HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-14 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL
5:05 PM
CLOSED SESSION - Special Meeting 5:05 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A
1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case
2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation (Gov't Code
Section 54956.9(a); New Cingular v. City of Alameda, et al, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles Case No. BC462270
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Regular Meeting 6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
3.Subject: Update by John Ristow from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
regarding the Highway 85 Express Lane Project
Recommended Action: Receive update
4.Subject: Update from Santa Clara County Fire Department Fire Chief Kenneth
Kehmna
Recommended Action: Receive update
5.Subject: Update from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD)
Superintendent Wendy Gudalewicz
Recommended Action: Receive update
6.Subject: Library Commission quarterly update regarding the 10th Anniversary of
the Cupertino Library
Recommended Action: Receive update
POSTPONEMENTS
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
October 21, 2014City Council AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State
law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed
on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on
simultaneously.
7.Subject: Approve the October 7 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve minutes
A - Draft Minutes
8.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 26, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-199 accepting Accounts Payable
for the period ending September 26, 2014
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
9.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 3, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -200 accepting Accounts Payable
for the period ending October 3, 2014
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
10.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending October 10, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-201 accepting Accounts Payable
for the period ending October 10, 2014
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
11.Subject: Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Recommended Action: Approve the Second Amended Employment Contract for the
City Manager.
Staff Report
A - Redlined - Second Amendment
B - Clean Second Amendment
12.Subject: City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05
Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2013-05
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
October 21, 2014City Council AGENDA
Staff Report
A - Phase 2 Street LIst
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.Subject: Hyatt House Hotel development project
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06); and
2.Adopt Resolution No. 14-202 approving Development Permit (DP-2014-04); and
3.Adopt Resolution No. 14-203 approving Use Permit (U-2014-04); and 4. Adopt
Resolution No. 14-204 approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06);
and 5. Adopt Resolution No. 14-205 approving Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07);
and 6.Adopt Resolution No. 14-206 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28);
and 7.Adopt Resolution No. 14-207 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40)
Description:
Application No.(s): ASA-2014-06, DP-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
U-2014-04, TR-2014-40 (EA-2014-06); Applicant: Edward Chan (Cupertino
Property Development II, LLC.); Location: Perimeter Rd @ Wolfe Rd; APN:
316-20-092; Architectural Site Approval for a new 5-story, 148 room hotel and
associated site and off-site improvements; Development Permit to allow the
demolition of an existing parking lot and construct a 5 story, 148 room hotel of
approximately 102,700 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and
conference rooms built over a 35,800 square foot underground parking garage that
contains tandem parking; Parking Exception Permit to allow eight tandem parking
stalls; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees to
facilitate the construction of a new hotel; Use Permit to allow a 24-hour hotel,
including a restaurant with interior bar; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal
and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the off-site improvements associated with the
construction of a new hotel
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
October 21, 2014City Council AGENDA
Staff Report
A - Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study
B – Draft Resolution Development Permit (DP-2014-04)
C – Draft Resolution Use Permit (U-2014-04)
D – Draft Resolution Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06)
E – Draft Resolution Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07)
F – Draft Resolution Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28)
G – Draft Resolution Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40)
H – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
I – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6752 (ASA-2014-06)
J – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6753 (DP-2014-04)
K – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6754 (EXC-2014-07)
L – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6755 (TR-2014-28)
M – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6756 (U-2014-04)
N – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6757 (TR-2014-40)
O – Applicant’s description of active spaces for the project
P – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Q – City’s Consulting Arborist report
R – Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) comment letter
S – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
T – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
U – Response to Comments (RTC) on the initial study
W – Plan set
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
14.Subject: Civic Center Master Plan - Selection of Preferred Project
Recommended Action: Provide direction on the following, which will comprise the
Preferred Project for the Civic Center Master Plan:
a.City Hall, Library Program Room, and Garage Parking options; and then
b.Other site development options.
Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO
4
October 21, 2014City Council AGENDA
Staff Report
A - Chronology of Council Direction & Comm. Input Gathering
B - Civic Center Master Plan Costs Summary
C - City Hall Option A - Costs
D - City Hall Option B - Costs
E - City Hall Option C - Costs
F - City Hall Option D1 - Costs
G - City Hall Option D2 - Costs
H - City Hall Option E - Costs
I - City Hall Alternatives Study-Structural Evaluation
J - City Hall-MEP Systems Alternatives Study
K - Civic Center Master Plan Fact Sheet
L - Council Presentation
M - Precedent Examples of Recent City Halls
15.Subject: Designate voting delegate and alternates for National League of Cities
Annual Business Meeting November 22 in Austin, TX
Recommended Action: Designate voting delegate and up to two alternatives
Staff Report
A - Conference Information
16.Subject: First reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing
Councilmember call for review (continued from October 7)
Recommended Action: Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.
14-2123: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the
Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 to include Section 2.08.145
relating to call for Council review"
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - Chart of Procedures for Review of Decisions of a Lower Body
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO
5
October 21, 2014City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in
the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to
address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located
in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called,
proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on
any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting
following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO
6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0453 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/23/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9: One Case
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject :ConferencewithLegalCounsel-InitiationofLitigationpursuanttosubdivision(c)of
Section 54956.9: One Case
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0477 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/9/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(a); New
Cingular v. City of Alameda, et al, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC462270
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject :ConferencewithLegalCounsel-PendingLitigation(Gov'tCodeSection54956.9(a);
NewCingularv.CityofAlameda,etal,SuperiorCourtofCalifornia,CountyofLosAngeles
Case No. BC462270
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0464 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/1/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Update by John Ristow from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding the
Highway 85 Express Lane Project
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject :UpdatebyJohnRistowfromtheValleyTransportationAuthority(VTA)regarding
the Highway 85 Express Lane Project
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0184 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Update from Santa Clara County Fire Department Fire Chief Kenneth Kehmna
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Update from Santa Clara County Fire Department Fire Chief Kenneth Kehmna
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0195 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/21/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Update from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) Superintendent Wendy
Gudalewicz
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Update from the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) Superintendent Wendy
Gudalewicz
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0423 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/11/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Library Commission quarterly update regarding the 10th Anniversary of the Cupertino
Library
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject :LibraryCommissionquarterlyupdateregardingthe10thAnniversaryofthe
Cupertino Library
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0174 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Approve the October 7 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Approve the October 7 City Council minutes
Approve minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 3:01 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the Special City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang
(3:04 p.m.), Orrin Mahoney (3:04 p.m.), and Mark Santoro. Absent: None.
STUDY SESSION
1. Subject: Study Session on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated
Rezoning
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report
and comments on the Final EIR. This is a study session and no action is required at
this time.
Description: Application No(s): GPA-2013-01, Z-2013-01, GPA-2013-02, SPA-2014-01,
MCA-2014-01 (EA-2013-03); Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Discussion of Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element update and associated rezoning; General Plan Amendment to establish
Citywide development allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses
and development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco Shopping
District); General Plan Amendment for the 2014-2022 Housing Element as required
by State Law; Rezoning of certain parcels in conjunction with the Citywide General
Plan Amendment; Specific Plan Amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
related to maximum residential yield calculations and an updated map to conform to
the General Plan; Municipal Code Amendment to comply with State Housing Law
and the Housing Element of the General Plan and other zoning code amendments for
clean-up and consistency
Written communications for this item included an email from Phyllis Dickstein from
Travigne Villas and a staff PowerPoint presentation.
14
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
Senior Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint Presentation.
Consultant Steve Noack from PlaceWorks furthered reviewed the PowerPoint
presentation.
Jennifer Griffin said that the One Bay Area plan is not a good plan for Cupertino. She
also noted that she isn’t a fan of rapid transit and urged Council to protect the roads
for future generations, respect the Heart of the City, and protect existing
neighborhoods.
Jason Lungaard with Apple noted that Irvine Security and Apple have agreed on
joint language that has been submitted to the city addressing privacy and security at
Apple Campus 2.
Albert Wang representing Marina Food and Marina Plaza said that they are planning
to renovate their site and anticipates bringing the store back as a retail anchor and
support for the community. He noted that the location along Stevens Creek Corridor
is perfect for residential and retail activities and he hopes to be able to increase the
height and density enough in the renovation project to make their site economically
viable.
Glen Simons representing the architects working with Mr. Wang on the Marina Plaza
site said this is an ideal location to add housing to the already existing office and
retail. He explained that the group is experienced in dealing with mitigation issues
such as sound without having to build sound walls and bringing in fresh air to the
buildings that is free from pollutants.
Sarah McDermott spoke on behalf of Unite Here Local 19 representing hospitality
workers in the south bay. She noted that the group is excited that Cupertino is
expanding its hotel offerings and urged Council to be proactive in selecting hotel
projects that work both for the City and the hotel employees.
Council recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
At 5:00 p.m. Council went into closed session in City Hall Conference Room A and
reconvened in open session at 6:48 p.m. in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350
Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA.
15
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case
3. Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section
54957): City Manager
Mayor Wong announced that for items one and two, City Council gave direction to
staff.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:48 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the Regular City Council meeting to order and led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang,
Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
4. Subject: Present Proclamation to Diana Khoury, owner of The Original Pancake House
Recommended Action: Present Proclamation
This item was postponed to a future meeting when Ms. Khoury was available.
5. Subject: Present Proclamation to the Cupertino Library Foundation for
#LoveYourLibrary Month and #GivingTuesday
Recommended Action: Present Proclamation
Mayor Wong presented the proclamation to Bob Adams and Annie Ho.
POSTPONEMENTS
Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to postpone item number 22 to a future City Council
meeting when further information was available. The motion carried unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
16
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
presented with the exception of item numbers 11 and 18 which were pulled for discussion .
Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
6. Subject: Approve the September 2 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 29, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-195 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending August 29, 2014.
8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 5, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-196 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 5, 2014
9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 12, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-197 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 12, 2014
10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending September 19, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-198 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 19, 2014
11. Subject: Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J
and K (November 4, 2014)
Recommended Action: Accept Legislative Committee recommendation to support the
FUHSD Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J, and New Bond, Measure K for the November
4, 2014 General Election
Written communications for this item included a PowerPoint presentation.
Superintendent Polly Bove gave information on Measures J and K via a PowerPoint
presentation.
Sinks moved and Chang seconded to accept the Legislative Committee
recommendation to support the FUHSD Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure J, and New
Bond, Measure K for the November 4, 2014 General Election. The motion carried with
Santoro abstaining.
17
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
12. Subject: Second Amendment to the Employment Contract for the City Attorney
Recommended Action: Approve the Second Amendment to the Employment Contract
for the City Attorney
13. Subject: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015
Recommended Action: Cancel the first meeting in January of 2015
14. Subject: Fee waiver request from the League of Women Voters of Cupertino -
Sunnyvale for $180 facility use fee for the Community Hall on October 13, 2014 from
6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the Cupertino Union School District Board of
Trustees and on October 16, 2014 from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. for a candidate forum for the
City of Cupertino City Council.
Recommended Action: Approve the fee waiver request for both events in Community
Hall.
15. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of application for Alcoholic Beverage
License for Viva Thai Bistro, 19058 Stevens Creek Boulevard
16. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Bob's Discount Liquor Store,
7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F
Recommended Action: Recommend approval for Alcoholic Beverage License for Bob's
Discount Liquor Store, 7335 Bollinger Road, Suite F
17. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Alcoholic Beverage License for
Elephant Bar Restaurant, 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard
18. Subject: Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall Repair Project, No. 2014-06
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Valentine
Corporation in the amount of $188,369; and approve a construction contingency of
$20,000 for a total of $208,369.
Chang moved and Mahoney seconded to authorize the City Manager to award a
contract to Valentine Corporation in the amount of $188,369; and approve a
construction contingency of $20,000 for a total of $208,369. The motion carried
unanimously.
18
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
19. Subject: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.17.130 of Chapter 9.17 of Title
9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Regulation of Single-Use Carryout Bags.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14-2122:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 9.17.130
of Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to the regulation of
single-use carryout bags,” to cap the required minimum charge for recycled paper bags
at ten cents and eliminate a future increase to twenty-five cents per bag.
Jennifer Griffin said that she would like to see the paper bag fee kept at 0.10. She also
noted that she had heard there was a thought to develop a type of plastic bag that was
recyclable and wanted to hear more about this.
Mayor Wong noted that the State recently passed legislation regarding a plastic bag
ban. Director of Public Works Timm Borden noted that the State legislation doesn’t
preempt any legislation in our Municipal Code and that they are very similar.
Chang moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 14-2122 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
Chang moved and Sinks seconded to enact Ordinance No. 14-2122. Ayes: Chang,
Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
20. Subject: Conversion of interim Associate Civil Engineer position to a permanent
position and a three-and-a-half-year extension to interim Associate Planner position.
Recommended Action: Authorize 1) the conversion of the two-year limited-term
Associate Civil Engineer in the Public Works Development Services Division to a
permanent position, and 2) the extension of the current interim planner position to an
additional three-and-a-half-year term.
Written communications for this item included a comparison chart of planners by city.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report.
19
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
Assistant Director of Community Development Gary Chao reviewed the handout
regarding a comparison chart of planners by city.
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to authorize 1) the conversion of the two-year
limited-term Associate Civil Engineer in the Public Works Development Services
Division to a permanent position, and 2) the extension of the current interim planner
position to an additional three-and-a-half-year term. The motion carried with Santoro
voting no. Santoro explained that he believes the two positions are justified but said he
voted no because he was concerned about the permanent head count growth.
21. Subject: Set application deadline and interview dates for commissions with terms
expiring January 30, 2015.
Recommended Action: Approve an application deadline of Friday, January 16 and
interview dates of Monday, January 26 and Tuesday, January 27 beginning at 5:00 p.m.
on both days.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report.
Sinks moved and Mahoney seconded to approve an application deadline of Friday,
January 16 and interview dates of Monday, January 26 and Tuesday, January 27
beginning at 5:00 p.m. on both days. The motion carried unanimously.
22. Subject: Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for
review
Recommended Action: Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-
2123: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the
Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 to include Section 2.08.145 relating to
call for review"
Under postponements, this item was continued to a future Council meeting.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
23. Subject: Present Construction Project Update Report
Recommended Action: Receive Project Update Report
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation for the
Construction Project Update and information regarding the Stevens Creek Corridor
Master Plan project.
20
City Council Minutes October 7, 2014
Director of Public Works Timm Borden presented the Construction Project Update
Report via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the Project Update Report.
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community
events.
City Manager David Brandt presented a brief update on the status of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Master Plan project.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:01 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to October 21.
_______________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available
for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org.
Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes,
and then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may
be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.
21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0467 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/3/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 26, 2014
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 26, 2014
AdoptResolutionNo.14-199acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingSeptember26,
2014
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™22
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
September 26, 2014
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 21st day of October, 2014, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0468 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/3/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 3, 2014
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 3, 2014
AdoptResolutionNo.14-200acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingOctober3,
2014
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™37
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
October 3, 2014
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 21st day of October, 2014, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0484 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/13/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending October 10, 2014
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending October 10, 2014
AdoptResolutionNo.14-201acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingOctober10,
2014
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™46
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
October 10, 2014
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 21st day of October, 2014, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:214-0487 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/14/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Redlined - Second Amendment
B - Clean Second Amendment
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20142
Subject:Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Approve the Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™59
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Recommended Action
Approve the Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Description
The City Council held its annual evaluation of the City Manager on Tuesday, October 7,
2014. The Council desires to consider adjusting the compensation to the City Manager.
The attached second amended contract is submitted for Council consideration of an
annual salary increase of $16,700.04 ($1,391.67 per month) which will provide the City
Manager with a total monthly salary of $20,000. No other changes were made to the
terms and conditions of the existing contract.
Fiscal Impact
Approval of the above salary increase will increase the Fiscal Year 2014-15 budget
appropriation by no more than $16,700.04.
Prepared by: Timothy L. Davis, Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
A - Redline Second Amendment
B - Clean Second Amendment
60
Page 1
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
SECOND AMENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR CITY MANAGER
This Amended Employment Contract is made and entered into this 26th 21st day of
AugustOctober, 20132014, by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A
Municipal Corporation, by and through its City Council (EMPLOYER), and David Brandt
(EMPLOYEE).
RECITALS:
A. EMPLOYER is a Municipal Corporation of the State of California.
B. The City Council of the City of Cupertino, in accordance with the provisions of
its Municipal Code, desires to employ the services of EMPLOYEE as City
Manager.
C. EMPLOYEE desires to accept employment as Cupertino City Manager.
D. It is the desire of both EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE to set forth the terms and
conditions of said employment.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1: TERM OF EMPLOYMENT
Section 1.01. Term of the Contract:
This Contract originally began on September 10, 2012, and will automatically expire
on September 9, 2016 unless extended in writing by the parties. On or within 30 days of
September 9, 2015, EMPLOYEE shall notify EMPLOYER of the expiration date of
September 9, 2016. In the event that EMPLOYER does not intend to extend this Contract
beyond expiration, it shall notify EMPLOYEE in writing of its intent not to extend prior to the
effective date of expiration. Failure of EMPLOYER to provide such notice shall not affect the
expiration date of September 9, 2016.
Section 1.02. Termination Prior to Expiration. Notwithstanding any provision
contained in this Contract to the contrary, EMPLOYEE understands and agrees that he
serves at the pleasure of EMPLOYER and may be terminated prior to expiration of this
61
Page 2
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
Contract at the will of the EMPLOYER, subject only to the severance provisions set forth in
Article V of this Contract, and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.28.090 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code. In like manner, nothing in this Contract shall prevent, limit,
or otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYEE to resign at any time from the position
of City Manager subject only to the notice provisions set forth in Article V of this Contract
and the ordinance provisions as set forth in Section 2.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code.
EMPLOYEE further acknowledges that EMPLOYER has made no limited expressed, or
written assurances of continued employment with the City of Cupertino other than as
specifically set forth in this Contract.
ARTICLE II: DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYEE
Section 2.01. Duties. EMPLOYER hereby agrees to employ EMPLOYEE as City
Manager of the City of Cupertino to perform the functions and duties as specified in the
Municipal Code, California Constitution, and California Statutes, and to perform such other
legally permissible and proper duties and functions as EMPLOYER shall from time to time
assign to EMPLOYEE which are reasonably related to the position of City Manager, including
but not limited to:
A. To see that all laws and ordinances of the City are duly enforced and that all
franchises, permits, licenses and privileges granted by the City are faithfully performed and
observed;
B. To control, order and give directions to all directors of departments and to
subordinate officers and employees of the City under his jurisdiction through their
department directors, and to transfer employees from one department to another;
C. The services and facilities of the City Treasurer and the City Attorney shall
be made available to the City Manager to the same extent and in the same manner that
62
Page 3
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
the services are available to the City Council;
D. To appoint, discipline and dismiss any and all officers and employees of the
City except those elected by the electors of the City or whose appointment or dismissal is
denied to the City Manager under the laws of the state.
The power to appoint given in the preceding paragraph does not include the power
to create a new position except as provided under Chapter 2.52;
E. To attend all meetings of the City Council unless excused there from by the
City Council;
F. To recommend to the City Council for adoption such measures and
ordinances as he deems necessary or expedient;
G. To keep the City Council at all times fully advised as to the financial
conditions and needs of the City;
H. To prepare and submit to the City Council the annual budget and to
administer it after adoption;
I. To purchase or cause to be purchased all supplies for all of the departments
or divisions of the City. No expenditures shall be submitted or recommended to the City
Council except on report and approval of the City Manager;
J. To make investigation into the affairs of the City and any department or division
thereof and any Contract or the proper performance of any obligation running to the City;
K. To investigate all complaints in relation to matters consuming the
administration of the government of the City and in regard to the services maintained by
public utilities in the City and to see that all franchises, permits and privileges granted by
the City are faithfully observed;
L. To execute general supervision over all public buildings, public parks, streets
and other public property which are under the control and jurisdiction of the City Council;
M. To devote his entire working time, thought and energy to the duties and
interests of the City;
N. To receive and open all official mail and communications addressed either to
63
Page 4
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
the Mayor or to the City Council;
0. To make reports and initiate recommendations as may be desirable or as
requested by the City Council;
P. To perform such other duties and exercise such other powers as may be
delegated to him from time to time by ordinance, resolution or other action of the City
Council.
Section 2.02. Devotion to Duties. EMPLOYEE agrees to devote productive time,
ability, and attention to the business of EMPLOYER during the term of this Employment
Contract. This Contract shall not be interpreted nor intended to prohibit EMPLOYEE from
making passive personal investments, conducting private business affairs or providing
volunteer services if those activities do not interfere with the services required under this
Contract.
Section 2.03. Performance Evaluation Procedures. The City Council shall review and
evaluate the performance of the EMPLOYEE at least annually, or on any schedule deemed
appropriate by the City Council. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with
specific criteria developed by EMPLOYER after consultation with EMPLOYEE.
ARTICLE III COMPENSATION
Section 3.01 Compensation. EMPLOYER agrees to pay to EMPLOYE for services
rendered by him pursuant to this Contract a monthly base salary of $18,333.3320,000,
payable in installments at the time as other employees of EMPLOYER are paid.
EMPLOYEE'S monthly base salary shall be adjusted by any percentage increase given to
Department Heads of EMPLOYER generally and shall not be decreased unless in a percentage
consistent with a decrease applicable to Department Heads of EMPLOYER generally.
Notwithstanding the above, EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE agree that there shall be no further
salary adjustments or bonuses for 20132014. At the time of EMPLOYEE's periodic
64
Page 5
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
evaluations, EMPLOYER may consider an additional compensation package increase
including, but not limited to, merit pay or an additional increase in salary or benefits.
Section 3.02 Deferred Compensation. City shall provide to EMPLOYEE the same
deferred compensation plan that may be provided to other Department Heads and
Confidential Employees, if any.
ARTICLE IV EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Section 4.01. Automobile Allowance. During the term of this Employment contract,
EMPLOYEE, to the extent necessary to perform his duties shall use his own personal vehicle.
EMPLOYER, in consideration thereof, shall pay EMPLOYEE the sum of $350 per month as an
automobile allowance. EMPLOYEE shall be responsible for the payment of all operating
expenses of the vehicle, including, but not limited to, gasoline, oil, service and repair, and if
necessary, the replacement of his automobile. EMPLOYEE shall procure and maintain, at his
expense, a comprehensive automobile liability policy on the vehicle being used by him, in an
amount that is acceptable to the EMPLOYER. During the course of this Employment Contract,
EMPLOYEE shall provide EMPLOYER with written documentation that said insurance policy is in
full force and effect.
Section 4.02. Vacation and Sick Leave. EMPLOYEE shall be credited with 10 days of
vacation and 5 days of sick leave as of the commencement of employment. Annual vacation
and sick leave shall be accrued and administered in the same manner as vacation and sick leave
is administered for Department Head employees of EMPLOYER.
Section 4.03. Benefits. EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to receive benefits provided by
EMPLOYER at a level no less than that provided to other Department Heads of the City, which
presently consist of retirement benefits, family health coverage, life insurance, disability
insurance, Cupertino sports club membership, administrative leave, floating holidays and
holidays. The benefits so provided are subject to modification during the course of this
Contract at the sole and absolute discretion of EMPLOYER at such times and to such extent as
EMPLOYER may deem appropriate provided, however, there shall be no reduction in benefits
unless EMPLOYER implements the same reduction of benefits to all other Department Heads
65
Page 6
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
of the City.
Section 4.04 Professional Dues and Subscriptions. EMPLOYER agrees to pay for
professional dues and subscriptions of EMPLOYEE directly related to his duties as City
Manager, provided the City Council has made provisions for such costs in the annual budget.
Section 4.05 Expenses. EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to reimbursement for all
reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by him in the performance of his duties upon
presentation of vouchers indicating the amount and purpose thereof, and further provided
that such expenses are in accordance with policies established from time to time by
EMPLOYER and consistent with budget allocations adopted by EMPLOYER for that purpose
during the term of this Employment Contract.
Section 4.06 Moving and Relocation Expenses. EMPLOYER will pay EMPLOYEE the amount of
$20,000 intended to be used for relocation, housing and house hunting expenses in
EMPLOYEE's discretion.
Section 4.07 Professional Development. EMPLOYER hereby agrees to pay travel. and
subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for professional and office travel, meetings, and
occasions adequate to continue the professional development of EMPLOYEE and to
adequately pursue necessary official functions for EMPLOYER, including but not limited to,
city manager associations and other such national, regional, state, local government groups
and committees thereof which EMPLOYEE serves as a member, provided the City Council has
made provisions for such costs in the annual budget.
