu bb Road and Hyannispor t Drive ****************** ************ ********** ****************** ****** ***** ***** ****** Future Volume Alte rnative: Pea k Hour War rant NOT Met Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 __ Page 3-42 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------j---------------I---------------~---------------~',--------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Initial Vol: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 - ------~ -- ---i,~ ----------~i---------------I,~,----- ----- Major Street Volume: 684 Minor Approach Volume: 291 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 412 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-43 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Background PM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive Final Vol: Lanes: Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include 64"' 0 1 0 0 11 1 Lanes: Final Vol: Signal=Stop/R~ghts=lncl ude 72 280"' 2 0 0 1! 0 0 ~' ~- ~- ~. Vol Cnt Date: 5/22/2008 Cycle Time (sec): 100 Loss Time (sec): 0 Critical V/C o 422 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.7 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.7 LOS. A ~I 0 0 1! 0 0 21 184"" 2 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Signal=Stop Rights=Include •r • Lanes: Final Vol: 0 1' ' 0 1! 0 0 0 0 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~---------------~j---------------~~---------------~~---------------~ Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: » Count Date: 22 May 2008 « 5:00-6:00 Base Vol: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 182 2 2 273 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 79 696 8 5 663 171 544 0 665 0 0 681 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.12 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 LOS by Move : A A A B B B A * A * * A ApproachDel: 9.0 10.2 9.3 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.0 10.2 9.3 7.7 LOS by Appr: A B A A Al1WayAvgQ: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1' 14:00:27 2008 Page 3-44 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes : 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 -------~---------------ail---------------'---------------~~--------- Major Street Volume: 561 Minor Approach Volume: 75 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 474 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-19 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Protect AM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=l ncl utle Final Vol: 120 230 2"' L anes: 0 0 1 ! 0 0 I(~ I y7,, Signal=Stop 1 T ^ Signal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol. Cy cle Time (sec): 100 238"' 0 '~ 0 6 Lo ss Time (sec): 0 1 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Critical V/C. 0.516 ~ 1! 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.3 0 ~ 53 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.3 ~ 0 6"' LOS: B ~I ~ ~~ Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Fina l Vol: 39 296"' 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl utle Approach: North Bo und South Bound East Bound we st Bo und Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: 7:15-8:1 5 Base Vol: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 293 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Added Vol: 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 296 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 39 296 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 296 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 39 296 0 I 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 ---------------------- Saturation Flow Module: ----- ~ ---------- ----- ~----------- ----~~ ----- ----- -----~ Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.12 0.88 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.34 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 Final Sat.: 76 578 0 4 446 233 515 0 621 251 0 251 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.51 0.51 xxxx 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.46 xxxx 0.09 0.02 xxxx 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 13.5 13.5 0.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 14.5 0.0 8.7 9.2 0.0 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.5 13.5 0.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 14.5 0.0 8.7 9.2 0.0 9.2 LOS by Move : B B * B B B B * A A * A ApproachDel: 13.5 13.1 13.5 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.5 13.1 13.5 9.2 LOS by Appr: B B B A Al1WayAvgQ: 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peak Ho ur Volu me Signal warrant Report [Urban] *********************** ******* *************** ************************ ***** ****** Intersection #9 Bu bb Road and Hyannisport Drive *********************** ******* *************** ************************ ***** ****** Future Volume Alternative: Pea k Hour Warrant NOT Met Traff~x 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1 1 14:0 t :50 2008 Page 3-20 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------~ ------------~j---------------~~,---------------',~-------------__, Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Initial Vol: 39 296 0 2 230 120 238 0 53 6 0 6 ------------j---------------~~---------------j~---------------~I~---------------' Major Street Volume: 687 Minor Approach Volume: 291 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 411 SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 1' 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-21 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Protect PM Intersection #9: Bubb Road and Hyannispott Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=lncl ude Final Vol: 72 283"' 2 Lan es: 0 0 1! 0 0 Signal=Stop S ignal=Stop Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol . ~ Cycle Time (sec): 100 ... 64... p ~ 0 1 Lo ss Time (sec): 0 1 0 0 0 ~ Cntical V/C. 0.426 L 1! 0 0 ~~ Avg Cnt Del (sec/veh): 9 7 ~ 0 11 1 ~ Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.7 ~ 0 0 LOS: A ~.) Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 Final Vol: 21 184"' 2 Signat=Stop/Rights=Include Approach: Nor th Bou nd South Bound East Bound West Bou nd Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 21 184 2 2 280 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 21 184 2 2 283 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 184 2 2 283 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 184 2 2 283 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 21 - 184 ------ 2 ----j 2 283 --------- ' 72 ------ 64 0 ~~----------- 11 ----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 1 -----j ------------j---- Saturation Flow Module: ~ Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 79 696 ---- 8 -----~ 5 665 ~--------- 169 ------ 544 0 ~----------- ~ 664 ----~~ 0 ---- 0 ------ 680 -----~ ------------~----- Capacity Analysis - Module: I Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.12 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.00 **** Crit Moves: **** *** * **** Delay/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 LOS by Move : A A A B B B A * A * * A ApproachDel: 9.0 10.2 9.4 7.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.0 10.2 9.4 7.7 LOS by Appr: A B A A Al1WayAvgQ: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peak Hour Vol ume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] *********************** ****** ********** ****** *********************** ****** ****** Intersection #9 B ubb Ro ad and Hyannispo rt Dri ve *********************** ****** ********** ****** *********************** ****** ****** Future Volume Alternati ve: Pe ak Hour Wa rrant NOT Met Traffx 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose COMPARE Thu Sep 11 14:01:50 2008 Page 3-22 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------~i~i,---------------li~~----------- ---------------~. Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign I Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Initial Vol: 21 184 2 2 283 72 64 0 11 0 0 1 ------------~---------------i;---------------I---------------j--------------- Major Street Volume: 564 Minor Approach Volume: 75 Minor Approach volume Threshold: 473 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Traffix 7.8.0915 Copyright (c) 2005 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans. San Jose