EMPLOYER also agrees to pay tuition, travel, and subsistence expenses of EMPLOYEE for
courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and of the
good of the City provided the City Council has provided for same in the annual budget.
Section 4.08 Housing Assistance. EMPLOYEE may elect to receive Housing Assistance for
Department Heads consistent with the EMPLOYER's Housing Assistance Policy in effect on the
66
Page 7
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
date of commencement of employment.
ARTICLE V TERMINATION AND NOTICE
Section 5.01. Termination of Employment and Severance:
A. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.28 of EMPLOYER's municipal Code, EMPLOYEE
serves at the pleasure of EMPLOYER and nothing herein shall be taken to prevent, limit or
otherwise interfere with the right of EMPLOYER to terminate the services of EMPLOYEE with or
without cause; provided, however, EMPLOYER shall take no action to terminate the services of
EMPLOYEE, without cause, within ninety (90) days after an election at which one or more new
members are elected to the City Council. There is no express or implied promise made to
EMPLOYEE for any form of continued employment. This Contract and the EMPLOYER's
municipal Code chapter 2.28 are the sole and exclusive bases for an employment relationship
between EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER.
B. If the EMPLOYEE is terminated by the EMPLOYER prior to expiration of this
Contract, while still willing and able to perform the duties of the City Manager, EMPLOYER
agrees to pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date of termination,
in an amount equivalent to six months aggregate salary and aggregate medical insurance
benefit allowance if there are six or more months prior to the expiration date of this contract.
If there are less than six months remaining the term of the contract, then the single lump sum
payment made on the effective day of termination shall be in an amount equal to the
monthly aggregate salary and aggregate medical benefit of the EMPLOYEE multiplied by the
numbers of months left on the unexpired term of the Contract. If this Contract is not
renewed, then EMPLOYER shall either provide EMPLOYEE with six months prior notice of
nonrenewal or shall pay EMPLOYEE a single lump sum payment made on the effective date
of termination in an amount equivalent to the difference between six months aggregate
salary and medical insurance benefit allowance computed for the number of months of
notice actually given. Any such payment will release EMPLOYER from any further obligations
under this Contract. Contemporaneously with the delivery of the severance pay herein above
set out, EMPLOYEE agrees to execute and deliver to EMPLOYER a release releasing
67
Page 8
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
EMPLOYER of all claims that EMPLOYEE may have against EMPLOYER.
C. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) above, EMPLOYER shall not be obligated to
pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under the provisions of
paragraph (b), if EMPLOYEE is terminated because of a crime of moral turpitude or a
violation of statute or law constituting misconduct in office. Further, EMPLOYER shall not be
obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under paragraph
(b), in the event EMPLOYEE voluntarily resigns or retires without affirmative action by
EMPLOYER to terminate, initiate termination proceedings or request resignation.
D. Any payment to the EMPLOYEE pursuant to this subsection 5.01 shall be fully
reimbursed to the EMPLOYER if the EMPLOYEE is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of
his office or position.
ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS
Section 6.01. Form of Notices. Notices pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing
given by deposit in the custody of the United State Postal Service, first class postage prepaid,
addressed as follows;
A. The City: Mayor and City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
B. EMPLOYEE:
David Brandt
Address to be inserted at time of relocation:
3500 Granada Avenue, #124
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this Contract may be personally served in the
same manner as is applicable to civil judicial process. Notice shall be deemed given as of the
date of personal service or as of the date three days after deposit of such written notice,
68
Page 9
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service.
Section 6.02. Bonding. EMPLOYER shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds
required of EMPLOYEE under any law or ordinance.
Section 6.03 Indemnification. EMPLOYER shall defend, save harmless and indemnify
EMPLOYEE against any tort, professional liability claim or demand, or other legal action,
whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the
performance of EMPLOYEE's duties as City Manager. If EMPLOYER compromises or settles any
such claim or suit, EMPLOYER shall pay the amount of any settlement, or if the claim results
in a judgment against EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER shall pay any such judgment. This
indemnification does not apply to any act, action or omission arising out of the gross
negligence, willful misconduct on the part of EMPLOYEE, or acts EMPLOYEE outside the scope
of his duties.
Section 6.04 General Provisions.
A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Contract between the parties.
B. This Contract shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the heirs at law
and executors of EMPLOYEE.
C. This Contract may only be modified upon the written consent of the
EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE.
D. In any action to enforce the terms of this Contract the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and other non‐reimbursable
litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation expenses.
Section 6.05 Severability. If any provision thereof, contained in this Contract is held
unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Contract shall be deemed
severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMPLOYER has caused this Contract to be signed and
executed in its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its City Clerk, and EMPLOYEE has
signed and executed this Contract, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written.
69
Page 10
Revised 9.5.1310.21.14
MP #4816‐9262‐1078 v1
ATTEST: CITY OF CUPERTINO
_________________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________ ______________________________
Timothy Davis, Partner EMPLOYEE
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0424 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/12/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Phase 2 Street LIst
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05
Accept Project No. 2013-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™80
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05.
Recommended Action
Accept Project No. 2013-05.
Discussion
The City’s contractor, VSS International, Inc., has completed work on the 2013
Pavement Maintenance Phase 2 Project, which consisted of rubberized asphalt chip seal,
conventional chip seal, and slurry seal at various locations throughout the City and a
portion of Homestead Road in the City of Los Altos. Staff has inspected the work and
found that it meets the requirements of the contract. The final contract amount is
$629,712. Reimbursements for work completed in the City of Los Altos and the County
will offset this amount by approximately $80,000.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jo Anne Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A- 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2 Street List
81
ATTACHMENT A
2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2 - Project Street List
PROJECT 2013-05
STREET NAME FROM TO TREATMENT
Blaney Ave (N)Forest Stevens Creek Rubberized Chip & Microsurfacing
Blaney Ave (S)Rodrigues Bollinger Rd Rubberized Chip & Microsurfacing
Canyon Oak Way E of Cristo Rey 21111 Canyon Oak Slurry Seal
Homestead Rd Foothill Blvd Bernardo Rubberized Chip & Microsurfacing
Imperial Ave 10290 Imperial South End Conventional Chip & Slurry Seal
Oak Valley Rd 23505 Oak Valley Sycamore Ct Slurry Seal
Olive Ave Imperial Ave Orange Ave Conventional Chip & Slurry Seal
Pasadena Ave Granada Ave Oliver Ave Conventional Chip & Slurry Seal
Regnart Rd W of Lindy West End Conventional Chip
Sycamore Ct Oak Valley Rd End Slurry Seal
82
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0376 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearing Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/12/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Hyatt House Hotel development project
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study
B – Draft Resolution Development Permit (DP-2014-04)
C – Draft Resolution Use Permit (U-2014-04)
D – Draft Resolution Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06)
E – Draft Resolution Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07)
F – Draft Resolution Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28)
G – Draft Resolution Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40)
H – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
I – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6752 (ASA-2014-06)
J – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6753 (DP-2014-04)
K – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6754 (EXC-2014-07)
L – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6755 (TR-2014-28)
M – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6756 (U-2014-04)
N – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6757 (TR-2014-40)
O – Applicant’s description of active spaces for the project
P – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Q – City’s Consulting Arborist report
R – Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) comment letter
S – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
T – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
U – Response to Comments (RTC) on the initial study
W – Plan set
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Hyatt House Hotel development project
1.AdoptMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(EA-2014-06);and2.AdoptResolutionNo.14-202
approvingDevelopmentPermit(DP-2014-04);and3.AdoptResolutionNo.14-203approving
UsePermit(U-2014-04);and4.AdoptResolutionNo.14-204approvingArchitecturalandSite
Approval(ASA-2014-06);and5.AdoptResolutionNo.14-205approvingParkingException
(EXC-2014-07);and6.AdoptResolutionNo.14-206approvingTreeRemovalPermit(TR-
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™83
File #:14-0376,Version:1
(EXC-2014-07);and6.AdoptResolutionNo.14-206approvingTreeRemovalPermit(TR-
2014-28);and7.AdoptResolutionNo.14-207approvingTreeRemovalPermit(TR-2014-
40)
Description:
ApplicationNo.(s):ASA-2014-06,DP-2014-04,EXC-2014-07,TR-2014-28,U-2014-04,TR-
2014-40(EA-2014-06);Applicant:EdwardChan(CupertinoPropertyDevelopmentII,LLC.);
Location:PerimeterRd@WolfeRd;APN:316-20-092;ArchitecturalSiteApprovalforanew
5-story,148roomhotelandassociatedsiteandoff-siteimprovements;DevelopmentPermitto
allowthedemolitionofanexistingparkinglotandconstructa5story,148roomhotelof
approximately102,700squarefeetthatincludesarestaurant,bar,loungeandconferencerooms
builtovera35,800squarefootundergroundparkinggaragethatcontainstandemparking;
ParkingExceptionPermittoalloweighttandemparkingstalls;TreeRemovalPermittoallow
theremovalandreplacementof96treestofacilitatetheconstructionofanewhotel;Use
Permittoallowa24-hourhotel,includingarestaurantwithinteriorbar;TreeRemovalPermit
toallowtheremovalandreplacementof19treestofacilitatetheoff-siteimprovements
associated with the construction of a new hotel
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™84
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Hyatt House Hotel development project.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt/approve the following:
1.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) (Attachment A)
2.Development Permit (DP-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment B)
3.Use Permit (U-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment C)
4.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06), in accordance with the draft
resolution (Attachment D)
5.Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment E)
6.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment F)
7.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment G)
Description
Application Summary
Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-
2014-40, EA-2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280,
APN 316-20-094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN
316-20-094)
Project Description
85
10380 Perimeter Road (Hotel site):
1.Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a
five-story, 148-room hotel of approximately 102,700 square feet that includes a
restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over a 35,800 square foot, 85-car
underground parking garage that contains tandem parking;
2.Use Permit (U-2014-04) to allow a 24-hour hotel containing a restaurant with interior
bar;
3.Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow eight tandem parking stalls;
4.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees
to facilitate the construction of a new hotel;
10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site):
5.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees
to facilitate the off-site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel;
and
Both Sites:
6.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
7.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new five-story, 148-room hotel
and associated site and off-site improvements; and
86
Project Data
Project consistency with:
General Plan Commercial/Residential
Yes Zoning P (Regional Shopping)
Specific Plan Heart of the City
Master Plan South Vallco
Lot Size 92,434 s.f. (2.12 acres)
Existing Allowed or Required Proposed
Land Use Parking lot,
farmer’s market,
and wireless
communications
Regional shopping (per zoning) Hotel with restaurant, bar,
lounge, and conference
rooms. Wireless
communication facility to
remain onsite.
Hotel Rooms None General Plan allocation – 339 148
Building area N/A No maximum floor area ratio or
lot coverage - As determined by
the City
138,500 square feet (102,700
s.f. hotel inclusive of 3,073
s.f. restaurant/bar and 2,834
s.f. conference space; and
35,800 s.f. underground
garage)
Height (from
sidewalk grade)
N/A 45 feet or 60 feet with retail,
including restaurants
60 feet
Auto parking 223 stalls 187 stalls, based on Parking Ord.
120 stalls, based on 0.81 spaces
per room (parking study)
156 stalls (71 surface and 85
garage, including eight
tandem)
Bicycle parking N/A Nine Class II spaces (5% of auto) Ten Class II spaces
Common open
space
N/A 2.5 percent of the gross floor area
(2,568 s.f.)
17,000 s.f.
Setbacks to curb/property line:
Front (West) N/A No minimum required since not
along Stevens Creek Blvd – as
determined by the City
93 feet to Wolfe Rd curb
Side (South) One-half (1/2) the height of the
building (30 feet), or ten feet,
whichever is greater
30 feet to Perimeter Rd curb
Side (Northeast) 55 feet to property line
Background
This report provides a summary of the project and discussion from the August 26, 2014
Planning Commission hearing and is intended to be a companion document to the
Planning Commission staff report. Please review the Planning Commission staff report
and draft meeting minutes (Attachment H) for detailed analysis and discussion on the
proposed project.
87
Existing Site and Surroundings
The project site is located at the southeast quadrant of North Wolfe Road and Interstate
280 (I-280), at the northern end of the Vallco Shopping Mall. To the west of the site and
across Wolfe Road is a surface parking lot for the Vallco Shopping Mall; to the north and
east across I-280 is the Apple Campus 2 site (under construction) and Hampton
Apartments; and to the south is Alexander’s Steakhouse and a surface parking lot
serving the Vallco Shopping Mall (JC Penney, Benihana, food court, ice skating rink).
The site is currently developed with a surface parking lot that contains the “Vallco
Fashion Park” freeway-oriented pylon sign and a wireless communications facility
within the pylon sign with an associated equipment enclosure on the ground. There is
also a weekly farmer’s market held onsite on Fridays from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. According
to the applicant, the farmer’s market would likely be moved elsewhere within the Vallco
Shopping Mall subject to approval of a separate permit. The existing wireless
communications facility would remain within the pylon sign and the equipment
enclosure would be relocated beneath the sign under a separate permit.
Proposed Project
The project consists of the demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of a
five-story, 148-room upscale extended stay hotel with associated site and off-site
improvements. The hotel includes a full service restaurant and bar, conferencing center, a
swimming pool, a fitness facility, and several outdoor plazas/patios. The above-ground
size of the hotel would be 102,700 square feet. The project parking demand would be
accommodated by 71 surface parking stalls and a 35,800 square foot, one-level
underground parking structure containing 85 parking stalls (including eight tandem
stalls). A total of 115 trees (one tree in good health, 32 trees in fair health, 79 trees in poor
health, and three are dead) are proposed for removal and replacement in order to
facilitate the new hotel and associated site improvements.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and formally
reviewed the project. The Commission recommended the adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a 5-0 vote
and recommended approval of the project on a 3-2 vote. Please refer to Attachments I
through N for the Planning Commission resolutions. The majority of the Commission
was supportive of the project. Commissioner Brophy expressed concerns that the
proposed restaurant is considered an ancillary use to the hotel (primarily serves
occupants of the hotel) and should not be expected to function similar to a standalone
restaurant or a commercial store. Commissioner Lee suggested that the proposed
restaurant and bar space should be increased in order for the project to be constructed at
88
60 feet. The Planning Commission recommended that a condition be added to require
that the restaurant and bar remain open to the public to ensure that it functions like a
standalone restaurant.
Discussion
General Plan 60-foot Building Height Allowance
The General Plan allows buildings with a retail component located in the South Vallco
area to be constructed up to 60 feet tall. The intent of this General Plan policy is to
promote active ground floors created by commercial uses and/or other similar uses that
promote pedestrian activities/interest. Although the General Plan does not specifically
define “retail” under this policy, based on previous practice, the Council has approved
buildings at 60 feet tall with active commercial ground floor uses such as restaurants,
cafés, bars/lounges, fitness centers, banquet/conferencing facilities, and commercial stores
without specific size/square footage or revenue performance requirements.
The project proposes to activate the building frontage along Perimeter Road with
restaurant and bar area, outdoor dining and lounge areas, a board room, a fitness center,
and a pedestrian plaza. The project’s active frontage area consists of approximately 81
percent of the linear building frontage. In addition, the project’s interior active space
consists of 39 percent of the ground floor area. See table below for details:
The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment O) confirming that the proposed full
service restaurant and bar would be open daily to the public with breakfast, lunch, and
dinner offerings. In addition to the transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated by the hotel,
sales tax would be collected from restaurant and bar sales. Meeting space rentals also
generate sales tax dollars, as well as associated food and beverage sales.
Staff believes that the proposed project restaurant, bar, fitness and conferencing center
would benefit the public and hotel guests, as well as local businesses. Staff supports the
proposed 60-foot hotel building height given the project’s location, the active spaces
Interior active space Proposed project (s.f.)
Dining/Bar/Lounge (including kitchen) 3,073
Fitness Room 773
Prefunction space
-Reception/break area
1,308
Business/Conferencing
-Business Center
-Meeting Rooms
3,124
Totals 8,278
Percentage of ground floor area 39% (21,100 s.f. ground floor)
89
provided, and the commercial uses that would generate sales tax and provide direct sales
to customers.
Parking
In accordance with the City’s Parking Ordinance, the project has the option of either
providing the ordinance-prescribed standalone parking ratios for hotel, restaurant, and
conference uses (at 187 stalls total), or demonstrate sufficient parking arrangements
through an alternative parking study prepared by a transportation consultant. The
alternative parking study option allows projects in planned development zones to
determine a more accurate parking demand, especially for uses such as shopping centers
or hotels that may have complex overlapping uses and activities that are not able to be
addressed by the standalone ordinance ratios.
The following table outlines the parking assessment methods used by some of the
previously approved hotels in the City and their respective approved parking ratios:
Hotel Parking
Assessment
Method
Approved Parking Ratio Approval
No.
Aloft (10165 N. De
Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.7 stalls per room M-2010-07
Cypress Hotel (10050
S. De Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.65 stalls per room U-2000-05
Hilton Garden Inn
(10741 N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 1 stall per room U-1996-15
Courtyard Marriott
(10605 N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 0.95 stalls per room U-1986-33
Cupertino Inn (10889
N. De Anza Blvd)
Ordinance
Ratio*
1 stall per room U-1985-15
Average Parking Ratio 0.86 stalls per room
Proposed Project Parking Study 1.05 stalls per room
*An older ordinance ratio requiring hotels to be parked at 1 parking stall per each room.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. was retained by the City to conduct a parking
study for the project (see Attachment P, Chapter 6). In order to determine whether the
proposed parking would be sufficient to serve the project, field parking surveys were
conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton Garden
Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest
parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the most similar to the proposed project
since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room space. Therefore,
90
the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls) for the
project. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room (or 156 stalls), the parking study
concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
Two of the Planning Commissioners expressed concern that the project was not
providing the ordinance-prescribed stand alone parking ratios, while the majority of the
Commissioners felt the parking supply was adequate.
Eight tandem parking stalls are proposed in the parking garage for employee use only,
and signage would be placed to this effect. The project site will continue to be owned by
a single entity, and hotel management will enforce the use of the tandem stalls. The
Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking arrangements to be considered with a Parking
Exception. Excluding the tandem stalls, the project would still provide a surplus of 28
stalls over the recommended ratio in the parking study. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the Parking Exception.
Tree Removals and Replacements
The project proposes to remove 96 trees onsite plus 19 offsite trees out of the 150 total
trees surveyed in the project vicinity to facilitate the construction of the proposed hotel
and associated site improvements, as well as regenerate the tree canopy to fit with the
current design. The City’s Consulting Arborist surveyed the site and recommends
removal of the trees within the project construction area and also removal of many of the
existing perimeter redwood trees due to extremely poor to irrecoverable health
conditions (see Attachment Q).
The project proposes 117 replacement trees (102- 24-inch box and 15- 36-inch box) in the
parking lot, street frontage, and site perimeter consistent with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In-lieu replacement fees will be required
for the 57 trees that cannot be physically planted onsite. New Coast Redwood trees will
replace the ones that are removed, where appropriate, along the perimeter of the site.
The Planning Commission supports the proposed removals and encouraged that the
applicant retain as many trees as feasible. A commissioner commented that Redwood
replacement trees might not be a good species since they have high water needs and are
not native to the region.
Public Comments
The following is a summary of public comments at the Planning Commission hearing.
Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics.
Will the project interfere with any plans to improve the Wolfe Road and I-280 freeway
intersection? The project is not encroaching into any existing Caltrans right-of-way and is
not expected to interfere with any future plans to improve the freeway/Wolfe Road. The extent
91
of the future right-of-way improvements will be specified in the Wolfe Road Corridor
Improvement Plan following action on the current General Plan Amendment project. The
applicant is required to contribute to the plan and improvements as determined by the City.
Will the pathway to the potential future trail impact the project and vice versa? The
project has been designed to accommodate a pedestrian pathway along the westerly property
line that will primarily benefit the hotel and restaurant customers and at the same time
connect to a potential future trail system adjacent to Highway 280. The pathway is a benefit to
the project and overall connectivity in the Vallco Shopping District, and serves as a critical
pedestrian connection from the east side of Wolfe Road to the west side of Wolfe Road.
Fire Department access is not desirable since there is only one access point shown on
the plans. The applicant has worked with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to provide
adequate site access. The Fire Department prefers access from a private driveway east of Wolfe
Road (by Alexander’s Steakhouse) to the project site since it is the most direct route from a
major arterial street. Secondary access can be from Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road along
the JC Penney site.
The restaurant should be open to the public. The Planning Commission recommended this
as a condition of approval and the applicant confirmed that the proposed restaurant is going to
be open to the public.
Does approval of the project constitute approval of the South Vallco Connectivity
Plan? The proposed connectivity plan is conceptual in nature and may be subject to change
pending future development activity and City Council policies resulting from the General
Plan Amendment and the future approval of the Vallco Specific Plan.
The hotel’s restaurant and bar is not sufficient enough to allow the hotel to be built at
60 feet high. See previous discussion in General Plan 60-foot Building Height Allowance
section of the staff report.
It questionable whether if the Hotel restaurant will generate sufficient sales tax, as a
public benefit, to justify the proposed 60-foot building height allowance (see also
Attachment R for a letter from the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino). Based on
Council’s prior practice, full service restaurants as part of hotel operations has been deemed to
be appropriate commercial uses warranting the 60-foot building height allowance regardless of
the amount of sale tax anticipated. The hotel and restaurant is expected to perform at a high
level given the location near future Vallco Shopping District redevelopment and revitalization.
Will the smooth limestone cladding be earthquake resistant? The project is required to
meet all applicable building codes to ensure life safety and earthquake resistance to the
maximum extent possible.
Changes/clarifications since the Planning Commission Hearing
The applicant has submitted revised plans since the Planning Commission hearing to
further clarify the area of active uses, address recommendations by the City’s consulting
92
arborist, and make other changes to address City comments. The changes are listed
below:
Refinements to cumulative above ground square footage – 102,700 square feet instead
of 102,200 (to account for building code requirements for fire walls and expansion
joints)
Restaurant and bar area enlarged to include pool table, additional seating, and service
area for a total enclosed area of 3,073 square feet
Conference room space increased by 354 square feet to 2,834 square feet.
Updates to ordinance-prescribed standalone parking ratios based on increased
seating and conference room space
Widening the curvature of the east driveway to accommodate Fire Department
preference
Electrical transformer and generator relocated to the rear of the trash enclosure (to
reduce their visibility)
Relocation of two above-ground parking spaces to the underground parking garage
to accommodate relocated transformer
Relocation of surface ADA accessible stalls closer to the building entrance
Relocation of Stair #1 for building code requirements
Refinements to replacement tree spacing and planting locations per the City
Arborist’s recommendations
Adjustments to locations of utilities and lighting per the City Arborist’s
recommendations
South Vallco Connectivity Plan
During the initial hearing for the City’s current General Plan Amendment (GPA) process
(file no. GPA-2013-01) in 2012, the City Council heard oral testimony from the project
applicant expressing interest in developing the site with a hotel. The Council, in their
motion on the GPA, concluded that development within the Vallco Shopping District
may proceed in parallel with the GPA process provided that projects meet the current
General Plan and zoning requirements and provide a Connectivity Plan that can
effectively show how the new development can improve connectivity to existing and
approved development, and ensure connectivity to future development within the
greater South Vallco area.
In response to Council’s direction, the applicant funded the developme nt of the South
Vallco Connectivity Plan that demonstrates how the hotel project will physically link to
existing and approved development in the South Vallco area and interface with
93
conceptual goals, objectives, concepts, and design guidelines for improved connectivity,
safety, and aesthetics in the shopping district (Attachment S). The South Vallco
Connectivity plan will help inform the development of the future Vallco Shopping
District Specific and/or Master Plan.
The Planning Commission reviewed and supports the connectivity plan.
Environmental Considerations
On August 21, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) recommended
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial
study (Attachment A). The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions
of approval for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Attachment T) lists the specific mitigation measures, the timeframe and method of
compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of implementation.
The Planning Commission did not have any comments on the initial study and
recommended adoption of the MND on a 5-0 vote.
The Response to Comments (RTC) memorandum in Attachment U summarizes the
comments received on the initial study during the public comment period. In addition to
comments received from members of the public, Caltrans commented on the project due
to its location near the Wolfe Road and I-280 intersection. Caltrans noted that Apple
Campus II’s environmental impact report (EIR) forecasts impacts to the freeway
intersection even with mitigation and commented that the project would further impact
the intersection with additional traffic. In order to mitigate these concerns, Caltrans
requested fair share contributions to freeway improvements and additional analysis in
the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment P).
The TIA demonstrates that the project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips,
which represents less than one percent of the freeway capacity at segments along and
near the project frontage. According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) guidelines, a project would create a significant impact to freeways that are already
operating at unacceptable levels of service if the project adds trips greater than one
percent of the freeway capacity. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause a
significant impact to the freeway. Additionally, Hexagon conducted a freeway queuing
analysis that demonstrated the project would not increase the 95th percentile queues in
the south-and-northbound directions. Subsequently, no additional mitigation measures
are proposed based on Caltrans’ comments. It should be noted that there is a condition of
approval to require the applicant to provide a financial contribution to the Wolfe Road
Corridor improvement project if and when established by the City after the approval of
the General Plan Amendment, which could include various potential future
improvements to the transportation corridor in the area.
94
Noticing
The following table summarizes the noticing for the October 21, 2014 Council meeting:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent,
Site Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
Neighborhood meeting held by the
applicant on August 15, 2014 with
mailings sent to 239 property owners
within 300 feet of the Vallco
Shopping District
239 public hearing notices mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of
the Vallco Shopping District
(including project site) (10 days prior
to the hearing)
Notice of intent to adopt an MND
posted onsite and sent to interested
individuals, responsible agencies,
and the County Recorder (at least 30
days prior to final decision on the
project)
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
____________________________________
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) with Initial Study
B – Development Permit (DP-2014-04) Draft City Council Resolution
C – Use Permit (U-2014-04) Draft City Council Resolution
D – Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) Draft City Council Resolution
E – Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) Draft City Council Resolution
F – Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) Draft City Council Resolution
G – Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) Draft City Council Resolution
H – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
I – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6752 (ASA-2014-06)
95
J – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6753 (DP-2014-04)
K – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6754 (EXC-2014-07)
L – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6755 (TR-2014-28)
M – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6756 (U-2014-04)
N – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6757 (TR-2014-40)
O – Applicant’s description of active spaces for the project
P – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Q – City’s Consulting Arborist report
R – Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) comment letter
S – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
T – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
U – Response to Comments (RTC) on the initial study
W – Plan set
96
97
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project
Initial Study
for the City of Cupertino
August 2014
98
In Association With:
Hexagon Transportation Consultants
Tom Origer & Associates
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego
www.placeworks.com
Prepared By:
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
510.848.4315 (f)
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project
Initial Study
for the City of Cupertino
August 2014
99
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK
TO: Interested Individuals; Responsible Agencies; and Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder
FROM: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Contact: George Schroeder, Associate Planner (408-777-7601 or georges@cupertino.org)
The City of Cupertino (the City) is intending to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hyatt
House Hotel at Vallco Park in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes a 148-room, 5-story Hyatt House
Hotel adjacent to the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Interstate 280. Additionally, a full service
2,500 square-foot restaurant, 2,160 square-foot meeting room, and 320 square-foot boardroom would
also be included. Parking would be provided by a surface parking lot and a one-level underground
parking garage providing 156 parking spaces. In total, the project would be approximately 102,200
square feet above ground and 35,400 square-feet underground.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 10380 Perimeter Road [Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and Interstate
280 (I-280)]. APN: 316-20-092
FINDING: On the basis of the Initial Study, the City has determined that with the incorporation of
the mitigation measures proposed in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are
available for public review at the following locations:
Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA
Online at http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1258
100
The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for a 30-day review
period beginning August 20, 2014 and ending September 18, 2014. Comments on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration must be submitted in writing within the 30-day review period and sent by mail
or fax to:
City of Cupertino
Planning Division
Attn: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Fax: (408) 777 3333
E-mail: georges@cupertino.org
PUBLIC MEETINGS: Meetings at which actions would be undertaken are listed below. The
Cupertino City Council is the decision-making body responsible for adopting the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the proposed project.
Environmental Review Committee
Thursday, August 21, 2014, 9:30 a.m.
City Hall, Conference Room C
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Planning Commission Hearing
Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
City Council Hearing
Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Please contact George Schroeder, Associate Planner, at (408) 777-7601 or georges@cupertino.org if
you have questions regarding this Notice.
101
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1.Project Title: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project
2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
3.Contact Person and Phone Number: George Schroeder, 408-777-7601
4.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC, 19620 Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Suite 200, Cupertino, CA 95014
5.Project Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and Interstate 280
[I-280]), APN: 316-20-092.
6.Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential
7.Existing Zoning: P (Regional Shopping)
8.Background and Description of Project:
This Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines to review the Hyatt House Hotel development project (the Project). The Project includes
construction of a 148-room, 5 -story Hyatt House Hotel adjacent to the intersection of North Wolfe
Road and Interstate 280 (I-280) in the City of Cupertino. The Project would be served by a surface
parking lot and a one-level underground parking garage providing a total of 156 parking spaces. In
addition to the hotel use, the Project would include development of a full service restaurant, bar, and
meeting space. The cumulative size of the Project would be approximately 102,200 square feet above
ground and 35,400 square feet underground. Currently, the Project site is a parking lot at the northern
edge of the adjacent Vallco Shopping Mall. A weekly farmers market is held on the lot on Fridays.
This environmental review document provides an assessment of the potential impacts caused by the
physical changes resulting from development of the Project.
A. Project Components
1.Hotel
The main entrance and drop-off area would be located on the south side of the proposed building,
facing Perimeter Road. The ground floor would contain 12 guest rooms, a lobby, office, boardroom,
business center, meeting room, storage room, restrooms, fitness center, kitchen for staff, and a dining
area. Below the ground floor, a subterranean parking garage would be accessible by the hotel’s two
elevator shafts and one of two staircases. Adjacent to the main entrance and drop-off area that leads to
hotel’s entry corridor, a pool and lounge area would be provided. An outdoor dining terrace would be
located west of the pool. Additionally, hotel guests would have access to a 770-square-foot fitness
center on the ground floor, adjacent to the pool.
The second through fifth floors of the proposed building would be each contain 34 guest rooms per
floor, and would be accessed through the hotel’s two elevator shafts and two staircases. The site plan
and ground floor are shown in Figure 2, and the typical floor plan for levels 2 through 5 is shown on
Figure 3.
102
2
Building elevations are shown on Figure 4 through 6. As shown, in Figure 7, the proposed building
height would be approximately 60 feet above sidewalk grade on Perimeter Road. It is estimated that at
the hotel’s peak hour 9 employees would be on-site.
a.Restaurant and Bar
The western portion of the hotel’s ground floor, adjacent to the front lobby, would be occupied by a
full-service 2,500-square-foot restaurant, including a bar and outdoor dining terrace. The northwestern
portion of the ground floor would be occupied by a kitchen, preparation area, and break room to
accommodate hotel and restaurant staff. It is estimated that at the restaurant’s peak hour 3 employees
would be on-site.
b.Meeting Space
The Project would include a 2,160-square-foot meeting room, and 320-square-foot boardroom on the
ground floor.
2.Circulation and Access
Vehicular access, pedestrian access, and parking are described below.
a.Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
Vehicular access to the Project site would be available from two entry points along Perimeter Road,
along the southern boundary of the Project site. Pedestrian access to the Project site would be provided
by two walkways from Perimeter Road, including a proposed sidewalk on JC Penney’s property along
the southern portion of Perimeter Road. Improvements would also include a 15-foot path connection
onsite on the west side and southwest corner for access to a future trail along the north side of the
property.
The Project would include the use of an airport shuttle service for hotel guests running approximately
42 times per week, to provide access to the San Jose International Airport. In addition, the Project
would include the use of a local shuttle for hotel guests (limited to within 5-mile radius of the Project
site) that would run approximately 14 times per week.
b.Parking
The Project would provide 73 surface parking spaces and 83 spaces in the subterranean garage, for a
total of 156 parking spaces. Access to the underground parking garage would be available from the
west side of the building, near Perimeter Road. The parking level site plan is shown on Figure 8.
3.Landscaping
The Project proposes planting approximately 116 replacement trees within the Project site. The new
trees would be located near the main entrance to the Project site, and along the perimeter of the site
between parking spaces. A total of 115 trees are proposed for removal. All trees along west side would
be removed to accommodate the pathway to the future trail.
The Project proposes to maintain many of the existing, healthy trees located along the northern
boundary of the Project site. In some cases, individual trees may be removed (after securing necessary
City of Cupertino permits), due to poor health and the potential for injury or property damage.
Figure 9 shows the Conceptual landscape Site plan.
103
3
4.Water Supply
The Project site is served by California Water Service. The Project would connect to existing potable
water lines.
5.Sanitary Sewer Service
Cupertino Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to the Project site,
and the Project would connect to existing sanitary sewer lines. Wastewater generated within the
Cupertino Sanitary District is treated at the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility in
northern San Jose.
6.Signage
The Project may include Hyatt House signs on each façade, as shown in Figures 4 through 6. The
Project does not propose any changes to the existing “Vallco Fashion Park” pylon sign adjacent to
I-280. The final location and design of exterior signage will be reviewed and approved on a separate
ministerial sign permit.
7.Utilities
Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the Project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
Solid waste and recycling from the Project site is collected by Recology South Bay. Figure 10 shows
the Utility Plan for the proposed Project.
B. Construction Activities
Construction of the proposed Project would occur in one phase lasting approximately 17 months.
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.
Regional and local Setting
The Project site is located in Cupertino, which is in the northwestern portion of Santa Clara
County. The Project site occupies Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 316-20-092, in the
northeastern portion of the City, near Cupertino’s borders with the cities of Sunnyvale and Santa
Clara. Cupertino is roughly 45 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles west of downtown San
Jose, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 also shows where the Project site is situated within the City of
Cupertino and provides context for the site and its surroundings.
Existing Site Character
As discussed above, the Project site is currently a large surface parking lot in the southeast
quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280. While generally flat, the site slopes downward in a south-to-
north direction. The Project site contains several landscaped areas and a pedestrian path along the
southern boundary of the Project site, but is mostly occupied by paved surfaces. The “Vallco
Fashion Park” pylon sign visible from I-280 is located within the Project site. An existing cellular
phone communications station, as well as an abandoned children’s play area are located at the base
of the pylon sign. Between the Project site and I-280, a vegetated culvert owned by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) separates the Project site from the freeway. Mature
redwood trees line the western and northern borders of the Project site and serve to further screen
the site from view from the onramp to I-280 and North Wolfe Road. The site contains a public
utilities easement, which was established in 1964.
104
Figure1
Regional Location and ProjectVicinity
Source:CityofCupertino,2013;PlaceWorks,2014.
INITIAL STUDY
CITYOF CUPERTINOHYATTHOUSEHOTELATVALLCOPARKPROJECT
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
CITY OF
SANTA CLARA
P
PROJECT LOCATION
%&'(280
PR
U
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
NTANTAU
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
HOMESTEAD RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MILLER
A
V
E
05001,000250
Feet
%&'(280
Æþ101
%&'(580
%&'(880
%&'(280
·|}þ1
Pacific
Ocean
San Francisco Bay
|ÿ92
|ÿ84
CUPERTINO P
San
Leandro
Hayward
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Alameda
Daly City
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco Alameda
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2014.
Figure 1
Regional Location and Project Vicinity
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
105
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.
Figure 2
Site Plan and Ground Floor
0
Scale (Feet)
64
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
106
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.
Figure 3
Typical Floor Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
64
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
107
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.Figure 4
South Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
32
InItIal Study
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project InItIal study
City of Cupertino
108
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.Figure 5
North Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
32
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
109
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.Figure 6
East and West Elevation
East Elevation West Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
32
InItIal Study
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project InItIal study
City of Cupertino
110
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.Figure 7
Section Elevations
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
111
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.
Figure 8
Site Plan - Parking Level
0
Scale (Feet)
64
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
112
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014
A
A
DROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH
SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3
4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’5’20’10’10’
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.
Figure 9
Conceptual Landscape Site Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
113
Source: Gene Fong Associates, 2014.
Figure 10
Utility Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
INITIAL STUDY
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
114
14
10. Required Permits and Approvals. The following is a list of permits and approvals required by
the City of Cupertino.
Building Permit
Grading Permit
Sign Permit
Development Permit to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a 5-story, 148-room hotel
of approximately 102,200 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference
rooms built over a 35,400-square-foot underground parking garage that contains tandem parking.
Architectural and Site Approval of a new 5-story, 148-room hotel and associated site and off-site
improvements.
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees to facilitate the
construction of a new hotel (project site).
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the off-site
improvements involved with the construction of a new hotel (JC Penney site).
Use Permit to allow a 24-hour hotel, including a restaurant with interior bar.
Parking Exception to allow tandem parking and 156 parking stalls when 184 stalls are required.
115
15
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/Forestry Resources x Air Quality
x Biological Resources x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils
__ Greenhouse Gas Emissions x Hazards/Hazardous Materials __ Hydrology and Water Quality
__ Land Use and Planning __ Mineral Resources x Noise
__ Parks and Recreation __ Population and Housing __ Public Services
__ Transportation and Traffic __ Utilities and Service Systems __ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
__ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
__ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
__ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been ad-dressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
__ I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Staff Evaluator: ______________________ Date: _________________________
ERC Chairperson: _______________ Date: _________________________
116
16
ISSUES
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
DISCUSSION:
As described above, the Project site is currently a large surface parking lot. While generally flat, the site slopes
downward in a south-to-north direction. The site contains several landscaped areas and a pedestrian path along the
southern boundary of the Project site, but is mostly occupied by paved surfaces. Between the Project site and I-280,
a vegetated culvert owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) separates the Project site from the
freeway.
The Project site is located at the northern edge of the adjacent Vallco Shopping Mall, in the southeast quadrant of
the Wolfe Road and I-280 interchange. I-280 is located directly northeast of the Project site, Wolfe Road is located
to the west, and Perimeter Road is located to the south. A parking lot and an Alexander’s Steakhouse restaurant,
part of the Vallco Shopping Mall, are located across Perimeter Road to the south.
The visual character of the area surrounding the Project site is characterized by the developed, urban, commercial
nature of the area. The “Vallco Fashion Park” pylon sign visible from I-280 is located within the Project site. An
existing cellular phone communications station, as well as an abandoned children’s play area are located at the base
of the pylon sign.
a) The proposed Project would have no impact on visual resources in the South Vallco planning area. The City of
Cupertino is currently in the process of amending its 2000–2020 General Plan. Under the existing 2000–2020
General Plan, the South Vallco Master Plan outlines policies for the South Vallco planning area, which includes
the Project site. Objective B, Aesthetics, of the South Vallco Master Plan, calls for the area to be cohesive in terms
of “look and feel.” The Vallco Shopping Mall is already developed, and implementation of the proposed Project
would result in development that is similar to what currently exists.
Strategy 6, View Preservation, of Policy 2-14, Attractive Building and Site Design, of the current General Plan,
directs the City to devise and implement a policy to encourage developers to limit building heights in order to
preserve hillside views throughout the City. The view of the hills from I-280 is already obstructed by the trees in
the vegetated culvert that separates the Project site from the freeway. As a result, the proposed Project would have
no impact on scenic vistas.
b) As stated above, the Project site is located directly southeast of I-280, which is an eligible State scenic highway,
117
17
but is not officially designated as such. The closest State designated scenic highway is the portion of State Route
(SR) 9 from SR 35 in Saratoga to SR 17 in Los Gatos.1 The Project site is not visible from this portion of the
highway; therefore, no impact would result in respect to this issue.
c) As discussed above, the proposed Project is consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan, the area is already
developed, and implementation of the proposed Project would result in development that is similar to the
surrounding area. The design of the proposed Project would result in consistent development in the area, which
would not degrade the area’s visual character. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d) The construction of a five-story hotel is anticipated to increase the level of lighting on the site from sources
including, but not limited to, rooms, signage, parking lot luminaires, bollard lights, and outdoor amenities.
However, the area is already developed as a shopping center, and there are other similarly sized hotels on the other
side of I-280 on the west side of North Wolfe Road. Because of the area’s current setting, it is unlikely that the
anticipated increase in light or glare from development of the proposed Project would be substantial. As a result,
the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
X
1 Caltrans California Scenic Highway Mapping System – Santa Clara County, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
LandArch/scenic_highways/, accessed on July 24, 2014.
118
18
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) The Project site does not contain any farmland and is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land by the
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.2 Therefore, there would be no
impact to important farmland.
b) As discussed in response to criterion a), the Project site does not contain any farmland or land for agricultural
use. The Project site is zoned P (Regional Shopping), and is not within an area affected by a Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, no impact would result.
c) The Project site is zoned P (Regional Shopping). The Project site would not be rezoned as a result of the
proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would result.
d) According to mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the
Project site does not contain woodland or forest land cover, and is described as urban.3 Therefore, the proposed
Project would have no impact with respect to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
e) As discussed above, the Project site does not contain any agricultural or forest lands on-site, nor is it surrounded
by lands which contain agricultural or forest lands. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
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)?
X
2 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, 2010, Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. 3 The State of California, Fire Resources and Assessment Program, The Management Landscape,
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/landscapesmap.pdf, accessed June 6, 2014.
119
19
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? X
DISCUSSION:
This section addresses the impacts of the proposed Project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people,
especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. A background discussion on the air quality
regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Project site, and air
quality modeling can be found in Appendix A.
Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law
under the federal and California Clean Air Acts, respectively. The primary air pollutants of concern for which
ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse
inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxides (NO2), and lead (Pb). The federal and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide
a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive
receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children,
people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum
standards before adverse effects are observed. Areas are classified under the federal and California Clean Air Acts
as in either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been
achieved. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is managed by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), is designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and
federal AAQS, and nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS.4
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs). The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause
or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal
Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is
authorized to identify a substance as a TAC, if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or
contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following
CEQA determinations.
a) Large projects that exceed regional employment, population, and housing planning projections have the potential
to be inconsistent with the regional inventory compiled as part of BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The
Project is not considered a regionally significant project that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled and
warrant Intergovernmental Review by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines Section 15206). In addition, the proposed Project would not exceed the level of
population or housing foreseen in City or regional planning efforts and, therefore, would not have the potential to
4 California Air Resources Board, 2014, Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, accessed on June 4.
120
20
substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which are the basis of the
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan projections. Furthermore, the net increase in regional emissions generated by the
proposed Project would be less than the BAAQMD’s thresholds (see Section 3 (b)). These thresholds are
established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants.
Because the proposed Project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed Project would not be considered by
the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Pan and impacts would be considered less than
significant.
b) BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant
precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds are not
expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty
construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the
construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition
and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities
on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identifies screening criteria for construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions
for a “hotel” of 554 rooms. Hotels with 554 rooms or more have the potential to generate a substantial increase in
criteria air pollutant emissions and would need further analysis. While the Project is 148 rooms and is below the
BAAQMD screening criteria, the proposed Project would result in overlapping construction phases and up to 2,918
tons of demolition export and 12,952 cubic yards of soil export. Therefore, a quantified analysis of the Project’s
construction emissions was conducted using CalEEMod (see ii, Construction Exhaust Emissions).
i) Fugitive Dust
As identified above, the Project would warrant asphalt demolition and soil export for the subterranean parking
garage. In addition, ground disturbing activities would generate fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and
PM2.5) are considered to be significant unless the proposed Project implements the BAAQMD’s Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control during construction. PM10 is typically the most significant source of air
pollution from the dust generated from construction. The amount of dust generated during construction would be
highly variable and is dependent on the amount of material being demolished, type of material, moisture content,
and meteorological conditions. If uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could
possibly exceed State standards. Consequently, construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The Project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD
Best Management Practices for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency
may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water should be
used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers
on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
121
21
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible), or as often as needed, all paved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the
Project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Adherence to the BAAQMD’s BMPs for reducing
construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would ensure that ground-disturbing activities would not generate a
significant amount of fugitive dust.
ii) Construction Exhaust Emissions
Construction activities are anticipated to be completed in approximately 17 months. Construction emissions are
based on the preliminary construction schedule and equipment list on-site. To determine potential construction-
related air quality impacts, criteria air pollutants generated by the Project’s construction-related activities are
compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 1 for average daily emissions. Average daily
emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days.
As shown in Table 1, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the
BAAQMD daily thresholds. Consequently, construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are less than
significant.
Operational Emissions
Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by a hotel are typically associated with the burning of fossil fuels in
cars (mobile sources); energy use for cooling, heating, and cooking (energy); and landscape equipment use and
household products (area sources). The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by
the proposed Project would be emissions produced from Project-generated vehicle trips.
BAAQMD‘s CEQA Guidelines identify screening criteria for operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions for a
“hotel” of 489 rooms. Hotels with 489 rooms or more have the potential to generate a substantial increase in
criteria air pollutant emissions and would need further analysis. The Project is 148 rooms and is well below the
BAAQMD screening threshold and would generate nominal operational-related criteria air pollutant emissions.
Operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions are a less-than-significant impact of the proposed Project.
c) Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in
nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative
project emissions (the Air Basin), a project is cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the
BAAQMD emission thresholds. As described in this section, the proposed Project would have no impact or a less
than significant construction impacts (with mitigation for fugitive dust), operational impacts (including AQMP
consistency, odors, and CO hotspots), and on-site community risk and hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project’s
contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
122
22
TABLE 1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Average Annual
Construction Emissions (tons/year)a,b
ROG NOx
Fugitive
PM10b Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5b Exhaust PM2.5
Average Annual 2014 0.15 1.30 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.05
Average Annual 2015 0.94 2.51 0.09 0.15 0.03 0.14
Average Annual 2016 0.21 0.23 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01
Total 1.30 4.04 0.16 0.22 0.04 0.21
Average Daily
Construction Emissions (average lbs/day)a,b
ROG NOx
Fugitive
PM10b Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5b Exhaust PM2.5
Average Daily
Construction Emissions
(All Phases)
7 21 <1 1 <1 1
Threshold (avg. lbs/day) 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No Mitigation No Mitigation No
Notes: BMP = Best Management Practices.
a. Construction phasing, equipment use (number of equipment, days of equipment mobilization onsite), and demolition volumes are
based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding Project-related construction
activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys of
construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.
b. Includes implementation of best management practices for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including
watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street
sweeping.
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Average daily emissions are based on the total annual
construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days (391 active construction days from September 2014 to
February 2016).
d) The following is a discussion of the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards During Construction
The proposed Project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during
construction activities. BAAQMD has developed screening thresholds for assessing potential health risks from
construction activities. The Project involves disturbance of 2.0 acres; therefore, receptors would have to be located
more than 100 meters away (328 feet) to fall below the BAAQMD’s screening thresholds.5 The closest sensitive
receptors to the Project site are approximately 200 meters (656 feet) to the west. Consequently, the Project would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and
impacts would be less than significant.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation
During Construction, May.
123
23
On-Site Community Risk and Hazards
Hotels are defined as sensitive receptors by BAAQMD. However, according to BAAQMD, overall exposure of
hotel guests is short term and is not a concern for community risk and hazards.6 On-site community risk and
hazards would be less than significant.
CO Hotspots
The proposed Project would generate 1,209 average daily trips during a weekday, 78 trips during the morning peak
hour, and 89 trips during the evening peak hour.7 The proposed Project would not conflict with the Valley
Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the
capital improvements outlined in the CMP or alter regional travel patterns. VTA’s CMP must be consistent with
the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions’ (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG)
Plan Bay Area. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are
existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial
transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed Project is an infill Project and would be
consistent with the overall goals of the MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area. Furthermore, the proposed Project would
not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per
hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Trips associated with the proposed Project
would not exceed the screening criteria of the BAAQMD. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots would
be less than significant.
e) The proposed Project would construct a hotel within the Project site. Construction and operation of this type of
project (hotel) would not generate substantial odors or be subject to odors that would affect a substantial number of
people. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants,
compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating
operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing,
and food manufacturing facilities. Hotels are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance.
During operation, the hotel could generate odors from the restaurant in the hotel. Odors from commercial cooking
are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people.
Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires
abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint.
During construction activities, the application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate
odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally,
noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such
emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Impacts would be less than significant.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2014. Email from Sigalle Michael, Senior
Environmental Planner, April 10. 7 Hexagon Engineers, 2014, Trip Generation Estimates, Hyatt Hotel, Cupertino.
124
24
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
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 California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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 pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with 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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates 26 plant and animal species with
known occurrences within a five-mile radius of the Project site, as shown in Appendix B. Of these 26 species, three
species are considered extirpated from the area, four are considered possibly extirpated from the area and 19 are
presumed extant. Because the Project site is currently a parking lot within a developed urban area it is unlikely that
any of the known species would be located within the Project site. As a result, the proposed Project is not expected
to infringe on the populations or habitats of any of the aforementioned sensitive species or species listed in
Appendix B. As a result, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant.
b) – d) The proposed Project would be located in an urbanized area, situated between a freeway and a commercial
development. According to the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element of the City’s General Plan, most
native vegetation has been removed and reduced by historic agriculture activities and urbanization. The absence of
riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or wildlife corridors and nurseries within the Project site
indicates that there would be no impact on these biological resources.
125
25
e) The Arborist’s Report, included as Appendix C of this Initial Study, identifies 114 trees within the Project site
that are proposed for removal. All trees along the west side of the Project site would be removed to accommodate
the pathway to the future trail. The Project proposes the replacement of 116 trees.
As previously noted, the Project site is currently being utilized as a parking lot between the Vallco Shopping Mall
and Interstate 280. The site is populated predominantly by coast redwoods, which form a dense and established
screen along the north (I-280) and west (North Wolfe Road) boundaries. These redwoods show symptoms of
significant or severe stress from not receiving sufficient water over the years, and the majority are in poor health.
Absent of supplemental water, continued decline for years to come can be expected, and trees otherwise intended
for retention and protection may ultimately require removal. Tree removal would be in compliance with Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, once this measure is implemented.
Following the determination of how many trees would be adversely affected by the proposed Project, the City
would remove a street tree from the publicly-owned portion of the Project site, and the applicant would obtain a
tree removal permit for those trees requiring removal on private property. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-2 and BIO-3 would reduce the impact of tree removal to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The Project Applicant shall comply with Section 6.0, General Protection
Measures, of the Arborist’s Report prepared for this Project. The recommendations in this section serve as
general design guidelines to help mitigate or avoid impacts to trees being retained. These measures are subject
to revision upon reviewing the updated project design, and the Arborist should be consulted in the event any
cannot be feasibly implemented.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require the Project
Applicant to comply with the Tree Protection Plan in order to determine which trees would be suitable for
removal, and to identify trees that would remain within the Project site. As a result, a less-than-significant
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The Project Applicant shall comply with replacement requirements for trees
removed from private property, or an in-lieu fee if a suitable replacement site is not available, as indicated in
Municipal Code Section 14.18.190, Tree Replacement.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts
resulting from tree removal on private property to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: In order to remove any public street trees within the Project site, the Project
Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, Trees. The Project Applicant shall pay the
required fee, prior to the issuance of a building permit, per the New Street Tree Cost Schedule, for the
purchase, planting, and maintenance of trees by the City. All public trees shall be protected against damage
during construction operations. There shall be no storage of materials, tool washout, or vehicle parking near or
upon public trees. This is in accordance with Municipal Code Section 14.12.120, Condition for Development
or Building Permit. All planting costs associated with a building permit shall be collected by the Chief
Building Inspector, or his/her designee, for deposit into the City’s general fund prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The fees for public tree removal and/or damage to branches and roots shall be as specified in
the Public Tree Damage or Removal Fee Schedule adopted by Council Resolution. Damage and removal fees
shall be deposited into the City’s tree fund. This is in accordance with Municipal Code Section 14.12.130,
New Street Tree Costs and Public Tree Damage or Removal Fee Schedules.
126
26
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts
resulting from tree removal to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed Project includes fencing, asphalt/concrete pavement, aggregate, and construction of a multi-modal
path that could result in adverse impacts to trees that would remain within the Project site following the completion
of construction activities. Construction activities associated with these Project components, such as grading,
trenching, and surface scraping, could result in root damage and bark injuries. The Arborist’s Report includes
several recommendations as a Tree Protection Plan to protect trees following excavation, removal, and replacement
of contaminated soil. The recommendations include limiting construction activity within tree driplines, reporting
root damage, possibly limiting the use of some types of construction equipment, and steps to repair potential root
damage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, included above, would reduce impacts to remaining trees
to a less-than-significant level.
f) Since no local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the City, the proposed Project would not
conflict with any such plans.8 Therefore, no impacts would result from the proposed Project.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
DISCUSSION:
a) According to the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, there are no historical resources on or near the
Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact on historical resources.
b) There are no known archaeological resources in the City of Cupertino that are identified in the City’s General
Plan. Additionally, the Project site is not located immediately adjacent to creeks, streams, or oak groves, which are
identified as areas likely to be archaeologically sensitive according to the Development Investigation strategy of
Policy 2-63, Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, of the General Plan. Nonetheless, unknown sub-surface resources
may be accidentally encountered during construction activities and excavation. The following Mitigation Measure
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If historic/prehistoric artifacts or human remains are discovered during ground
disturbing activities, the following measures will be implemented:
In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
8 City of Cupertino, 2005, City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020, Section 5 – Environmental
Resources/Sustainability, Cupertino: City of Cupertino, pages 5-10 through 5-13.
127
27
Public Resources Code), in the event human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all
work within 50 feet of the find will stop and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office will be notified. If
the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native American
Heritage Commission to identify the “Most Likely Descendant” (MLD). The City of Cupertino, in
consultation with the MLD, would then prepare a plan for treatment, study, and re-internment of the
remains.
In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the
Public Resources Code), in the event that historical artifacts are found, all work within 50 feet of the find
will stop and a qualified archaeologist will examine the find. All significant artifacts and samples
recovered during construction would be cataloged and curated by a qualified archaeologist and placed in
an appropriate curation facility. The archaeologist must then submit a plan for evaluation of the resource
to the City of Cupertino for approval. If the evaluation of the resource concludes that the found resource
is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, a mitigation plan must be submitted to the
City of Cupertino for approval. The mitigation plan must be completed before earthmoving or
construction activities can recommence within the designated resource area.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts
to unknown archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.
c) No unique geological features have been identified for the Project site in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, it is
not expected that any new development on the site would adversely affect geological resources. However, it is
possible that unknown subsurface paleontological resources could be encountered during construction activities.
The following Mitigation Measure would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If paleontological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery shall be
halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and determine the significance of the
resource. Construction activities shall not recommence until the expert has issued an opinion about the
resource and appropriate mitigation has been determined.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts
to unknown paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.
d) For reasons discussed above in response to criteria b) and c), it is not expected that construction on the Project
site would result in an encounter with and possibly adverse effects on human remains. However, in the event of
such an encounter, Policy 2-64, Native American Burials, in the General Plan would mitigate impacts to Native
American burial sites. Strategy 1, Protection Measures, of this Policy requires that, upon discovery of such burials
during construction, actions should be taken as prescribed by State law, including stoppage of work in surrounding
area, notification of appropriate authorities and reburial of remains in an appropriate manner. The relevant State
laws include the following:
Health and Safety Code, Section 7052 and 7050.5
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony.
Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains
until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If determined to be Native
American, the coroner must contact the California Native Heritage Commission (NAHC).
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act
The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both State and private lands.
128
28
The Act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity cease and that the
county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the coroner must notify the California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the likelihood of
the disturbance of human remains to a less-than-significant level because its components will either eliminate
disturbance or minimize disturbance to the maximum extent practicable.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) i) – iv) According to the Health and Safety Element of the Cupertino General Plan, the Project site is located
within the “Valley” area of the City, and as such, is considered to be at a relatively low level of geologic hazard
risk. While construction activities could contribute to soil instability, compliancy with the 2013 California Building
129
29
Code (CBC) would reduce potential impacts through the inclusion of seismic design provisions that, when applied
are anticipated to resist minor earthquakes would damage, resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage,
and resist major earthquakes without collapse. Conformance to current building code standards does not guarantee
that structural damage will not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, but it is reasonable to
expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure would not collapse or cause loss of life in a major
earthquake. Even with construction standards as required under the CBC, strong ground shaking could cause
significant damage to structures and, in severe instances, result in injuries or loss of life. This is considered to be a
significant impact.
Ground shaking can lead to ground failure on slopes, or earthquake-induced landslides. 9 The terrain of the Project
site is generally flat and not susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there would be no significant risk of loss, injury,
or death due to landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards from the Project and a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior to the issuance of a building
permit. A geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and approve them as conforming to their
recommendations prior to construction. The Project geotechnical engineer shall provide geotechnical
observation during the construction, which will allow the geotechnical engineer to compare the actual with the
anticipated soil conditions and to check that the contractors’ work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of the
plans and specifications. The geotechnical engineer will prepare letters and as-built documents, to be
submitted to the City, to document their observances during construction and to document that the work
performed is in accordance with the Project plans and specifications.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
b) Construction activities could result in soil erosion on the Project site. The Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element of the Cupertino General Plan contains policies aimed at erosion control. General
Plan Policy 5-19, Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems, intends to reduce erosion by requiring site design
that respects the natural topography of the land and minimizes grading of the site. Policy 5-20, Reduction of
Impervious Surfaces, encourages the use of non-impervious surfaces in site development to reduce erosion
potential. Additionally, the California Water Resources Control Board requires the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control erosion during all permitted construction activities.10 Adherence to these erosion
control measures would reduce the potential for erosion to a less-than-significant level.
c) Given the site topography, and Project design, the Project site is not susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there
would be no significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards from the
Project and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
All development located in the “Valley” area of Cupertino is required to undergo a soils and foundation
investigation to determine the ability of local soil conditions to support structures as required by General Plan
Policy 6-1, which requires evaluations of soils, geology, and structural assessments. In addition, all new
construction in Cupertino must comply with the provisions of the CBC. Completing the soils and foundation
evaluation prior to construction and adhering to the CBC during new construction would reduce the risk related to
9 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, page C-12. 10 State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, 2013, Construction General Permit Fact
Sheet, 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ, Sacramento: State Water Resources
Control Board,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_
factsheet.pdf.
130
30
liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse to a less-than-significant level.
d) There is a potential risk of expansive soils in Cupertino. As previously discussed in section VI.c), all
development located in the Valley area of Cupertino is required to undergo a soils and foundation investigation to
determine the ability of local soil conditions to support structures as required by General Plan Policy 6-1. In
addition, all new construction in Cupertino must comply with the latest edition of the California Building Code.
The soils and foundation evaluation and adherence to the UBC would reduce the risk related to expansive soils to a
less-than-significant level.
e) The Project does not propose the use of a septic system. As a result, no impact would occur.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
DISCUSSION:
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts
of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, into the atmosphere. The primary source of
GHG emissions is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four
major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an
increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG emissions
identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.11,12 This section analyzes the
Project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions in California. A background discussion on the GHG
regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A. For purposes of this analysis, the significance
criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) may be relied upon to make the
following determinations:
a) The Project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore,
the GHG analysis measures the Project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. The development
contemplated by the proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG
from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the Project, and indirectly through off-site energy
production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated
for construction and operation of the Project.
Construction-Period
Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction of the proposed Project. Construction of the Project would
generate a total of 510 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) 13 emissions over the entire
11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Third Assessment Report: Climate Change.
12 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice
crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant. 13 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in
131
31
construction period (approximately 17 months from September 2014 to February 2016). Because construction
emissions are short term and would cease upon completion, GHG from construction activities would nominally
contribute to GHG emissions impacts. For this reason, BAAQMD does not identify a significance threshold for
Project-related construction emissions.14 Construction emissions (total and amortized over a 30-year duration) are
provided for informational purposes. Consequently, GHG emissions generated by Project-related construction
activities are considered less than significant.
Operational Phase
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies screening criteria for operation-related GHG emissions for a “hotel” of 83
rooms. Hotels with 83 rooms or more have the potential to generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions and
would need further analysis. The Project area is 148 rooms and would exceed the BAAQMD screening thresholds;
and therefore, a quantified GHG analysis is warranted.
Operation of the proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG
from transportation sources (vehicles traveling to and from the Project site), area sources (e.g., landscape
equipment), water use/wastewater generation, energy (electricity and natural gas use), and solid waste disposal.
The primary source of long-term increases in GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would be
emissions produced from Project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed Project would generate 1,209 average daily
trips during a weekday (see Section 15, Transportation and Traffic).15 The GHG emissions associated with the
proposed Project is shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project
would not exceed the bright-line significance criteria of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e).
Consequently, GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Table 2 Hyatt House Vallco Park GHG Emissions Inventory
Category
GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
Construction Phase
2014 173
2015 314
2016 24
Total Construction 510
30-Year Amortized Construction 17
Operational Phase
Area Sources <1
Energy Use 395
Mobile Sources 604
Waste Generation 37
the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on
the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines. 15 Hexagon Engineers, 2014, Trip Generation Estimates, Hyatt Hotel, Cupertino.
132
32
Water/Wastewater 5
Total Operational Phase 1,041
Bright-Line Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e
Exceeds Threshold? No
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent.
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
c) The following is a discussion of applicable plan, policy, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
CARB’s Scoping Plan
In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the 2008
Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the
reductions necessary, CARB projected Statewide 2020 business as usual (BAU) GHG emissions (i.e. GHG
emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the State as a whole
would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB
32.16 A revised BAU 2020 forecast conducted after publication of the 2008 Scoping Plan by CARB showed that
the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without implementation of the Pavley
fuel efficiency standards and the 33 percent renewable portfolio standards (RPS), or 15.7 percent from the adjusted
baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS).17
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance
Energy Efficiency regulations; California Building Standards (i.e., CALGreen and the 2008 Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards); California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard (33 percent RPS); changes in the corporate
average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley II); and other measures that would ensure the State is on
target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that
are being implemented over the next six years would reduce the proposed Project’s GHG emissions.
New structures would meet the current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2013 Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards became effective July 1, 2014. The 2013 Standards are 30 percent more energy efficient than
the 2008 standards for non-residential buildings. The new buildings would also be constructed in conformance with
CALGreen, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures for indoor plumbing and water-efficient irrigation
systems.
The proposed Project would not conflict with statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
MTC’s/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area
To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the
region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development
Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities.
Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth by 2040 is allocated within PDAs. PDAs are expected to
16 California Air Resources Board, 2008, Climate Change Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
17 California Air Resources Board, 2012, Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
133
33
accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.18
Consequently, an overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are
existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial
transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated
GHG emissions reductions. The proposed Project is an infill project in Cupertino and would be consistent with the
overall goals of Plan Bay Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the land use concept plan
for the City of Cupertino identified in the Plan Bay Area and impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
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?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
X
18 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013, Plan Bay
Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region.
134
34
DISCUSSION:
a) The proposed Project would not include the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials. During the
operational phase of the Project, common cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints and solvents,
and similar items would be stored and used on-site. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or
be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Thus,
associated impacts from the buildout operational phase of the Project would be less than significant.
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would involve the routine use and handling of small amounts of
hazardous materials (i.e. diesel gasoline, fertilizers, etc.). Construction activities at the Project site would involve
the use of petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, which would be transported to the
site periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous
materials, however, would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities on-site to pose a significant hazard
to public health and safety or the environment. Consequently, associated impacts from construction of the Project
would be less than significant.
b) As described in Section 8.a) above, operation of the Project would involve the storage and use of common
cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints, and solvents. These potentially hazardous substances
would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities on-site to pose a significant hazard to public health and
safety or the environment. The storage and use of these materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and
local regulations, such as the following:
U.S. EPA laws and regulations ensure the safe production, handling, disposal, and transportation of hazardous
materials. Laws and regulations established by the U.S. EPA are enforced locally by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA).
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and 19 California Code of Regulations Section 2729 set out
the minimum requirements for business emergency plans. These regulations require businesses to provide
emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical
inventory, disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site. A business that uses hazardous
materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan, if the
hazardous materials are handled in certain quantities.
Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the risk of accidents and spills is minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Consequently, associated impacts would be less than significant.
c) The Project site is not within one-quarter mile of any current or proposed schools. Thus, there would be no
impact related to hazardous emissions or hazardous material handling within ¼-mile of a school.
d) The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.19 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I), included as Appendix D of this Initial
Study, was conducted for the Vallco Shopping Mall by Ceres Associates on May 5, 2006. The Phase I determined
that Sears Automotive Center and JC Penny, located adjacent to the south and east ends of the property,
respectively, are listed as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, and both have closure letters issued by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Phase I determined that, based on the regulatory status of these sites, it
is not anticipated that these sites would have had an adverse impact on the environmental quality of the greater
Vallco Shopping Mall site, and consequently, the small Project site. As a result, a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
19 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/
public/, accessed on May 19, 2014.
135
35
e) The closest public use airport to Cupertino is the Mineta San José International Airport, which is located
approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project site. As a result, the Project site is not within the airport’s land use
plan and no impact would occur.
f) There are no private airstrips within or in immediate proximity to the City. Therefore, there would be no impact.
g) The Cupertino Emergency Plan establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and
recovery activities within the City. The Cupertino Emergency Plan addresses interagency coordination, procedures
to maintain communications with county and State emergency response teams, methods to assess the extent of
damage, and management of volunteers. Santa Clara County has also adopted an Emergency Plan and a Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, which identify emergency response programs related to hazardous waste incidents. The
Project would not conflict with any of these adopted plans. Therefore, no impact to an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur.
h) Wildland fires are not a threat to the urbanized, central Cupertino area. If an urban fire were to threaten the
central Cupertino area, firefighting and emergency medical services would be provided by the Santa Clara County
Fire Department (SCCFD). The Project site is located within the 1.5-mile service radius of the SCCFD Cupertino
Fire Station, located at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard at Vista Drive. In addition, the County has mutual aid
agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to augment their fire response capabilities in case additional services are
necessary. Since wildland fire is not an immediate threat to the proposed Project area, and based on the current fire-
response capability, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (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 for which permits
have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
X
136
36
site?
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?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
X
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?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
DISCUSSION:
a), f) The following is a discussion of the potential violation of water quality standards, waste discharge, or
substantially degradation of water quality.
Construction Impacts
There is the potential for construction of the proposed Project, including grading and excavation activities, to result
in temporary impacts to water quality. The disturbance of underlying soils with the excavation and construction of
the underground garage also has the potential to result in sedimentation and erosion. However, consistent with the
Statewide Construction General Permit, the project applicant is required to prepare and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In addition, the Cupertino Municipal Code 9.18 states that the SWPPP must
include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize potential water quality impacts, including erosion control,
run-on and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment systems, good site management, and non-stormwater
management. Some of the potential BMPs that would be identified in the SWPPP and implemented at the site
include the following:
Minimize ground disturbance during the rainy season
Stabilize disturbed soils as soon as possible following completion of work, using hydroseeding, soil binders,
mulch, mats, earth dikes, or drainage swales
Preserve existing vegetation, where feasible
Use silt fences or fiber rolls around the perimeter of the site
Protect all storm drain inlets with fiber rolls, gravel bag barriers, or other methods to prevent sediment from
entering the storm drain system
Use water trucks for dust control
Stabilize all construction entrances and exits to prevent the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads
Cover stockpiles, surround them with sediment controls, and locate away from storm drain inlets
Train construction site personnel on implementing and monitoring BMPs
With implementation of the BMPs identified in the SWPPP, the impact of runoff from construction activities at the
Project site would result in a less than significant impact on water quality.
137
37
Operational Impacts
The site is currently a large surface parking lot, which would be converted to a 148-room hotel, with a restaurant
and meeting rooms and underground parking as the proposed Project. The amount of impervious surfaces would be
reduced from current conditions with the installation of bio-retention planters and a detention basin. However,
there is still the potential for runoff from the site to contain sediment, nutrients, trash and debris, soil and grease,
and herbicides/pesticides, which would impact downstream water quality. Under the NPDES Municipal Regional
Permit (MRP), Provision C.3 requirements, the Project applicant is required to incorporate site design, source
control, and stormwater treatment measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff. The C.3
provisions require that low impact development (LID) methods be the mechanism for implementing such controls.
In addition, Chapter 9.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code requires the project applicant to treat 100% of the
runoff quantity with LID treatment measures, as determined by the sizing criteria identified in Provision C.3.d of
the MRP. Other provisions of Chapter 9.18 require the applicant to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan and a
completed City of Cupertino Regulated Development Project Checklist that detail how runoff and associated water
quality impacts would be controlled or managed. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner of the site
must enter into a formal written Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the
City and must inspect any stormwater treatment systems at least once a year with written records provided annually
in a report to the City. Stormwater treatment measures initially identified for implementation at the site include a
bio-retention basin with a surface area of approximately 2,557 square feet.
With implementation of the LID stormwater treatment measures as detailed in the Stormwater Management Plan,
the impact of runoff from the Project site on water quality would be less than significant. In addition, the measures
that would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project would not otherwise substantially
degrade water quality and this impact would also be less than significant.
b) The Project would result in a net decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces and there would be increased
infiltration at the site with the construction of the bio-retention basin. This would result in a beneficial impact on
groundwater recharge. The Project would use water supplied by the California Water Service Company and
development of the site would not interfere with groundwater recharge of the local aquifer used for drinking water
supply. It is not anticipated that construction of the Project, including the one-story underground garage, would be
at depths greater than 20 feet and regional groundwater in the site vicinity is typically at least 50 feet below ground
surface (bgs). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that groundwater would be encountered during construction and that
dewatering would be necessary. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater recharge or
groundwater resources.
c) - d) A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project resulted in an increase in the volume or rate of
surface runoff that would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding at the site or nearby properties. Implementation of
the Project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns at the site; stormwater runoff would still be
discharged into the City’s storm drain system. In addition, the Project would include a bio-retention basin of
approximately 2,557 square feet in the northern corner of the Project that would collect stormwater that falls in the
parking areas and direct it through pervious soil for infiltration and treatment prior to discharge to the City's storm
drain system. Construction of the proposed Project would also result in a net reduction in the amount of impervious
surface at the site, thus minimizing the potential for increased stormwater flow rates and volumes. Finally,
adherence to the County’s C.3 requirements and the City’s requirement to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan
that requires treatment of 100 percemt of the stormwater runoff with LID practices would ensure that impacts are
less than significant and would not result in significant erosion, siltation, or flooding on-site or off-site.
e) A significant impact could occur if implementation of the Project resulted in an increase in the volume of storm
138
38
water runoff to a level which exceeds the capacity of the storm drain system or if the Project results in additional
sources of polluted runoff. The Project site is currently developed as a parking lot with discharge of surface runoff
into the City’s storm drain system. The proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface and
would also include a bio-retention basin to collect stormwater runoff for infiltration and treatment prior to
discharge to the storm drain system. This would result in less stormwater entering the storm drain system as
compared to existing conditions. In addition, the Project would be required to implement all applicable and
mandatory BMPs during construction and operation in accordance with the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara
County C.3 requirements. This would ensure that additional sources of polluted runoff do not occur. The Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on the existing storm drain system’s capacity and would not create
additional sources of polluted runoff.
g)The proposed Project is not located in a 100-year floodplain;20 therefore, no impact would occur.
h)Due to the location of the Project outside of the 100-year flood plain, no impediment to or redirection of flood
flows would take place. No impact would occur.
i)According to the ABAG dam inundation maps, the dam inundation zone for Stevens Creek Reservoir does not
extend south of Interstate 280. Therefore, potential flooding from a failure of this dam would not extend to the
Project site. There are no levees in the vicinity of the Project site. Thus, there would be no impact related to
flooding from a dam or levee with implementation of the Project.
j)Because the Project site is more than 6 miles south of San Francisco Bay and is 178 feet above msl, there is no
potential for a tsunami to impact the Project site. With regard to a seiche, there are no large, enclosed bodies of
water in close proximity to the Project site that could generate a seiche. The Project site is in a relatively flat area of
the City and far from the hillside areas where there is a potential for mudflows. According to the ABAG map of
rainfall-induced landslides, the site is not within the area where landslides or mudflows could occur. As such, there
would be no impact associated with tsunami, mudflow, or seiche events.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a)Physically divide an established community?X
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the Project site is used as parking for the adjacent commercial space. The Cupertino General Plan
designates the Project site as office/ industrial/ commercial/ residential. Additionally, the Project site is within the
plan area of Cupertino’s Heart of the City Specific Plan. This Plan provides guidance in addition to the General
Plan and serves to implement the General Plan. In addition to these plans, the site is within the South Vallco
Master Plan. This Master Plan serves to implement Policy 2-30, Strategy 1, of the current General Plan, which calls
20 FEMA FIRM Map No. 06087C0050E, dated May 16, 2012.
139
39
for the creation of a master plan in this area to determine the precise mix of land uses. As noted above, the Heart of
the City Specific Plan contains the zoning regulations for the Project site. Figure 3 of this plan shows that the
Project site is within an area designated as P (Regional Shopping). However, the general provisions, definitions,
and administration chapters of the Zoning Code (contained in Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) are also
applicable to the Project site, including the process for plan and design review. Additionally, Section 14.18 of the
Municipal Code contains provisions related to trees in Cupertino that are protected from removal, as well as the
procedures that comprise the process of removing protected trees.
a) Construction of the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were sufficiently large
or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other physical division within an
established community. Given that the Project site is surrounded by road on all sides and the adjoining land use is a
shopping center, conversion of the site to a hotel will not divide a community and no impact would occur.
b) As discussed above, the site is designated as office/ industrial/ commercial/ residential in the General Plan.
Additionally, Figure 2-B in the Land Use/ Community Design Element, Community Form, shows that the Project
site is within the Vallco Regional Commercial, Entertainment and Residential Mixed Use district. The proposed
hotel/restaurant/bar use would be consistent with the land use designations.
Development in Cupertino is regulated by development allocations which are specified in the General Plan. Table
2-A in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Development Allocation, shows that in the Vallco Park South
area of the City, where the Project site is located, there were 180 hotel rooms built as of 2010; at buildout, the
City’s development allocation would permit 519 hotel rooms in the area. Since the proposed Project would include
148 hotel rooms, buildout of the proposed Project would leave a remaining hotel room allocation of 191 hotel
rooms. Therefore, since the Project would not exceed the predetermined hotel room allocation in the area, it would
be consistent with the General Plan in this respect. Additionally, Figure 2-D, Maximum Building Heights in the
Land Use/Community Design Element, shows that on the Project site the maximum allowed building height is
45 feet, unless there is a retail component, in which case the maximum height allowed is 60 feet tall. The proposed
Project would be 60 feet tall with inclusion of the restaurant.
The Cupertino General Plan contains various goals and policies which are intended to guide development in the
city, including the following which pertain to the planning areas that overlay the Project site.
Policy 2-27: Heart of the City
Create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of mixed use development, enhanced
activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transportation.
Policy 2-30: Vallco Park South
Retain and enhance Vallco Park South as a large-scale commercial area that is a regional commercial
(including hotel), office and entertainment center with supporting residential development.
Heart of the City Specific Plan
As described above, the Heart of the City Specific Plan provides additional development guidance for
Cupertino’s main commercial center, and in this way serves to implement the City’s current 2000–2020
General Plan, particularly Policy 2-27, as listed above. The Heart of the City Specific Plan policies and
development standards concentrate on requiring high-quality site planning and architectural design,
discouraging subdivision of commercial and mixed-use parcels, as well as improving pedestrian mobility by
encouraging projects within the boundaries of the plan to include pedestrian and bicycle pathways that are
incorporated into the City’s existing network. Additionally, this plan provides the zoning designations for the
140
40
Plan area, including the Project site. Figure 3 in this specific plan identifies the Project site as being zoned P
(Regional Shopping). Section 1.01.020 Land Use and Zoning – Permitted and Conditional Uses, states that for
commercial properties, all permitted and Conditional Uses in the Heart of the City Specific Plan shall be in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regulations of the City’s General Commercial (CG) zoning district.
Development standards in this specific plan are intended to promote high quality private-sector development
and include standards related to building height, setbacks, site development, parking, common open space, and
landscaping. Additionally, there are design guidelines related to special architectural features, building
clusters, façade composition, windows, and plant materials.
South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master plan provides guidelines and a framework dealing with the coordination and
interface of the properties in the area commonly referred to as South Vallco. The South Vallco Master Plan
identifies the Project site as the potential location for a hotel.
Cupertino Zoning Code – Municipal Code Title 19
As stated above, Section 1.01.020 Land Use and Zoning – Permitted and Conditional Uses, in the Heart of the
City Specific Plan, states that for commercial properties, all permitted and Conditional Uses in the Heart of the
City Specific Plan shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regulations of the City’s General
Commercial (CG) zoning district. Table 19.60.030, in the Cupertino Zoning Code shows that hotels are
conditionally permitted in the CG zone, requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with review by the
Planning Commission. Therefore, once a CUP is approved, the proposed Project would be consistent with the
Cupertino Zoning Code.
Given that the proposed Project would create a hotel in an area with remaining development allocation for hotel
rooms and would be required to go through the City’s design review process, the Project is consistent with the
above goals and policies. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c) The proposed Project is not within the boundary of any habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. The Study Area boundary of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan is coterminous with the
Cupertino City limits to the east and south of the Project site. Therefore, no impact would result in this respect.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS) classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral
Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as
141
41
mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred
significant mineral resources are present in areas. Lead Agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs
delineated by the State into their General Plans.21
Figure 5-B, Mineral Resources, in the Environmental Resources/ Sustainability Element of the Cupertino General
Plan, identifies MRZs. MRZ-3, as identified in the Cupertino General Plan appears to overlap the northwest corner
of the Project site.22
a) - b) As discussed above, the Project site appears to be located within an MRZ delineated in the Cupertino
General Plan. However, given the relatively small area identified within the Project site as well as the extensive
ground disturbing activities that have occurred within the Project site and in the surrounding areas future
exploitation of this mineral resources is exceedingly unlikely. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project
would not result in a substantial loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
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?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
X
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 expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
The following sections evaluate potential noise impacts from construction and operational activities of the Project.
A background discussion on the basics of acoustics and the noise regulatory setting can be found in Appendix E to
this Initial Study.
a) Section 6, Health and Safety, of the City of Cupertino’s General Plan includes guidelines for the development of
21 Public Resources Code Section 2762(a)(1).
22 City of Cupertino General Plan, Section 5 – Environmental Resources/Sustainability,
http://www.cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1507, accessed on June 10, 2014.
142
42
land uses according to community exposure to ambient noise. The maximum normally acceptable ambient noise
level for transient lodging, such as hotels and motels, is 65 dBA CNEL. The project site is located in an area within
the City’s 70-dBA CNEL noise contour;23 the northern building façade would be exposed to noise from traffic on
Interstate 280 of approximately 75 dBA CNEL. The proposed hotel, as “Transient Lodging,” would therefore be a
“Normally Unacceptable” use. For “normally unacceptable” uses, “new construction or development should
generally be discouraged.”24 However, the General Plan also indicates that “If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.” Because standard construction methods are not expected to provide enough
insulation to achieve a normally acceptable designation, a significant impact would occur without additional noise
protection measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit an
acoustic study to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director to demonstrate that all hotel
rooms meet an interior noise level due to exterior noise of 45 dBA CNEL, consistent with State and local
noise standards. The study shall be based on precise grading and architectural plans including specific
construction method details and materials to calculate the necessary exterior to interior noise reduction of
approximately 30 dBA to achieve 45 dBA CNEL. The precise exterior to interior reduction would be
determined in the acoustical study when precise grading plans with building elevations, footprints and
architectural plans are available. The applicant will be required to incorporate into the Project design all
required noise insulation features and techniques necessary to reduce interior noise levels to achieve the
interior noise standard. To achieve the required interior noise levels, features such as upgraded exterior wall
and roof assemblies, upgraded windows, and exterior doors may be required. In addition, a “windows closed”
condition will be required with minimum supply of fresh air per UBC requirements.
Significance After Mitigation: Through the selection of appropriate architectural elements and with proper
construction and installation techniques, interior impacts resulting from exterior noise levels would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level.
Additionally, Chapter 10.48, Noise Ordinance, and Title 19, Zoning Ordinance, of the Cupertino Municipal Code
contain multiple provisions to limit the generation and reception of excessive noise that would be applicable to the
proposed Project. Such provisions include, but are not limited to restrictions on construction activity, strict
limitations on noise generation as received at property lines, and performance standards for the permitting of
commercial and industrial uses.
Operations of the proposed Project are not anticipated to result in excessive daytime or nighttime noise levels. The
project would not include significant outdoor activities, and such activities would generally be limited to use of the
hotel’s pool, primarily during daytime hours. Moreover, since the nearest non-residential use would be over 200
feet from the Project’s outdoor recreation areas, and since the nearest residential use would be over 700 feet from
these areas, noise in excess of local standards from use of these areas is regarded as extremely unlikely.
Landscaping activities associated with operations of the hotel would conform with §10.48.051 Landscape
Maintenance Activities, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The proposed Project would not be adjacent to any
residential uses, thus §10.48.062, Nighttime Deliveries and Pickups would not apply; however, the hotel will also
be unlikely to engage in nighttime deliveries or pickups, given the potential disturbance to guests. It shall be noted
23 City of Cupertino, 2010, City of Cupertino General Plan, Section 6 – Health and Safety, Cupertino, CA: City
of Cupertino, http://www.cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1506. 24 City of Cupertino, 2010, City of Cupertino General Plan, Section 6 – Health and Safety, Cupertino, CA: City
of Cupertino, http://www.cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1506.
143
43
that noise from the operation of stationary equipment, landscaping activities and outdoor activities would be
overshadowed by traffic on the 280 Freeway.
Construction activities associated with development of the proposed Project would conform with the requirements
of §10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Construction activities on
the limited portions of the Project site that are within 750 feet of a residential use would be restricted to the hours
prescribed by §10.48.053 of the Municipal Code. Additionally, construction at the Project site would not violate
portions of the Municipal Code related to the reception of construction noise at property lines. (See section XII.d.
below for additional discussion of construction noise impacts.)
Therefore development of the proposed Project would result in less-than significant impacts with respect to
potential violations of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
b) Vibration impacts can be in the form of damage to structures or can involve annoyance to nearby sensitive land
uses. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Building damage is not a
factor for normal projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction.25
The nearest vibration-sensitive land use to the Project site is a residential area approximately 730 feet to the west of
the site. The building closest to the project site is the Alexander’s Steakhouse restaurant, approximately 200 feet
south of the Project site. The proposed Project does not include pile driving, and would therefore not make use of
the most vibration-intense construction activities and equipment. Because the Project does not involve rock
blasting or pile driving, and because there would be no heavy construction equipment within at least 100 feet of an
existing structure, vibration-induced structural damage would not occur. Additionally, since the structures in the
vicinity of the Project site are of recent construction and are actually located over 200 feet from the anticipated
construction area, it is extremely unlikely that even the most vibration-intense construction activities anticipated
for the Project would not have the potential to result in structural damage.
Given that vibratory rollers are the most vibration-intense piece of construction equipment anticipated for use
during Project construction, it is possible to estimate likely vibration levels at the nearest occupied structures.
Based on typical vibration levels from vibratory rollers, the anticipated maximum level of vibration at the adjacent
restaurant is 0.067 PPV (in/sec).26 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) identifies 0.08 PPV
(in/sec) as the threshold for vibration to become “readily perceptible,” and 0.10 PPV as the level where continuous
vibration begins to annoy people.27 Since project construction activities would not generate average vibration
levels that exceed the Caltrans vibration annoyance threshold, no significant vibration impact from exposure of
persons to excessive levels of vibration would occur during project construction activities. Moreover, vibration-
intense construction equipment would tend to move around the Project site, and 200 feet is the minimum distance
which equipment would be from nearby uses. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibration and groundborne
noise would be less than significant.
c) Operation of the hotel and adjacent future potential trail has the potential to cause noise associated with activities
25 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States
Department of Transportation. FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May. 26 Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration,
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). 27 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2004, June. Transportation- and Construction-Induced
Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis.
2002, February. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration (Caltrans Experiences). Technical Advisory, Vibration.
TAV-02-01-R9601.
144
44
such as vehicle parking, persons talking, trash collection, landscaping, guests using the pool, patio, and outdoor
dining terrace, and dogs barking on the trail to the north. The ambient noise environment is dominated by traffic
noise on I-280 and North Wolfe Road. Trash collection, landscaping, and dogs barking are expected to last for a
relatively short duration and their occurrences at the site would be infrequent. Nearby residential uses already
experience similar noise levels from similar activities.
Noise from traffic on Interstate 280 would generally overshadow any noise from operations of the hotel. The
project will not generate significant increases in vehicle flows, compared to the existing conditions, on any of the
surrounding streets and intersections. In general +3 dBA is the minimum increment necessary to constitute a
substantial increase in ambient noise levels. An approximate doubling of traffic volumes is the minimum necessary
to result in a 3 dBA increase in noise generated by a particular roadway. The proposed Project is anticipated to
generate peak hour increases in traffic that represent far less than a doubling of traffic volumes. Therefore, project-
related traffic noise would result in far less than a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels, and would not result in
significant increases over existing levels.
Due to proximity to I-280 and North Wolfe Road, it is anticipated that traffic noise will generally overshadow
noise from vehicle parking, from persons talking/yelling, and from dogs barking/playing. Dogs barking and guests,
especially children, using the pool and patio area will be sporadically heard at the restaurants and shops to the
south of the site. The parking lot will have overhead lighting, and the hotel would be open to guests 24 hours a day.
However, activity in the hotel parking lot is expected to be minimal during the most noise-sensitive hours of the
evening/nighttime. Therefore, noise impacts from hotel operations would not cause substantial noise increases to
nearby receptors, noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Construction activities are anticipated to occur over a 17-month period. Noise during construction will be related
to the use of heavy construction equipment including import and export trucks, a backhoe, a roller/paver, a grader,
an excavator, a set of generators, and a crane. Typical duty cycles and noise levels generated by heavy construction
equipment such as bulldozers can generate up to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet away.28 As noise dissipates rapidly with
distance (at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance), the noise levels when a heavy piece of construction
equipment is operating at the nearest structure, the Alexander’s Steakhouse restaurant, at 200 feet away would be
73 dBA Lmax, and at the nearest homes, which are 730 feet away, it would be 62 dBA Lmax. Section 10.48.053 of
the City’s Municipal Code requires that noise levels during construction either do not exceed 87 dBA Lmax at a
distance of 25 feet, or that the noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. These projected noise
levels would not exceed City thresholds at the Alexander’s Steakhouse restaurant to the south of the project Site.
Also, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and only on weekdays (i.e., 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday). As a result, a less than significant would occur.
e) The closest public use airport to Cupertino is the Mineta San José International Airport, which is located
approximately five miles to the northeast of the Project site. The project site is located well outside the 65 dBA
CNEL airport noise contour. Additionally, as discussed in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan,
aircraft flying into Moffett Field Naval Air Station are restricted to the northeastern corner of Cupertino, and would
not affect the proposed project. Although noise from aircraft may be perceptible at times at the proposed Project
site, such noise would occur infrequently, would not be excessively loud, and would not have a substantial effect
on the ambient noise environment. As a result, a less-than- significant impact would occur.
f) There are no private airstrips within or in immediate proximity to the City. Therefore, there would be no impact.
28 Thalheimer, E., 2000, Construction Noise Control Program and Mitigation Strategy as the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
145
45
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
DISCUSSION:
Cupertino is the seventh largest city in Santa Clara County behind the cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose,
Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Milpitas. In 2010 there were a total of 58,302 residents.29 This is up from a total
population of 50,546 in the year 2000, representing a 15 percent increase in 10 years. In 2010 there were a total of
20,181 households in Cupertino.30 This is an increase from the 18,204 households that existed in 2000,
representing an 11 percent increase.31 This shows that the rate of new housing developed in Cupertino has not kept
pace with the rate of population growth. Therefore, it makes sense that persons per household, or average
household size, has increased from 2.75 to 2.87 from 2000 to 2010.32,33 The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) projects that Cupertino’s population will reach 68,700 by 2035.34
a) For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the proposed Project would result in a substantial and unplanned
level of growth if estimated development exceeds local or regional growth projections. The Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) is the regional body for projecting regional growth down to the local level.
The proposed Project would not result in the construction of any permanent housing units. This means that there
would not be any new permanent residents residing on the Project site. The development of the proposed hotel
would generate additional employees on the Project site. The City of Cupertino uses an employee generation rate
for hotels of .3 jobs per guest room. Since the proposed Project entails 148 guest rooms, it is estimated that 45
employees would result from that component of the Project. With respect to the restaurant/bar component, which
would be classified as commercial space, the City of Cupertino estimates that for each 450 square feet of
commercial space, one job will be generated. Given the bar/restaurant would occupy approximately 1,000 square
feet of space on the ground floor, an additional three employees would be generated from this component of the
Project. This means it is estimated that a total of 48 employees would be generated as a result of the proposed
Project. Since there are not currently any businesses or housing units occupying the Project site, this would be a
direct inducement of 48 employees. Some of these new employees may move to Cupertino, however; it is
unknown whether this would happen or whether employees would be current Cupertino residents. Furthermore, it
is anticipated that most new employees that move to Cupertino would be accommodated in the existing housing
29 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table. 30 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table.
31 U.S Census Bureau, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census Summary File 1,
Table DP-1. 32 U.S Census Bureau, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census Summary File 1, Table
DP-1. 33 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table.
34 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table
146
46
stock. Moreover, this level of growth would represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the population of
Cupertino in 2010.35
From 2010 to 2015 ABAG projects population growth of 1,898 people, and from 2015 to 2020 ABAG projects
growth of 1,900.36 Therefore, even without considering the environmental review done as part of the Heart of the
City Specific Plan, the growth inducement resulting from the proposed Project would not exceed regional growth
projections. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include the construction of infrastructure or roads which
would indirectly induce additional population growth. Therefore, a less than significant impact would result in this
respect.
b) The Project site is currently occupied by space dedicated to parking and does not contain any residential units or
businesses. Therefore, the Project would have no impact associated with the displacement of substantial numbers
of people.
c) Since, as described above, the Project site does not currently contain residential units or businesses, and
therefore does not contain residents or employees, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of
people. Some new employees may move to Cupertino, however, but it is unknown whether this would happen or
whether employees would be current Cupertino residents. In addition, it is anticipated that most new employees
that do move to Cupertino would be accommodated in the existing housing stock. Therefore, a less-than-significant
impact would result in this respect.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION:
a) The primary purpose of a public services impact analysis is to determine whether public service facilities (police
and fire stations, public facilities, etc.) would need to be expanded as the result of a new project, and whether the
expansion would result in potential environmental impacts. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in
population and increases in uses that could result in service calls. The proposed Project would not directly result in
population growth, however the uses proposed within the Project would likely generate more demand than the
35 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table.
36 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013, Jurisdictional Boundary Table.
147
47
current parking lot located within the Project site. Given the number of employees, it is anticipated that the hotel’s
new employees would not relocate to Cupertino as a result of the Project because the employees would either be
existing residents of Cupertino, or they would commute from their current residences outside Cupertino. It should
be noted that the proposed Project conforms to the South Vallco Master Plan and the Heart of the City Specific
Plan. An environmental review has already been conducted for these plans, and impacts to Public Services have
been accounted for in the previous environmental review documents.
i) Fire protection in the City of Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). The
closest SCCFD station to the Project site is the Cupertino Station, which is located 1.2 miles away at 20215
Stevens Creek Boulevard. During environmental evaluation of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning currently underway, which includes a planned increase of 1,339 hotel rooms
within the City, the SCCFD confirmed that the existing facilities, equipment, and staffing levels would be adequate
to accommodate growth anticipated under the updated General Plan, which includes a planned increase of 1,339
hotel rooms in the City.37 Additionally, compliance with Municipal Code Section 16.40.065 would require future
development to undergo plan review and approval by the SCCFD to ensure that future projects comply with State
and local fire codes, as well as ensure adequate safety features are incorporated into building design to minimize
risk of fire. Because the Project proposes 148 hotel rooms, which is in conformance with the current hotel room
allocation for the Vallco Park South Planning Area, the proposed Project would not require construction of new or
physically altered fire stations, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
ii) The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) and the West
Valley Patrol Division for police protection services. The West Valley Patrol Division is headquartered at the
Westside Sheriff’s Substation at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. During environmental evaluation of
the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning currently underway, which
includes a planned increase of 1,339 hotel rooms within the City, the Sheriff’s Office confirmed that the increase in
demand would not require new or physically altered facilities. Because the Project proposes 148 hotel rooms,
which is in conformance with current development allocations as noted above, the proposed Project would not
require the construction of new or physically altered police facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
iii) Public schools in the City of Cupertino are provided by the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the
Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). Since implementation of the proposed Project would not directly
result in population growth, CUSD and FUHSD are not anticipated to require additional resources beyond what is
already projected, and the proposed Project would therefore cause no impact to schools.
iv) As discussed below in Section XV., Parks and Recreation, given the limited number of new employees that
would be required by the Project site, it is not expected that this Project would result in an increase in the use of
existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration would occur. As a result, a less-than-significant impact
would result.
v) The Santa Clara County Library District is responsible for the operation of public libraries in Santa Clara
county, including the Cupertino Library. Employees and hotel guests may wish to visit the Cupertino Library and
utilize its resources during their stay. This impact, however, is expected to be negligible and is not anticipated to
significantly increase the current rate of library resource utilization. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities
would be less than significant.
37 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County
Fire Department on April 24, 2014.
148
48
XV. PARKS AND RECREATION. Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
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?
X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Cupertino maintains an array of parks, athletic fields, and picnic areas. Some of the parks and
recreation facilitates in Cupertino include: Blackberry farm, Cali Mill Plaza, Creekside Park, Franco Park, Hoover
Park, Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, McClellan Ranch Preserve, Memorial Park, Monta Vista Park, Portal Park,
Somerset Square Park, Sterling Barnhart Park, Three Oaks Park, Varian Park, and Wilson Park.
a) As discussed in section 13, Population and Housing, the proposed Project does not include any residential units
and therefore would not directly induce population growth. However, development of the proposed hotel would
generate additional employees on the Project site. Using the City’s method for estimating employees generated
from implementation of the Project (as described above in section 13, Population and Housing) an additional 48
employees would generated. It is anticipated that the majority of these new employees would not relocate to
Cupertino as a result of the Project because they would either be existing residents of Cupertino or they would
commute from their current residences outside Cupertino. Given the limited number of new employees it is not
expected that this Project would result in an increase in the use of existing parks such that substantial physical
deterioration would occur. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would result.
b) The proposed Project does not include components which would entail the construction of recreational facilities.
Should fees and taxes collected as a result of implementation of the proposed Project be used to fund the
construction of recreational facilities, such projects would be subject to separate environmental review processes in
accordance with the CEQA statute. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion X
149
49
management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) The proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of a hotel on a parking lot adjacent to I-280.
As determined by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in the Traffic Impact Analysis (included in Appendix F),
the results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all of the study intersections are expected to
operate at acceptable levels of service under all conditions during the operational phase of the Project. As a result,
the Project would not conflict with applicable plans that measure the effectiveness for the performance of the
existing circulation system. As result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b) Construction of the proposed Project would attract users (i.e., hotel guests and employees) which could impact
vehicle traffic standards. As determined in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project would result in a total of
78 trips during the AM peak period and 89 trips during the PM peak period. As a result, the level of service
analysis under existing plus Project conditions show that all study intersections would operate at an acceptable
level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, meeting the City of Cupertino
standards. Additionally, under existing plus Project conditions, all of the study CMP intersections would operate at
an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. As a result, the
Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c) The proposed Project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns for either commercial or private aircraft,
thus it would have no impact on air traffic.
d) The proposed Project would not introduce any features along roadways or at intersections adjacent to the site
that would constitute a design hazard or introduce incompatible uses. Roadway designs surrounding and within the
proposed Project would be required to conform to standards set by the City of Cupertino, as well as applicable
State building codes, as adopted through §16.04.010 Code Adoption of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Therefore,
there would be a less-than-significant impact related to design features or incompatible uses.
e) Emergency access to the proposed Project would be provided through the entrances to the south of the site along
Perimeter Road, as it is under existing conditions. These access points would be designed in accordance with
provisions of the California Fire Code, as adopted and amended by §16.40.120 Fire Apparatus Access Roads, of
the Cupertino Municipal Code. Therefore, there would be no impact.
150
50
f) The proposed Project would result in a repaving and repurposing of an existing paved path which does not
include or connect to public transit or bicycle facilities. The path, under both existing conditions and the proposed
Project, could be used by pedestrians. Improvements would also include a 15-foot path connection onsite on the
west side for access to a future trail along the north side of the property. The proposed Project would not result in a
conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities; therefore, no
impact would occur.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
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?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
DISCUSSION:
a) The proposed Project would require treatment of wastewater generated within the Project site by the use of
toilets, sinks, showers, drinking fountains, and laundry facilities. The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) collection
system directs wastewater to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP), a joint powers
authority.
The San Francisco RWQCB established wastewater treatment requirements for the SJ/SCWPCP in an NPDES
Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038), adopted April 8, 2009 and effective June 1, 2009.38 The NPDES Permit sets out
a framework for compliance and enforcement applicable to operation of the SJ/SCWPCP and its effluent, as well
as those contributing influent to the SJ/SCWPCP. This NPDES Permit currently allows dry weather discharges of
up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271 mgd
with full tertiary treatment.
38 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2009/april/SJSC_FinalOrder%20-%204-09.pdf.
151
51
The CSD is one of six satellite collection systems that discharge into the SJ/SCWPCP. Each satellite collection
system is responsible for an ongoing program of maintenance and capital improvements for sewer lines and pump
stations within its respective jurisdiction, in order to ensure adequate capacity and reliability of the collection
system. The responsibilities include managing overflows, controlling Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) and
implementing collection system maintenance.
The CSD has a contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SCWPCP of 7.85 million gallon per day (mgd), on
average. Current wastewater flow to SJ/SC WPCP is 5.3 mgd.39 The CSD prepared a flow capacity analysis in
2008 to determine whether the CSD had excess contractual SJ/SC WPCP capacity available to sell to the City of
Milpitas. The analysis indicated that the total CSD wide demand would be 7.2 mgd upon buildout of the 2020
General Plan,40 leaving 0.6 mgd remaining capacity for development beyond that previously allocated. As
indicated in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the Project is consistent with the development allocations in the
General Plan.
With continued compliance with Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code establishing standards for individual
onsite sewage disposal systems consistent with RWQCB standards, as well as compliance with the Cupertino
Sanitary District Operations Code, projected wastewater generated from the Project would not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements or capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP. Therefore, given that the Project is consistent
with the current General Plan, the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB would not be
exceeded due to Project, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
b) The proposed Project would require treatment of wastewater generated within the Project site by the use toilets,
sinks, showers, drinking fountains, and laundry facilities. As previously stated, the proposed Project is not expected
to generate enough wastewater to require CSD to purchase more wastewater capacity from the San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant and/or require the construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment
facilities. As a result, new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would not be required, and impacts to
wastewater treatment facilities are expected to be less than significant.
c) Potential impacts to stormwater facilities are addressed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. As
discussed, the proposed Project would not require additional or expanded stormwater facilities. As a result, a less
than significant impact would occur.
d) The proposed Project would include toilets, sinks, showers, drinking fountains, landscaping, laundry facilities,
and a swimming pool drawing on the existing water supply. In general, population growth is considered when
analyzing impacts on water supply. The proposed Project would not have a direct effect on population growth;
however, the size of the proposed Project, as well as the fact that the hotel will have a continuous amount of guests,
would mean that the hotel would result in an increase in water usage over existing conditions. The development of
the proposed Project is consistent with the anticipated buildout of the Cupertino General Plan and applicable
Specific Plans. It is also consistent with the allocation for new hotel rooms for the City of Cupertino and the South
Vallco area. Therefore, increased water use from development of the proposed Project was anticipated by the
environmental review documents for these plans. According to the SCVWD, LAS District projected water
scheduled delivery amounts will be available through at least 2035, including under buildout of applicable plans.41
As a result, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on water supplies.
39 Tanaka, Richard. Letter to Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager, May 23, 2014.
40 Tanaka, Richard. Letter to Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager, May 23, 2014.
41 California Water Service Company, 2011, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban
District, June.
152
52
e) As previously stated in response to criteria a), the proposed Project is not expected to generate enough
wastewater to affect the treatment provider’s capacity, and construction or expansion of new or current wastewater
treatment facilities would not be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) - g) Solid waste will be collected and ultimately transported to the Newby Island Landfill in Milpitas. The
Project would result in the approximately 155 tons of solid waste per year.42 Using this waste generation estimate,
solid waste disposal from the proposed Project would be approximately 0.011 percent of the 4,000 tons of daily
capacity permitted for the Newby Island Landfill.43 Therefore, the Project’s contribution to the daily landfill
capacity at the Newby Island Landfill would be considered insignificant and the landfill would have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed Project's solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the impact would be
considered less than significant.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) The proposed Project’s redevelopment of the existing site as a hotel is expected to result in a high-intensity use
of the area, with some potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts could all be mitigated to less-
than-significant levels. In addition, they would all be limited in scope to the Project site and immediate vicinity,
which is comprised of roadways and commercial buildings. The proposed Project including the design and
construction of the pedestrian path, hotel, parking lot, and site amenities are unlikely to interfere with habitat.
42 This calculation was made using information available on the website of California Department of Resources,
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The number was calculated by adding the disposal rate for 48 hotel employees
(2.1 tons per employee per year) and the waste generated by 148 hotel rooms (2 pounds per day). It should be noted
that disposal rates may provide a more realistic estimate of waste generated by a particular use. In this case waste
generation was not available for hotel use, but adding both generation rates and disposal rates together provides an
estimate that can be used to make a determination on the Project’s impact t solid waste facilities. 43 This calculation was reached by dividing the 155 tons waste disposal per year by 365 days, resulting in 0.425
tons per day. The proposed Project tonnage per day, 0.425, was then divided by the capacity tonnage per day, 4,000,
which resulted in 0.00011 tons per day or 0.011 percent.
153
53
Additionally, mitigation measures have been added to avoid any potential environmental impacts in regard to
cultural or paleontological resources. Therefore, any changes to the environment would have less-than-significant
impacts in these respects.
b) Increases in potable water demand and wastewater generation is expected to occur as a result of the proposed
Project. While this increase would not significantly impact the capacity of water or wastewater treatments facilities,
future development in the Vallco Shopping Mall would also result in an increase in water and wastewater
production. Because the area around Vallco Shopping Mall is already developed, and because of the supply of
water and capacity of wastewater facilities, it is unlikely that future projects would result in significant impacts to
wastewater that would require the construction or expansion of new or existing wastewater treatment facilities.
During environmental evaluation of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning currently underway, which includes a planned increase of 1,339 hotel rooms within the City, it was
determined that future development would be accommodated within existing facilities and under projected water
supply.
In addition, future development may result in the creation of more jobs. Future employees of facilities developed as
a result of future projects may move to Cupertino from other cities, resulting in an increase in population growth.
Any employees who do move to the area as a result are not expected to significantly impact population growth and
any associated utilities and public services beyond what is already projected.
Finally, expansion to public services may become necessary as development in the area continues. As the Vallco
Shopping Mall becomes busier and attracts more people, expanded police presence may become necessary in order
to ensure public safety. However, planned future growth would be able to account for this necessity, and a
significant increase in police present is not necessarily expected.
Increases in air quality and noise impacts may occur as a result of construction activities, but would be temporary
in nature and could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, since most air quality impacts occur at
the city or regional level, the analysis in Section II serves to demonstrate cumulative air quality impacts. In
addition, mitigation measures have been included to mitigate for impacts to air quality and as well as the potential
and cultural resources to occur on-site. None of these impacts would be cumulatively considerable because they are
either temporary in nature or such a nature that they only have the potential to affect the direct environment.
Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
c) As discussed previously, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact that could not be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level, thus the proposed Project’s environmental effects would be less than
significant.
154
DP-2014-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AND CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY,
148-ROOM HOTEL OF APPROXIMATELY 102,700 SQUARE FEET THAT INCLUDES A
RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER A 35,800 SQUARE FOOT
UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THAT CONTAINS TANDEM PARKING, LOCATED AT 10380
PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DP-2014-04
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit
as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The proposed development, 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;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific
Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land
uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project 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.
155
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The project is consistent with all applicable aspects of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance (aside from the
Parking Exception requested), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan. The South
Vallco Master Plan identifies the project site as a potential location for a hotel. In addition, the design is
consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes , provide high quality
architecture, and improve connectivity. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible
with the adjacent and surrounding developments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2014-04 is hereby approved 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. DP-2014-04 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting
of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the South Vallco Connectivity Plan
dated September 30, 2014 consisting of 24 pages prepared for the City by MIG; except as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
156
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
5.RESTAURANT AND BAR OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE
Per Planning Commission direction, the restaurant and bar shall remain open to the public.
6.RELOCATION OF EXISTING FARMERS MARKET
An additional City approval is required if the development of this project requires the relocation of
the existing weekly farmer’s market elsewhere within the City (currently approved under file no.
DIR-2011-30).
7.RELOCATION/MODIFICATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
An additional City approval is required if the development of this project requires the
relocation/modification of the existing wireless communications facility and associated equipment
enclosure elsewhere within the site or City (currently approved under file no. DIR-2001-30).
8.DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Development Permit approval is granted to allow the demolition of an existing parking lot and the
construction of a five-story, 148-room extended stay hotel that includes a 3,073 square foot restaurant
and bar, lounge and fitness areas, 2,834 square feet of conference room area, and other ancillary uses
as identified on the approved plans built over a 35,800 square foot underground garage with tandem
parking.
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director
of Community Development.
9.DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 148 hotel rooms from the Vallco Park South (or
alternative) General Plan hotel allocation area.
10.SOUTH VALLCO CONNECTIVITY PLAN
The project shall comply with the South Vallco Connectivity Plan. The plan will help inform the
development of the future Vallco Shopping District Specific and/or Master Plan and may be subject to change.
The applicant shall make reasonable efforts to contact adjacent property owners to show
improvement plans including, but not limited to the specific lighting, sidewalk furniture, and
landscaping treatments to be consistent with the vision of the South Vallco Connectivity Plan.
11.AUTO PARKING RATIO
The project auto parking supply shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.81 stalls per hotel room,
or 120 spaces, as approved under Parking Exception file no. EXC-2014-07.
12.TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES (TDM)
The Director of Community Development has the ability to require additional transportation
demand measures (TDM) to address any future parking concerns. Examples of TDM may include,
but are not limited to:
a.Valet service
b.Off-site parking
c.Carpool or vanpool services
d.Additional onsite parking
e.Transit improvements
157
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
f. Non-motorized improvements
g. Shift peak-shared parking
h. Guaranteed ride home
i. Taxi service
j. Pricing
k. Increased shuttle service
13. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide Class II bicycle parking based on a minimum of five percent of the
required auto parking in accordance with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code. Therefore, the applicant shall maintain a minimum of 9 Class II bicycle
parking stalls.
14. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SYSTEMS
The project shall comply with City Ordinance No. 14-2117 regarding electric vehicle charging
systems.
15. GREEN BUILDING
The project shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance (Chapter
16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). The applicant shall obtain LEED Silver certification or an
alternative reference standard in accordance with the ordinance since the building size is over 50,000
square feet. Third party LEED certification or alternative reference standard is required per the
ordinance criteria.
16. PUBLIC ART
Public art shall be provided for the project in accordance with General Plan Policy 2-66 and the City’s
Public Art Ordinance (Chapter 19.148 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). Per the ordinance, the
minimum expenditure for the artwork, including, but not limited to design, fabrication, and
installation is .25 percent of the total project budget, with an expenditure cap of $100,000. The project
pro forma shall be provided to the City to confirm the project budget.
The final public art plans (including location and design) shall be reviewed by the Fine Arts
Commission during the building permit stage, in advance of final occupancy. The applicant is
required to apply for a City planning permit for the public art. Once approved by the Fine Arts
Commission, the public artwork shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final
occupancy.
17. COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
The project shall be required to adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for
the project.
18. ROOFTOP WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
The applicant shall work with City staff to consider designing the project to accommodate future
rooftop wireless communications, given the building height and strategic location of the site. Design
features may include, but are not limited to:
a. Larger than required rooftop equipment screens.
158
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
b. Structural reinforcement of the roof to accept additional bearing loads.
c. Internalized telephone and power conduits to the roof since a retrofitted design often involves
cable chases on the building exteriors.
d. Reserve ground locations for base equipment enclosures/shelters.
19. RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENTS
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall record necessary reciprocal ingress and egress
easements between the adjoining properties to the south to run in perpetuity. The easements shall
contain a provision that it may not be modified without the prior express written approval of the
City. The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with
the County Recorder’s Office. A financial deposit will be required for the City Attorney’s Office
review time.
20. CONNECTING PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
The pathway connection on the west side of the property to the future trail along the south side of I-
280 shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. In addition, prior to
building permit issuance, an easement shall be recorded on the property allowing public access on
the property to utilize the trail connection in perpetuity per General Plan Policy 2-73, Strategy 3.
The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the
County Recorder’s Office. A financial deposit will be required for the City Attorney’s Office review
time.
21. TRAIL STUDY AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION
Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to final occupancy (as determined by the City), the
applicant shall contribute approximately $66,000 to administer necessary approvals and
improvements for a trail plan along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the south
side of I-280. If this fund is not used within five years of the project completion, then it shall be
returned to the applicant.
22. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES
The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying
the housing mitigation fees prior to issuance of building permits as per the Housing Mitigation
Manual. The estimated mitigation fee for this project is $616,200.00 based on the 2014-2015 fiscal year
rate of $6.00 per square foot of new above-ground hotel area.
23. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The applicant shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed by the school districts prior to
issuance of building permits.
24. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM
The applicant is encouraged to participate in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s
(VTA) voluntary contribution program to plan for the impact of future growth on the regional
transportation system. Contributions would be used to help fund regional transportation programs
that improve the transportation system to lessen future traffic congestion, improve mobility by
reducing time delays, and maintain reliability on major roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay
Area.
159
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
25. SIGN PROGRAM
Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program application for the hotel and
ancillary tenants is required to submitted to the City and approved prior to final occupancy.
26. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall include,
but not be limited to the following:
a. Location and design of trash facilities (i.e. trash enclosures and receptacles). Trash enclosures
shall provide ample space to include trash, recycling, food waste, and waste receptacles along
with a tallow bin.
b. Quantity of trash receptacles.
c. Primary and alternative truck routes.
d. Signage for parking stalls displaced during pick-up and delivery hours.
e. Trash pick-up schedule.
f. Loading areas (with signage/markings restricting parking in these areas during loading times).
g. Delivery hours.
All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
The final plan shall be submitted to the City and the City’s refuse service for review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits or final occupancy, as determined by the City.
27. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground
vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and
the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment.
Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street
areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
28. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility
plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not
limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV),
and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire
Department, and applicable utility agencies.
29. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND OTHER ABOVE-GROUND EQUIPMENT SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not
visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller
than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be
required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right-of-way. The
location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
30. SITE LIGHTING
160
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
All new lighting must conform to the standards in the City’s Parking Ordinance, and the final
lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, a
licensed lighting consultant shall confirm that the lighting is in compliance with the City’s standards.
31. CITY ARBORIST REVIEW OF PLANS, TREE PROTECTION, AND VERIFICATION OF NEW TREES
The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree
Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the municipal code) and City’s Consulting Arborist report dated August
25, 2014. MM BIO-1: The applicant shall comply with Section 6.0, General Protection Measures, of
the arborist Report. The recommendations in this section serve as general design guidelines to help
mitigate or avoid impacts to trees being retained. These measures are subject to revision upon
reviewing the updated project design, and the Arborist shall be consulted in the event any cannot be
feasibly implemented.
Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained by the
developer to review all construction permit drawings and in order to more accurately assess the
impacts to the neighboring trees. The developer shall implement any additional recommendations
and tree protection measures by the City’s consulting arborist.
The tree protection measures shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be shown
around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A report ascertaining the good
health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
Additionally, prior to final occupancy, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained to inspect the
new tree plantings to ensure that they were planted properly and according to the approved planting
plan.
32. TREE PROTECTION BOND/DEPOSIT
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a tree protection bond or deposit in an
amount determined by the City to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation. The bond or
deposit shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist
indicating the trees are in good health.
33. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal per
section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A
of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of building permits.
34. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the
landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final occupancy. The findings of
the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the
landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design
161
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that
causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and
irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and
complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
35. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community
Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape
installation report prior to issuance of final occupancy, or any time before the landscape installation
report is submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall
either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control
or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
36. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration
rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for
amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.
The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and
irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the
soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the
landscape documentation package.
37. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
MM GEO-1: The applicant shall prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior to the issuance of a
building permit. A geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and approve them as
conforming to their recommendations prior to construction. The Project geotechnical engineer shall
provide geotechnical observation during the construction, which will allow the geotechnical engineer
to compare the actual with the anticipated soil conditions and to check that the contractors’ work
conforms to the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. The geotechnical engineer will
prepare letters and as-built documents, to be submitted to the City, to document their observances
during construction and to document that the work performed is in accordance with the Project
plans and specifications.
38. ACOUSTIC STUDY AND REDUCTION OF INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
MM NOISE-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit an
acoustic study to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director to demonstrate that
all hotel rooms meet an interior noise level due to exterior noise of 45 dBA CNEL, consistent with
162
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
State and local noise standards. The study shall be based on precise grading and architectural plans
including specific construction method details and materials to calculate the necessary exterior to
interior noise reduction of approximately 30 dBA to achieve 45 dBA CNEL. The precise exterior to
interior reduction would be determined in the acoustical study when precise grading plans with
building elevations, footprints and architectural plans are available. The applicant will be required to
incorporate into the Project design all required noise insulation features and techniques necessary to
reduce interior noise levels to achieve the interior noise standard. To achieve the required interior
noise levels, features such as upgraded exterior wall and roof assemblies, upgraded windows, and
exterior doors may be required. In addition, a “windows closed” condition will be required with
minimum supply of fresh air per UBC requirements.
39. CONTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
The following construction noise mitigation measures shall be taken in order to reduce noise event
impacts to nearby receptor areas:
a. Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as
reasonable from residences adjacent to the site.
b. Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities.
c. Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule.
d. Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power
generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors.
e. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
f. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
g. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the project site.
h. Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the
cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the
notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
40. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction
meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public
Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction
management plan including, but not limited to:
a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval
b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way
c. Construction staging area
d. Construction schedule and hours
e. Construction phasing plan, if any
f. Contractor parking area
g. Tree preservation/protection plan
163
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan
i. Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts
41. CONSTRUCTION HOURS
Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and
Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. The developer shall be
responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules
and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along
with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be
posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
42. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject
to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to
issuance of final demolition permits.
43. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MITIGATION DURING DEMOLITION
The following requirements shall apply for the demolition phase of the project:
a. In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible
sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the
presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials.
b. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed
in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code
Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control.
Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that
meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.
c. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to
building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will
be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the CCR, Section
1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
d. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs
identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated
above.
e. Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD
regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be
completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.
f. The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result
in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs.
44. DUST/PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL
MM AQ-1: The Project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Best
Management Practices for reducing construction emissions of coarse particulate matter (PM10) and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5):
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
164
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour
(mph). Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible), or as often as needed, all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
e. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity
of the Project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
h. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
45. MITIGATION OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall
implement the following standard measure to reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a
less than significant level:
The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality during
construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs would
include, but would not be limited to, the following measures:
Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system.
Incorporate effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control
during the construction period.
Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution prior to
rainfall events or monitor runoff.
Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system.
46. MITIGATION OF POST-CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall
implement the following standard measures to reduce post-construction water quality impacts to a
less than significant level:
The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which
provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new
development.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include
provision for post-construction structural controls in the project design in compliance with the
NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm
water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the incorporation of
165
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters to treat and reduce the amount of
runoff from the site.
The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design
and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading
permits.
To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily
infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a
minimum, the following conditions:
Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater;
Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater;
Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained;
Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater
mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table,
BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such as
on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar factors);
Unless storm water is first treated by non-infiltration means, infiltration devices shall not be
recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic trips on main roadway or 15,000 or
more average daily traffic trips on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car
washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and other land uses and activities
considered by the City as high threats to water quality; and
Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent
versions of the following documents:
City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix;
SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and
Redevelopment Projects;”
NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region;
California BMP Handbooks;
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the Source”
Design Guidance Manual;
BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water
Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and
City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard.
To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term
maintenance programs.
166
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the
SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant
selection will be reflected in the landscape plans.
47. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
MM CUL-1: If historic/prehistoric artifacts or human remains are discovered during ground
disturbing activities, the following measures will be implemented:
a. In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of
the Public Resources Code), in the event human remains are encountered during grading and
construction, all work within 50 feet of the find will stop and the Santa Clara County Corone r’s
office will be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would
notify the Native American Heritage Commission to identify the “Most Likely Descendant”
(MLD). The City of Cupertino, in consultation with the MLD, would then prepare a plan for
treatment, study, and re-internment of the remains.
b. In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of
the Public Resources Code), in the event that historical artifacts are found, all work within 50 feet
of the find will stop and a qualified archaeologist will examine the find. All significant artifacts
and samples recovered during construction would be cataloged and curated by a qualified
archaeologist and placed in an appropriate curation facility. The archaeologist must then submit
a plan for evaluation of the resource to the City of Cupertino for approval. If the evaluation of
the resource concludes that the found resource is eligible for the California Register of Historic
Resources, a mitigation plan must be submitted to the City of Cupertino for approval. The
mitigation plan must be completed before earthmoving or construction activities can
recommence within the designated resource area.
c. MM CUL-2: If paleontological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery shall be
halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and determine the
significance of the resource. Construction activities shall not recommence until the expert has
issued an opinion about the resource and appropriate mitigation has been determined.
48. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
49. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
50. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
167
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
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.
Building Division:
51. INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PLANS
The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the City for review, including, but not limited to
the following information on the construction permit plans:
a. Indicate a clear (with a bold arrow line) accessible path of travel to the Wolfe Road sidewalk from
the main entrance.
b. Electrical room doors shall open towards the egress direction and shall have panic hardware.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. CONTRIBUTION TO WOLFE ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The property owner of the project site will be required to provide a financial contribution to the
Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Project when the project is established by the City. The
contribution will be based on the project’s fair-share portion of the improvements as established by
the Wolfe Road Corridor Study, which will be conducted subsequent to the adoption of the City’s
2040 General Plan. The project study area will encompass the portion of Wolfe Road between Vallco
Parkway and Homestead Road. The scope of the improvements will be based on findings from the
Wolfe Road Corridor Study and may include widening of Wolfe Road, Wolfe Road bridge and
modifications to the Wolfe Road/Highway 280 interchange. The financial contribution may require
formation of a Wolfe Road Corridor Assessment District or other mechanism.
2. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
Developer shall demonstrate that the site has an accessible path of travel to Wolfe Road. If an
accessible path of travel cannot be demonstrated, the developer will be responsible for constructing
improvements to provide an accessible path.
3. CROSSWALK TO VALLCO SHOPPING MALL
Developer shall provide a crosswalk across Perimeter Road to the Vallco Shopping Mall to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. STREET WIDENING
Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
5. 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.
168
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
6. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino
Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the
City Engineer.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-
development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water
control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not
limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated
swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve
water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried
pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an
increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any
storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private
properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible.
10. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
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. 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.
11. BICYCLE PARKING
Developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City’s requirements to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
12. 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: $ Per current fee schedule ($4,183.00 or 6%)
169
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,435.00 or 6%)
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 17,021.44 +/-
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
On-site Grading Bond: 115% 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.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground
vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and
the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment.
Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street
areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
14. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed
away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino
Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company.
15. 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.
16. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer
must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, 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.
17. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or
more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a
170
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures,
for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan,
that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water
treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), 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 BMPs are each required.
All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third
party reviewer.
18. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer shall 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.
19. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all
grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
20. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final
occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard
appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk,
pavers, and street lights.
21. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by
the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well
as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout
the City.
22. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
23. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM
The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash
from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system. A
full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by
a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q
resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional
Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements).
171
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
24. TRASH, RECYCLING, AND COMPOST RECEPTACLES
The developer or business owner is required to install public bins (~ 30 gal) side-by-side for trash,
recycling, and composting, adjacent to the development or business to control pedestrian litter at the
site. The type and location of the receptacles are subject to the approval of the Environmental
Programs Manager (CMC 9.18.210 P).
25. TRASH, RECYCLING, AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Non -
Residential Building Trash and Recycling Enclosure, and to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Manager. Modifications to existing facilities shall, to the maximum extent possible, meet
the City’s guidelines and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Clearance by
the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit (CMC 9.18.210 H & K).
26. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
Developer shall obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse
truck access to the proposed development and trash, recycling, and compost enclosures. Plans for
access must be reviewed and approved by the City’s franchised refuse collector.
27. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
28. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
29. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of
any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically
Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and
fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
30. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as
needed.
31. STREAMSIDE PERMIT
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide plans and information that
satisfies the requirements of the Stream Side Permit as set forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative. These items include, but are not limited to, topographic survey,
specific measures to protect streams and/or water bodies from water quality impacts, coordination
with all interested jurisdictional agencies, etc.
32. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide California Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and
location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit
approval.
172
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
33. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the
underground basin or any underground strata beneath the property.
34. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
issuance of building permits.
35. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and
California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building
permits.
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. REVIEW LIMITED TO ACCEPTABILITY OF SITE ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLY
Review of this development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as
they pertain to fire department operation, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan
review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
2. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The applicant is advised that current water infrastructure should be carefully analyzed by a qualified
consultant to determine if adequate flow and pressure can be achieved without significant upgrades
to the existing system. Please consult with the California Water Service regarding this issue.
3. WIDER TURNING RADIUS
The proposed east turn of the accessible path of travel shown on Sheet A-0.1 does not appear to
provide the required turn radius, particularly as there may be a change of grade at that point. This
must be changed to ensure adequate access is maintained for the entire site.
4. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be
provided in the locations described in this section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18, whichever
is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall
be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or
penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are
responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any
modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16)
Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Sections
903.2 as adopted in Section 16-40-210 of the CMC.
5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
173
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water
supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the
water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that
purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection
system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically
connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water
supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be
granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are
documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and
Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
6. HOSE VALVES/STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Hose valves/standpipes shall be installed as per the 2010 CFC Sec. 905, or where emergency access
has been deemed minimal, shall be equipped with standpipes designed per NFPA Std. #14, and be
equipped with 2 ½” hose valves, located within the stair enclosure(s). Note specifically, within
parking structures at stairwells. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section
and NFPA 14 as amended by Chapter 47 and shall be manual wet.
7. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and
California Water Service. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet, with a minimum single
hydrant flow of 2,750 GPM at 20 PSI, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire
apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B, Table B105.1 and
Appendix C.
8. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
Sec. 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section
503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches.
Sec. 503.2.2 Authority. The fire code official shall have the authority to require an increase in the
minimum access widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations.
Sec. 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities.
Sec. 503.2.4 Turning Radius. The required turning radius of fire apparatus access road shall be
determined by the fire code official.
Sec. 503.2.5 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the
lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access
174
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines
shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway.
Width: Fire apparatus roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate
vicinity of any building or portion of buildings more than 30 feet in height.
Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be
located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be
positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.
9. MARKING
Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that
include the words NO PARKING – FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to
identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designed
shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when
necessary to provide adequate visibility. CFC Sec. 503.3.
10. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and County
Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. The owner shall designate a person to be the fire
prevention program superintendent who shall be responsible for the fire prevention program and
ensure that it is carried out through completion of the project. A written plan, that includes specific
information about temporary standpipes, fire sprinkler activation on each floor during construction,
fire watch, and emergency procedures, must be submitted to County Fire. Provide appropriate
notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
11. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.
Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public right-of-way,
a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1.
12. CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES
To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Development Review Conditions
shall be addressed as “notes” on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams
to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal.
SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
1. SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY
Sanitary sewer service is available for the project subject to final review and approval of the design,
including payment of all fees. Connection to the existing system will be reviewed with the design
plan submittal.
2. SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE
175
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
The Wolfe Road sanitary sewer trunk line has been identified as being at capacity. The District will
require hydraulic calculations from the intersection of Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek to Wolfe Road
downstream at Pruneridge. The design criterion is 2/3 full at wet weather flow.
3. LATERAL CONNECTION
The plans shall show the new lateral connection with elevations from the sewer main/manhole to the
proposed cleanout within five feet of the property line.
4. FEES AND PERMITS
Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the subject improvements.
5. INSTALLERS’ AGREEMENT
The applicant shall enter into an installers’ agreement with the District which will cover design and
construction of sewers, necessary right of way/easements, payment for all fees and costs, furnishing
bonds and indemnity.
SECTION VII: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
1. WATER SERVICE
An eight-inch main line exists on Perimeter Road, which is anticipated to provide sufficient capacity
for the site.
2. WATER LINE EASEMENT
The main line is required to be extended from Perimeter Road to the project site. Therefore, an
easement is required on the property to accommodate this extension.
3. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE
A backflow prevention device (BFP) shall be located near the water main near Perimeter Road. Any
screening enclosures must meet required clearances on all four sides. Variances may be considered
for greater BFP distances from the water meter.
4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Clarify whether there is a dedicated irrigation service. It is assumed the irrigation service is from
the domestic water line.
b. Size fire water line based on a single tap. A second tap will not be approved.
c. Both services will require RPs, and both lines will need to have boosting capability factored in.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
176
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04 October 21, 2014
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\DP-2014-04 CC res.doc
177
U-2014-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
24-HOUR HOTEL, INCLUDING A RESTAURANT WITH INTERIOR BAR LOCATED AT 10380
PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2014-04
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit as
described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The proposed development, 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;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan,
and the South Vallco Master Plan; is over 300 feet away from any existing or planned residential uses and
other sensitive receptors; the project 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.
b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino,
since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the design is
consistent with General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan policies that encourage development to
activate streetscapes and create community gathering places. General Plan Policy 2-92 supports late night
178
Resolution No 14-___ U-2014-04 October 21, 2014
hours since the building is located a considerable distance from residential areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
a Use Permit, Application no. U-2014-04 is hereby approved 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. U-2014-04 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of October 21,
2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in
this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. RESTAURANT AND BAR OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE
Per Planning Commission direction, the restaurant and bar shall remain open to the public.
6. USE APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Approval is hereby granted to allow a 24-hour hotel operation including a restaurant with interior
bar. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the
Director of Community Development.
179
Resolution No 14-___ U-2014-04 October 21, 2014
7. MAXIMUM LENGTH OF HOTEL STAYS
Hotel stays shall be limited to a maximum of 30 days per reservation.
8. SHUTTLE SERVICES
The hotel shall provide airport and local shuttle services for hotel guests in order to minimize traffic
and parking impacts.
9. ODOR ABATEMENT SYSTEM
If odor impacts from food use or other odor-generating uses become a nuisance in the future as
determined by the Community Development Director (typically if five or more complaints are
received within a 12-month period), the property owner shall install odor abatement systems to
reduce odor impacts to the adjacent community. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Department.
10. SECURITY PLAN
The applicant shall develop a comprehensive security plan for the entire hotel development, and
shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the County Sheriff’s Office prior to final occupancy.
11. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from
documented incidents resulting at the project site at the City’s contracted hourly rate with the Sheriff
Department at the time of the incident.
12. USE PERMIT REVIEW/ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
If complaints have been received related to the tenant(s) under this use permit, and the complaints
were not addressed immediately by the property management, then the Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the use permit at which time, the use permit approval may be modified
or revoked.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or parking restrictions as
prescribed by the Sheriff's Office.
13. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
14. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
15. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
180
Resolution No 14-___ U-2014-04 October 21, 2014
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\U-2014-04 CC res.doc
181
ASA-2014-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND
SITE PERMIT FOR A NEW FIVE-STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE AND
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and
Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan,
and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses;
and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate
potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable
planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other
182
Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-06 October 21, 2014
entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to
the following specific criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and
bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings.
The project is compatible with the scale of the surrounding buildings and streetscape in terms of height,
bulk, and form. The building is proposed at five stories and 60 feet in height, within the height limit
specified by the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. The building height is comparable to the
Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose Bowl) mixed-use building and several approved buildings in the Main Street
Cupertino project. The building is well within the setback to height ratios established in the General Plan.
b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials,
textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and
color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in
which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen
planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and
unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of
pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of
existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety
requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to
adjoining property owners.
The hotel building is designed in a contemporary theme similar to the hotel building approved in the Main
Street Cupertino development and the Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. The building exteriors feature
flat roof forms with architectural features along the rooflines; plaster exterior walls with smooth stone
accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefront windows and sliding pocket doors
along the ground floor; and other visual relief measures such as ground floor canopies, inset windows
(varying from three and a half to five and a half inches), wall projections (varying from one foot, five inches
to four feet, nine inches) and varying horizontal and vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as
the focal point from the main driveway. The proposed project design is consistent with the objectives of the
South Vallco Master Plan as it will improve the identity and character of the area and is compatible with
existing developments. All above ground utility installations are required to be screened from public view.
The design has incorporated decorative paving material that maximizes permeability and water-efficient
landscaping, as well as lighting to illuminate pedestrian paths and vehicular routes, which will not glare
onto adjoining properties. Most of the existing trees recommended for preservation by the City’s consultant
arborist have been retained in the project design. Replacement trees and landscaping screen the site from
the freeway and help to soften the building.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs
and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general
appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.
Signage is required as part of the project conditions of approval to be separately reviewed and approved as
part of a Master Sign Program.
d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and
visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate
design measures.
183
Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-06 October 21, 2014
The project has been designed to protected residents from noise through traffic, light and visually intrusive
effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The proposed
landscaping features and vegetation will provide adequate screening and buffering from the streets and
adjacent uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2014-06 is hereby approved 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-2014-06 as set forth in the
Minutes of City Council Meeting of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in
this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS
Prior to building permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including, but not limited to:
184
Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-06 October 21, 2014
a. Building design and exterior treatments (with consideration to further enhancements to the south
and west elevation main entry tower projections with stone or other similar high quality
material)
b. Widening plaster reveals beyond 3/4 inch
c. Frontage details, including work on adjacent parcels
d. Pool fencing design
e. Paving details for drop-off area, plaza, walkways, and public sidewalk
f. Parking stall adjustments (with consideration of moving surface employee parking stalls behind
the loading area in order to minimize disruption to hotel patrons)
g. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement
h. Perimeter Road plaza details and amenities (with consideration for water features, passive play
areas, decorative planters, and places to sit)
i. Perimeter Road street furniture and pedestrian amenities
j. Enhancements to Perimeter Road driveway intersections
k. Trail pathway design and materials
l. Screening of retaining walls
m. Fencing and lighting details
n. Other features consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved
plans. The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor
modifications as deemed appropriate to the above following building permit issuance and final
occupancy with review by the City. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the
Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval.
6. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL
The applicant shall obtain the written approval of the property owner of 10150 N. Wolfe Road (APN
316-20-094) prior to implementing any project improvements on their property. Proof of written
approval shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of building permits.
7. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE CIRCULATION
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the layout of the underground
parking garage stalls to minimize conflicts with parking stalls near the entry/exit ramp to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Public Works.
8. SIGHT DISTANCES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS
The project driveways shall be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby
ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on
Perimeter Road. Landscaping at the project driveways shall not conflict with a driver’s ability to
locate a gap in traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) shall be provided at all
project driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be
measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The sight distance for outbound
vehicles exiting the first driveway is limited due to the downward slope on Perimeter Road, west of
the project site as Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road. However, since the intersection of this
driveway at Perimeter Road will be controlled by an all-way stop sign, vehicles will be able to exit
safely onto Perimeter Road. The second driveway to the east will have adequate sight distance for
185
Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-06 October 21, 2014
exiting vehicles to safely locate a gap on Perimeter Road. Also, because of low traffic volumes on
Perimeter Road, vehicles exiting the hotel will be able to easily find gaps in traffic on Perimeter Road.
9. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
11. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\ASA-2014-06 CC res.doc
186
EXC-2014-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A PARKING EXCEPTION TO
ALLOW TANDEM PARKING, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2014-07
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Parking Exception as
described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and
intent of this chapter;
The project proposes 156 parking stalls, or 1.05 stalls per room. Table 19.124.040 (A) of the City’s Parking
Ordinance requires the project to provide a total of 187 parking spaces (assuming separate ratios for the hotel,
restaurant/bar, and conference room space) at a rate of 1.24 spaces per room —resulting in a deficit of 28
stalls in the proposed parking supply. However, Section 19.24.040 (H) of the ordinance provides for
alternative parking considerations through a parking study prepared by transportation professionals. Parking
studies are especially useful for hotels since there are overlapping uses and activities that may not be
addressed by the ordinance ratios in Table 19.124.040 (A). The parking study found that the proposed supply
is adequate to meet the needs of the hotel and other ancillary uses. Applying Table 19.124.040 (A) would
result in a large number of excess stalls and would be inconsistent with other hotel parking ratios in the City.
b)The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be
detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare;
187
Resolution No. 14-___ EXC-2014-07 October 21, 2014
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific
Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land
uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project 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.
c) The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum
variance to accomplish the purpose;
See Section A above.
d) The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring properties;
Given that the project provides more than the minimum supply recommended by the parking study and there
are transportation demand measures proposed by the applicant and included in the conditions of approval,
the proposed exception is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to neighboring properties.
e) The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is
compatible with the proposed parking supply. Adjacent on-street parking may be included in the
parking supply;
Field parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton
Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates
varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81
stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the
most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room
space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls) for the
project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room,
the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
f) The project is owned or managed by a single entity; and
The project is owned by a single entity.
g) If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and
reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the
applicable properties to run with the land.
There is no shared parking for this project. All of the parking study’s recommended parking supply is
provided onsite.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
a Parking Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-07 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon
which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public
188
Resolution No. 14-___ EXC-2014-07 October 21, 2014
Hearing record concerning Application no. EXC-2014-07 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council
Meeting of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in
this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, DP-2014-04, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. PARKING EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Parking Exception approval is granted to allow eight tandem parking stalls. The Director of
Community Development may approve minor modifications to the locations of the tandem stalls,
provided it does not increase the quantity of tandem stalls.
The Planning Commission shall review modifications considered major by the Director of
Community Development.
6. TANDEM PARKING STALL MANAGEMENT
Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall submit a tandem parking stall management plan.
Tandem parking stalls shall be reserved for employee use only. Employee vehicles shall be moved
when necessary in order to allow employees to leave when their shift is over. The plan shall take into
accound the start and end times of employees’ shifts in order to minimize the amount of vehicle re -
parking that needs to occur.
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
189
Resolution No. 14-___ EXC-2014-07 October 21, 2014
8. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from an d against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
9. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\EXC-2014-07 CC res.doc
190
TR-2014-28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 96 TREES TO FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOTEL LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER RD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2014-28
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit
as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to
existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot
be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility
services;
The majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site are found
by the City’s Consulting Arborist to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water
or overcrowding. Nine Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the arborist as having
a high suitability for preservation since they appear reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or
defects. Three of these trees are proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the
other six will be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since
twenty-two of these are in poor health and since it will facilitate the construction of the pathway.
b)That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting
the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated
191
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-28 October 21, 2014
property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are in conflict with the
proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or
relocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-28 is hereby approved 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. TR-2014-28 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting
of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the City’s consulting arborist report
entitled, “Arborist Report: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Wolfe Road and Interstate 280,
Cupertino, California (APN 316-20-092),” prepared by David Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
#399 dated August 25, 2014 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. APPROVED TREE REMOVALS
The following table lists the trees approved for removal as part of this permit as identified in the
arborist report and plan set:
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
6 Coast Redwood 20
7 Coast Redwood 23
9 Coast Redwood 14
10 Coast Redwood 25
11 Coast Redwood 22
12 Coast Redwood 19
192
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-28 October 21, 2014
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
13 Coast Redwood 21
17 Coast Redwood 13
18 Coast Redwood 8
19 Coast Redwood 13
27 Coast Redwood 14
34 Coast Redwood 16
37 Coast Redwood 13
38 Coast Redwood 12
40 Coast Redwood 12
43 Coast Redwood 10
53 Coast Redwood 20
56 Coast Redwood 15
57 Coast Redwood 23
58 Coast Redwood 30
59 Coast Redwood 22
60 Coast Redwood 18
61 Coast Redwood 30
62 Coast Redwood 12
63 Coast Redwood 22
64 Coast Redwood 14
65 Coast Redwood 30
66 Coast Redwood 24
67 Coast Redwood 8
68 Coast Redwood 26
69 Coast Redwood 10
70 Coast Redwood 13
71 Coast Redwood 18
72 Coast Redwood 26
73 Coast Redwood 26
74 Coast Redwood 10
75 Coast Redwood 36
76 Coast Redwood 13
77 Coast Redwood 24
78 Coast Redwood 22
79 Coast Redwood 12
80 Coast Redwood 24
81 Coast Redwood 4
82 Coast Redwood 12
83 Coast Redwood 30
84 Coast Redwood 22
85 Coast Redwood 17
86 Coast Redwood 26
87 Coast Redwood 20
193
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-28 October 21, 2014
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
88 Coast Redwood 14
89 Coast Redwood 30
90 Cork Oak 13
91 Coast Live Oak 15
92 Coast Live Oak 14
93 Coast Redwood 11
94 Coast Redwood 13
95 Coast Redwood 22
96 Shamel Ash 24
97 Coast Redwood 24
98 Coast Redwood 11
99 Coast Redwood 8
100 Coast Redwood 21
101 Coast Redwood 14
102 Coast Redwood 20
103 Honey Locust 13
104 Shamel Ash 17
105 Shamel Ash 11
106 Shamel Ash 13
107 Coast Redwood 22
108 Shamel Ash 23
109 Evergreen Pear 9
110 Evergreen Pear 8
127 Pin Oak 10
128 Pin Oak 11
129 Monterey Pine 15
130 Monterey Pine 32
131 Honey Locust 10
132 Honey Locust 7
133 Honey Locust 8
134 Monterey Pine 20
135 Monterey Pine 23
136 Evergreen Pear 11
137 Evergreen Pear 8
138 Evergreen Pear 12
139 Evergreen Pear 7
140 Monterey Pine 16
141 Monterey Pine 19
142 Honey Locust 9
143 Cork Oak 20
144 Cork Oak 5
145 Coast Live Oak 20
146 Coast Live Oak 17
194
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-28 October 21, 2014
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
147 Honey Locust 10
148 Honey Locust 8
149 Honey Locust 9
150 Honey Locust 9
4. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN
MM-BIO 2: The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of
site permits.
The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of
Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as
deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly
and according to plan prior to final occupancy.
5. IN-LIEU TREE REPLACEMENT FEES
The Director of Community Development has determined that accommodating the 57 remaining
required 24-inch box trees on the property would not be feasible and therefore a tree replacement in-
lieu fee would be required. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the in-lieu
fees in the amount to procure and install the replacement trees.
6. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist
prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits. The bond shall be returned after
the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist.
7. STREET TREE REMOVAL (TREE 96)
Tree #96 is identified as a street tree on Wolfe Road. MM BIO-3: In order to remove any public street
trees within the Project site, the Project Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14.12,
Trees. The Project Applicant shall pay the required fee, prior to the issuance of a building permit, per
the New Street Tree Cost Schedule, for the purchase, planting, and maintenance of trees by the City.
All public trees shall be protected against damage during construction operations. There shall be no
storage of materials, tool washout, or vehicle parking near or upon public trees. This is in accordance
with Municipal Code Section 14.12.120, Condition for Development or Building Permit. All planting
costs associated with a building permit shall be collected by the Chief Building Inspector, or his/her
designee, for deposit into the City’s general fund prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fees
for public tree removal and/or damage to branches and roots shall be as specified in the Public Tree
Damage or Removal Fee Schedule adopted by Council Resolution. Damage and removal fees shall be
deposited into the City’s tree fund. This is in accordance with Municipal Code Section 14.12.130,
New Street Tree Costs and Public Tree Damage or Removal Fee Schedules.
8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
195
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-28 October 21, 2014
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
10. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\TR-2014-28 CC res.doc
196
TR-2014-40
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 19 TREES TO FACILITATE THE OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOTEL LOCATED AT
10150 NORTH WOLFE ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2014-40
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: JC Penney Properties
Location: 10150 North Wolfe Road (APN 316-20-094)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit
as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a) That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to
existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot
be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility
services;
The majority (15 of 19) of trees on the JC Penney site are found by the City’s Consulting Arborist to be in
extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to weak structures, poor canopies, and/or lack of water.
The remaining four trees are proposed for removal to facilitate frontage improvments associated with the hotel
project at 10380 Perimeter Road. New street trees will be planted in their place.
b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting
the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated
property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
197
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-40 October 21, 2014
The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are in conflict with the
proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or
relocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby adopted; and the application for
a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-40 is hereby approved 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. TR-2014-40 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting
of October 21, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set received October 2, 2014 consisting of 51 sheets labeled A-0.0 to A-
0.3, C-1.0 to C-7.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0, A-1.0a, A-1.1 to A-1.4, A2.0, A-2.0a, A-2.1 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-3.8,
A-4.0, A-4.0a, A-4.1, A-4.1a, A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt
House, Cupertino California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis,
Bruce Jett Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the City’s consulting arborist report
entitled, “Arborist Report: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Wolfe Road an d Interstate 280,
Cupertino, California (APN 316-20-092),” prepared by David Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
#399 dated July 24, 2014 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07,
and TR-2014-28 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. APPROVED TREE REMOVALS
The following table lists the trees approved for removal as part of this permit as identified in the
arborist report and plan set:
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
1 Coast Redwood 13
2 Coast Redwood 17
4 Coast Redwood 20
111 Shamel Ash 18
112 Shamel Ash 19
113 Shamel Ash 10
114 Shamel Ash 14
115 Shamel Ash 6
198
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-40 October 21, 2014
Tree # Species Diameter (in.)
116 Shamel Ash 13
117 Shamel Ash 5
118 Shamel Ash 11
119 Shamel Ash 10
120 Shamel Ash 8
121 Shamel Ash 7
122 Shamel Ash 13
123 Shamel Ash 9
124 Shamel Ash 19
125 Shamel Ash 16
126 Shamel Ash 7
4. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN
MM-BIO 2: The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of
site permits.
The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of
Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as
deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly
and according to plan prior to final occupancy.
5. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist
prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits. The bond shall be returned after
the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist.
6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section
199
Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-40 October 21, 2014
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
200
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: August 26, 2014
Applications: DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40, EA-
2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan (Cupertino Property Development II, LLC.)
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN 316-20-
092) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
10380 Perimeter Road:
1.Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a five-story, 148-
room hotel of approximately 102,200 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and
conference rooms built over a 35,400 square foot, 83-car underground parking garage that contains
tandem parking;
2.Use Permit (U-2014-04) to allow a 24-hour hotel containing a restaurant with interior bar;
3.Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow eight tandem parking stalls and 148 regular parking stalls
for a total of 156 parking stalls when 184 stalls are required;
4.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees to facilitate the
construction of a new hotel;
10150 North Wolfe Road:
5.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the
off-site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel; and
Both Sites:
6.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new five-story, 148-room hotel and associated
site and off-site improvements; and
7.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval/adoption of
the following:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
201
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) (Attachment 1)
2. Development Permit (DP-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 2)
3. Use Permit (U-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 3)
4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment
4)
5. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 5)
6. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 6)
7. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 7)
PROJECT DATA:
Project consistency with:
General Plan Commercial/Residential
Yes Zoning P (Regional Shopping)
Specific Plan Heart of the City
Master Plan South Vallco
Lot Size 92,434 s.f. (2.12 acres)
Existing Allowed or Required Proposed
Land Use Parking lot,
farmer’s market,
and wireless
communications
Regional shopping (per zoning) Hotel with restaurant, bar,
lounge, and conference
rooms. Wireless
communication facility to
remain onsite.
Hotel Rooms None General Plan allocation – 339 148
Building area N/A No maximum floor area ratio or
lot coverage - As determined by
the City
137,600 square feet (102,200
s.f. hotel with 2,500 s.f.
restaurant/bar and 2,480 s.f.
conference space and 35,400
s.f. underground garage)
Height (from
sidewalk grade)
N/A 45 feet or 60 feet with retail,
including restaurants
60 feet
Auto parking 223 stalls 184 stalls, based on Parking Ord.
120 stalls, based on 0.81 spaces
per room (parking study)
156 stalls (73 surface and 83
garage, including eight
tandem)
Bicycle parking N/A Nine Class II spaces (5% of auto) Ten Class II spaces
Common open
space
N/A 2.5 percent of the gross floor area
(2,555 s.f.)
17,000 s.f.
Setbacks to curb/property line:
Front (West) N/A No minimum required since not
along Stevens Creek Blvd – as
determined by the City
93 feet to Wolfe Rd curb
Side (South) One-half (1/2) the height of the
building (30 feet), or ten feet,
whichever is greater
30 feet to Perimeter Rd curb
Side (Northeast) 55 feet to property line
202
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site and Surroundings
The project site is located at the
southeast quadrant of North Wolfe
Road and Interstate 280 (I-280), at the
northern end of the Vallco Shopping
Mall. To the west of the site and across
Wolfe Road is a surface parking lot for
the Vallco Shopping Mall; to the north
and east across I-280 is the Apple
Campus 2 site (under construction) and
Hampton Apartments; and to the south
is Alexander’s Steakhouse and a surface
parking lot serving the Vallco Shopping
Mall (JC Penney, Benihana, food court,
ice skating rink).
The site is currently developed with a surface parking lot that contains the “Vallco Fashion Park”
freeway-oriented pylon sign and a wireless communications facility within the pylon sign with an
associated equipment enclosure on the ground. There is also a weekly farmer’s market held onsite on
Fridays from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. According to the applicant, the farmer’s market would likely be moved
elsewhere within the Vallco Shopping Mall subject to approval of a separate permit. The existing
wireless communications facility would remain within the pylon sign and the equipment enclosure
would be relocated beneath the sign under a separate permit.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Project
The applicant, Edward Chan, of Cupertino Property Development II, LLC, is proposing to demolish the
existing parking lot and construct a five-story, 148-room upscale extended stay hotel and make
associated site and off-site improvements. Typical guestrooms would range from 290 to 688 square feet,
with an average size of 434 square feet. Kitchens would be included in most guestrooms. The hotel
would include 2,500 square feet of restaurant and bar area, 2,480 square feet of conference room space, a
swimming pool, a fitness room, an entry plaza, and two outdoor patios. The cumulative size of the hotel
would be 102,200 square feet. The project parking demand would be accommodated by 73 surface
parking stalls and a 35,400 square foot, one-level underground parking structure containing 83 parking
stalls (including eight tandem stalls). A total of 115 trees (94 trees are found to be in poor or dead
condition) are proposed for removal and replacement in order to facilitate the new hotel and associated
site improvements. See Attachment 8 for a letter from the project applicant for further details on the
project.
The project is consistent with all applicable aspects of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance (aside from
the Parking Exception requested), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan. The
South Vallco Master Plan identifies the project site as a potential location for a hotel.
Aerial Vicinity
203
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
A Use Permit is required for the project since the City’s General Commercial Ordinance classifies hotels
and restaurants with interior bars as conditional uses. The project proposes an allocation of 148 hotel
rooms from the South Vallco General Plan Development Allocation area, which would leave a balance of
191 hotel rooms citywide.
Architectural Review
The hotel building is designed in a contemporary theme similar to the hotel building approved in the
Main Street Cupertino development and the Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. The building is
proposed at five stories and 60 feet in height, within the height limit specified by the General Plan and
Heart of the City Specific Plan. The building height is comparable to the Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose
Bowl) mixed-use building and several approved buildings in the Main Street Cupertino project. The
building exteriors feature flat roof forms with architectural features along the rooflines; plaster exterior
walls with smooth stone accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefront
windows and sliding pocket doors along the ground floor; and other visual relief measures such as
ground floor canopies, inset windows (varying from three and a half to five and a half inches), wall
projections (varying from one foot, five inches to four feet, nine inches) and varying horizontal and
vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as the focal point from the main driveway. The
proposed project design is consistent with the objectives of the South Vallco Master Plan as it will
improve the identity and character of the area and is compatible with existing developments. See
Attachment 9 for the project’s color and material board.
The City’s Architectural Consultant has reviewed the architectural details and supports the design. The
applicant has worked with staff to incorporate the comments from the architectural consultant.
Site and Off-Site Improvements
The project includes a number of improvements to enhance pedestrian connections within the Vallco
Shopping District and surrounding areas. The project will reconstruct the sidewalks along the north side
of Perimeter Road with enhanced streetscape features including street furniture, tree wells, and
pedestrian-scale pole lighting. The proposed improvements will serve to improve circulation and
connections in the area consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan objectives. The project includes a
pathway near the Wolfe Road frontage that would serve as a connection to a potential future bicycle and
pedestrian trail along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the south side of I-280.
Onsite amenities include outdoor dining and patio areas, as well as a pool and plaza near the Perimeter
Road sidewalk. A large second level deck overlooks the pool area. The plaza continues the “civic” theme
by providing public seating and a large space for activity near the street. Staff recommends that as a
condition of the project, the applicant work with staff to further enhance the pedestrian amenities within
the plaza and street frontage. Decorative paving is provided at the main driveway (west) into the site,
and helps to define the pick-up and drop-off area.
The project’s trash enclosure is located behind the hotel building and has been designed in accordance
with the City’s Trash Enclosure Guidelines. Above ground utilities have preliminarily been placed in
discreet locations onsite and will be screened by landscaping or solid enclosures.
204
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
The project site slopes downward in a south-to-north direction. Storm water runoff is addressed by a
large bioretention planter at the natural low point of the site. Several walls are proposed, including a
retaining wall with heights that range from one to five feet along the rear of the parking lot near I-280.
The frontage along Perimeter Road slopes significantly downward from east to west, and the new
sidewalk generally follows this pattern. The new sidewalk will be level with the pathway connecting to
the building entry, but given the grade differences, the sidewalk elevation between the two site
driveways will be higher than the hotel’s floor elevation.
Parking
In accordance with the City’s Parking Ordinance, the project has the option of either providing the
ordinance prescribed stand alone parking ratio for hotel, restaurant, conference uses (at 184 stalls total),
or demonstrate sufficient parking arrangement through an alternative parking study prepared by a
transportation consultant with a parking exception permit. The alternative parking study option allows
projects to determine a more accurate parking demand, especially for uses such as shopping centers or
hotels that may have complex overlapping uses and activities that are not able to be addressed by the
standalone ordinance ratios.
The following table outlines the parking assessment methods used by some of the previously approved
hotels in the City and their respective approved parking ratios.
Hotel Parking
Assessment
Method
Approved Parking Ratio Approval No.
Aloft (10165 N. De Anza
Blvd)
Parking Study 0.7 stalls per room M-2010-07
Cypress Hotel (10050 S. De
Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.65 stalls per room U-2000-05
Hilton Garden Inn (10741
N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 1 stall per room U-1996-15
Courtyard Marriott (10605
N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 0.95 stalls per room U-1986-33
Cupertino Inn (10889 N.
De Anza Blvd)
Ordinance
Ratio*
1 stall per room U-1985-15
Average Parking Ratio .86 stalls per room
Proposed Project Parking Study 1.05 stalls per room
*An older ordinance ratio requiring hotels to be parked at 1 parking stall per each room.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. was retained by the City to conduct a parking study for the
project (see Attachment 10, Chapter 6). According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking
manual, research shows that many guests in a business-service hotel would walk, car pool, take a
shuttle, or be dropped off at the hotel. Also, many of the restaurant and conference space users are
anticipated to be hotel guests.
In order to determine whether the proposed parking would be sufficient to serve the project, field
parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton
205
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates
varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81
stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is
the most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference
room space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120
stalls) for the project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05
stalls per room (or 156 stalls), the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
Eight tandem parking stalls are proposed in the parking garage for employee use only, and signage
would be placed to this effect. The project site will continue to be owned by a single entity, and hotel
management will enforce the use of the tandem stalls. The Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking
arrangements to be considered with a Parking Exception. Excluding the tandem stalls, the project would
still provide a surplus of 28 stalls over the recommended ratio in the parking study. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the Parking Exception.
The project provides the required bicycle Class II parking supply, with 10 stalls located near the building
entrance.
Traffic
A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was conducted by Hexagon (Attachment 10). The study analyzed
the traffic impacts of the project on nine signalized intersections and one un-signalized intersection in the
vicinity of the project site during the weekday AM and PM peak periods of traffic. Based on the ITE trip
generation manual, the project would generate a total of 1,209 daily trips, with 78 trips occurring during
the AM peak hour and 89 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Since the project would generate less
than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, a congestion management program (CMP) analysis is not required per
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) TIA guidelines.
The results of the level of service (LOS) analysis under all project conditions show that all study
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic. Additionally, all of the CMP intersections (such as the Wolfe Road and I-280
north- and southbound ramps) would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during
the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.
Tree Removals, Replacements, and Protection
The project proposes to remove 96 trees onsite plus 19 offsite trees out of the 150 total trees surveyed in
the project vicinity to facilitate the construction of the proposed hotel and associated site improvements.
The proposed tree removals consist of 64 Coast Redwoods, 21 Shamel Ash, nine Honey Locust, six
Evergreen Pear, six Monterey Pine, four Coast Live Oaks, three Cork Oaks, and two Pin Oaks. It should
be noted that only the four Coast Live Oak trees are considered specimen trees since they are on the
City’s protected species list. The City’s Consulting Arborist reviewed the project’s removal request and
concurs with the proposed removals (see Attachment 11).
General Plan Policy 2-30, Strategy 8 encourages the retention of the trees along the Wolfe Road and I-280
frontage as much as possible in new development within the Vallco Shopping District. However, the
majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site are found
206
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water or overcrowding. Nine
Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the arborist as having a high suitability
for preservation since they appear reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or defects. Three of
these trees are proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the other six
will be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since 22 of
these are in poor health and since it will facilitate the construction of the pathway.
In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the project proposes to plant 116 replacement trees ranging
from 24-inch to 36-inch box sizes (including London Plane, Coast Redwood, Water Gum, and Chinese
Pistache trees) in the parking lot, street frontage, and site perimeter consistent with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In-lieu replacement fees will be required for the 56 trees
that cannot be physically planted onsite. New Coast Redwood trees will replace the ones that are
removed, where appropriate, along the perimeter of the site. The final location and species of the tree
replacements will be reviewed by staff and the City’s Consulting Arborist in conjunction with the
building permit review.
A condition of approval requires the applicant to retain the City’s Consulting Arborist to review the
construction permit drawings to ensure impacts to the trees to be retained are minimized. The applicant
is also required to retain the arborist to confirm the health of the trees and take corrective measures, if
necessary, following construction.
Proximity to Residential Area/Security
Even though the bar proposes to close at 11:00 PM, General Plan Policy 2-92 supports late night hours in
this area of the Vallco Shopping District, since the project site is located a considerable distance from
residential areas. The project site is located approximately 680 feet from the nearest existing single-family
neighborhood on Norwich Avenue and 580 feet from the existing Hampton Apartments at Wolfe Road
and Pruneridge Avenue.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has reviewed the project and does not foresee any security
concerns or negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods with operation of the proposed hotel and
restaurant/bar. The Aloft, Cypress, and Hilton Garden Inn hotels are similar hotels with interior bars and
have not had a history of enforcement concerns. Moreover, a future Sheriff’s substation will be located in
the project vicinity in the Main Street Cupertino project.
A condition of approval has been added to require the property owner to address security concerns in the
event that they arise and reimburse the City in the event of additional Sheriff’s enforcement time. As
such, the applicant is required to provide a security plan for the City and Sheriff’s Office review prior to
final occupancy.
South Vallco Connectivity Plan
During the initial hearing for the City’s current General Plan Amendment (GPA) process (file no. GPA-
2013-01) in 2012, the City Council heard oral testimony from the project applicant expressing interest in
developing the site with a hotel. The Council, in their motion on the GPA, concluded that development
within the Vallco Shopping District may proceed in parallel with the GPA process provided that projects
meet the current General Plan and zoning requirements and provide a Connectivity Plan that shows
207
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
how the new development can improve connectivity to existing and approved development, and ensure
connectivity to future development within the greater South Vallco district.
In response to Council’s direction, the applicant funded the development of the South Vallco
Connectivity Plan that demonstrates how the hotel project will physically link to existing and approved
development in the South Vallco area and interface with conceptual goals, objectives, concepts, and
design guidelines for improved connectivity, safety, and aesthetics in the shopping district (Attachment
12).
The plan identifies two considerations for improved connectivity – one within the existing circulation
system, and the other assuming a potential redesign of the entire district, which is anticipated after the
completion of the new General Plan Amendment.
The proposed hotel project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and will enhance
connectivity, safety, and aesthetics by:
Providing enhanced sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, public art, bicycle parking, and
street furniture on Perimeter Road
Locating outdoor gathering areas near the new Perimeter Road sidewalk
Constructing a bicycle/pedestrian pathway with public access easements to a potential future trail
along I-280.
Providing an ADA-accessible path of travel to Wolfe Road
Enhancing crosswalk striping and the intersection by the main site entrance
Relocating an existing crosswalk to connect to a building entrance and ADA-accessible paths
The South Vallco Connectivity plan will help inform the development of the future Vallco Shopping
District Specific and/or Master Plan.
Vallco Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA)
The applicant has provided a letter from their attorney (Attachment 13) confirming that the project will
not have an adverse impact on the Vallco Shopping District’s REA since the project provides its required
parking supply entirely onsite, and the REA would no longer apply to the project site if a hotel project
was developed.
KEY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Art
Since the project is larger than 50,000 square feet, per the City’s Public Art Ordinance, public artwork is
required in the value of .25 percent of the total project budget (not to exceed $100,000). The Fine Arts
Commission will review the final details including the design and location at a later time.
Green Building
Since the project is larger than 50,000 square feet, per the City’s Green B uilding Ordinance, the project is
required to obtain a LEED Silver certification or an alternative reference per the ordinance specifications.
Contribution to Potential Trail and Public Access
208
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Similar to the recently approved projects adjoining this area (Apple Campus 2 and Main Street), the
proposed hotel project will be required to contribute approximately $66,000 towards a study and
construction of a potential future trail along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the
south side of I-280. The project will also be required to provide the necessary access easements in order
to facilitate future trail connections through the project.
Future Rooftop Wireless Facilities
The project site is an ideal location for wireless facilities given its height and strategic location near
Apple Campus 2. Staff recommends that the applicant consider design measures to support future
rooftop wireless facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The City contracted with David J. Powers & Associates to prepare the initial study for the project
(Attachment 1) per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study concluded that
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the following mitigation
measures:
Air Quality: Measures to reduce construction emissions of particulate matter disturbed during
construction activities.
Biological Resources: Tree replacements required by the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance and
protection of existing trees to remain.
Cultural Resources: Construction work stoppage and additional investigation if archaeological
deposits are discovered.
Geology and Soils: Prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior to the issuance of building permits.
Noise: Provide acoustical study to demonstrate that all hotel rooms meet an interior noise level
consistent with City noise standards.
On August 20, 2014, the City issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND for the project. The public
comment period on the MND and initial study ends on September 18, 2014.
On August 21, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial study. A committee member commented that the
proposed Redwood replacement trees may not be a good species given that they have high water needs
and are not native to the region. A member of the public was concerned with the proposed removal of
Redwood trees, and felt that any removals should be replaced with new Redwoods.
The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the project. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 14) lists the specific mitigation measures,
the timeframe and method of compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of
implementation.
OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW
The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the Cupertino Sanitary District, Recology, PG&E, Cal Water,
209
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Caltrans, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of Sunnyvale, and City of Santa Clara reviewed
the project and have no objections. Department and agencies’ pre-hearing comments have been
incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent, Site Notice
& Legal Ad
Agenda
Neighborhood meeting held by the applicant
on August 15, 2014 with mailings sent to 239
property owners within 300 feet of the Vallco
Shopping District
239 public hearing notices mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the Vallco Shopping
District (including project site) (10 days prior to
the hearing)
Notice of intent to adopt an MND posted
onsite and sent to interested individuals,
responsible agencies, and the County
Recorder (at least 30 days prior to final decision
on the project)
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant voluntarily held a neighborhood meeting on August 15, 2014, which was attended by 11
members of the public. The neighboring property owners were generally supportive of the project, but
had a few concerns. The following is a summary of comments received at the meeting. Staff comments
are provided in italics:
Not enough notification was provided – Applicant-sponsored neighborhood meetings are not required, nor
are there noticing standards. The applicant was provided with the list of addresses for property owners within
300 feet of the entire Vallco Shopping District (same as legal noticing for public hearings) and provided with a
list of interested parties to contact for the neighborhood meeting. The City sent legal notices for the Planning
Commission hearing to the same list of property owners within 300 feet of the entire Vallco Shopping District.
In addition, the City has established a website with information on the project at
www.cupertino.org/hyatthouse and interested parties can sign up for updates.
Concerns about converting the hotel into residential in the future – The project site is not zoned for
residential, and there are no plans to eventually convert the hotel to residential since the applicant has entered
into a minimum 20-year franchise agreement with the hotel operator. However, if this is requested in the
210
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
future, a City review process with public hearings would be required. Additionally, the conditions of approval
limit hotel stays to 30 days, consistent with the City’s definition of hotels.
Concerns about not providing the ordinance-required parking, and potential spillover into adjacent
streets – Please see the Parking discussion above. The project parking supply is consistent with the alternative
parking considerations allowed by the ordinance, and a parking study has confirmed that the supply will be
adequate for the project demand. Hotels in Cupertino have not historically had parking spillover problems since
they are located away from residential neighborhoods and provide adequate parking onsite. However, if parking
issues arise in the future, the City has the ability to require additional measures as deemed necessary (e.g. valet
parking or other transportation demand measures including shuttle service).
Privacy concerns with new windows facing the residential neighborhood to the west of the Vallco
Shopping Mall - Privacy planting is not required in Planned Development zoning districts, however the
applicant proposes to plant new Coast Redwood trees along the west property line to replace the existing trees
to be removed. When mature, these trees will provide partial privacy screening. The project site is 680 feet away
and across a freeway interchange from the residential neighborhood, and view impacts are not expected to be
significant. Moreover, the orientation of the proposed building minimizes the number of windows facing the
residential neighborhood.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The
City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: May 28, 2014
Deemed Incomplete: June 26, 2014; July 22, 2014; August 8, 2014
Deemed Complete: August 21, 2014
The City has 60 days (until October 21, 2014) to make a decision on the project since a Mitigated
Negative Declaration under CEQA is recommended.
CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final
consideration, tentatively scheduled for October 21, 2014.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Reviewed by:
/s/ Rebecca Tolentino /s/ Gary Chao
Rebecca Tolentino Gary Chao
Senior Planner Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved by:
/s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Aarti Shrivastava
211
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) with Initial Study
2 – DP-2014-04 Draft Resolution
3 – ASA-2014-06 Draft Resolution
4 – U-2014-04 Draft Resolution
5 – EXC-2014-07 Draft Resolution
6 – TR-2014-28 Draft Resolution
7 – TR-2014-40 Draft Resolution
8 – Applicant’s project description letter
9 – Color and material board
10– Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
11 – City’s Consulting Arborist report
12 – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
13 – Applicant’s letter from their attorney regarding the REA
14 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
15 – Plan set
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pc DP reports\2014 DP Reports\DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40_PC.docx
212
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. AUGUST 26, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Associate Planner: George Schroeder
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
Page 14, Com. Brophy: Delete: “Noted for the record that the meeting was not a public hearing”
and replace with “Said that they did not have any public comments because there was no public
attending the hearing.”
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended
Minutes of the July 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:
MOTION: Motion By Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Takahashi
abstaining, as he was absent from the meeting; to approve the minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
213
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
2
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Brophy announced that Items 3 ad 4 would be considered together as they are the same item, Item 3
is a proposal for Hyatt House Hotel and Item 4 exists as separately listed areas because it covers a sliver
of parcel owned by J. C. Penneys where some trees will be removed as part of the proposal.
3. and 4.
DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing
U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, parking lot and construct a 5-story, 148-room hotel of approx.
TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40, 102,200 sq. ft. that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and
EA-2014-06, Edward Chan conference rooms built over a 35,400 sq. ft., 83-car underground
(Cupertino Property Development parking garage that contains tandem parking; Use Permit
II, LLC), 10380 Perimeter Rd., (U-2014-04) to allow a 2-hour hotel containing a restaurant
10150 No. Wolfe Rd. with interior bar; Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow 8
Tandem Parking stalls and 148 regular parking stalls totaling 156
Parking stalls when 184 stalls are required; Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to low the
removal and replacement of 96 tree to facilitate the construction of a new hotel; Tree Removal
Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the offsite
improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel; and (both sites:) Architectural and
site approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new 5-story, 148-room hotel and associated site and offsite
improvements, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
George Schroeder, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
He reviewed the application summary for both sites as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the
Power Point presentation,, including the application request, project data, proposed site plan,
frontage improvements, architectural review, alternative option, parking, comparison with other
hotels, traffic, tree removals, tree removal plan, tree replacements, proximity to residential/security,
South Valley Connectivity Plan, environmental assessment, outreach/public comments,
recommendations and new steps, floor plans, parking garage, ground floor and roof plan,
guestrooms, pool/plaza area, contribution to Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement District, existing
mobility conditions in So. Vallco, improved connectivity with the current mall and a Vallco Shopping
District redesign, and noticing vicinity.
Staff recommends approval of the project, which will be forwarded to City Council on October 21,
2014, and recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other project applications.
Staff answered questions about the application.
George Schroeder:
Relative to the Heart of the City (HOC) and General Plan (GP) it specifies 45 feet for the Vallco
Shopping District and also allow heights to go up to 60 feet if there is a retail component on the
ground floor; the city historically has considered restaurants as retail space. The height is measured
from the sidewalk grade as per the HOCSP to the top of the parapet. Also architectural features and
mechanical equipment are allowed to project above the height limit provided they are restraining
rooftop mechanical equipment and other mechanical features. He discussed the open space area. Staff
feels that the building size is appropriate for the site; because all parking requirements are met as well
as landscaping; it is within the GP allocation.
214
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
3
Gary Chao:
Regarding parking, why is staff suggesting going with the parking study and not the parking
ordinance? It is referred to as alternative parking standard ordinance; staff did not
recommend going this route; it is something the applicant decided.
Staff answered questions on parking, restaurant location, noise standards. The project will have to
provide charging stations; no mention of solar panels yet.
Com. Gong:
LEED silver is required for alternate standards; the project is subject to the city’s new building
ordinance. Staff said that at this time there are no plans to update the perimeter road in front of the
property, perhaps restripe it for more than two way traffic. If the Vallco Shopping mall were to
redevelop that would be considered, but there are plans to divide or restripe the road.
City Attorney:
This particular provision of the municipal code relating to parking is an alternative method for
determining parking if certain findings are made; if we continue to have to use this alternative finding
for hotels perhaps there should be a change in the ordinance. She said she did not know if that is
currently on the horizon.
Gary Chao:
Said the Council marked it as a project for staff to consider in 2015. It could be an item for discussion
as part of the comprehensive parking ordinance amendment. One of the ultimate goals for the
parking ordinance amendment is to look at something such as the existing prescribed ratio, and
review them against performances of projects where we have learned what projects have been
approved or historically written. Said they have historically supported X number of exceptions; it
may be time to consider changing that rule so that the exception standards or averages become the
norm. That may be the point, but the City Council has not set the scope of the parking ordinance
amendment so we are estimating going back to them with your comments and input will be conveyed
to them in terms of thinking and scoping the parking lot ordinance amendment 2015. The
Commission could agree to provide input to the City Council that they consider updating the hotel
ratio in the upcoming parking ordinance amendment.
City Attorney:
In amendments to the zoning code/Title 19, generally speaking they come to the Planning
Commission first for making recommendations on changing the ordinance; the Planning Commission
would have the opportunity to weigh in on parking requirements or other requirements of the zoning
code and present it to the City Council.
George Schroeder:
Said there is a condition in the draft resolution addressing that if parking ever becomes a problem in
the future, the hotel could implement valet parking, increased shuttle service or other measures to
reduce parking on the site. Said it is part of the application if the project is approved.
Com. Sun:
Asked what the city would do in the future if the applicant applied to convert the hotel to residential?
Gary Chao:
In regards to parking requirements, residential takes on a different type of parking requirement
because they are going to have to address parking if all units were converted to residential
215
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
4
apartments; it is a different process, applicant would have to go through a different public process
involving the Commission and Council again. They would need to get additional public testimony
and Planning Commission input as well as technical reports and environmental assessment would
have to be conducted again. They cannot use any part of the hotel for any other use or lease it out
other than use it for a hotel. Relative to the retention and removal of trees, he said that they would
rely on the city’s consultant arborist for recommendations, taking many factors in mind.
Com. Sun:
Requested more information on the issue of trails and pathways.
Gary Chao:
As part of the Apple project the notion of connecting and enhancing the ability of citizens to walk or
bike across from different neighborhoods is a very desirable one. It is a high objective called out in
the GP. There is opportunity to realize the trail along the south side of 280 along the drainage culvert
over a certain SCVWD land partnership partnering with them as well as contribution and help with
some of the adjacent property owners. The concept is to create a trail system that will go from Tantau
to DeAnza Blvd. through the south side of 280. The conversation has been initiated and it is
something the Council has wanted to encourage; a study is needed to further citywide conversation
including environmental assessment at a later date; more detail will be discussed at that time. In order
for them to allow them to concurrently move forward in advance of the GP being approved, they
would have to demonstrate that they would not hinder or impede any future possible connections.
That is why they are demonstrating on the west side of their property; they are showing that
pedestrian pathway that can connect from the south side to the north side. There will be more
citywide discussion on the future study of the trail.
Com. Takahashi:
Said he did not feel that parking was an issue, it is in the best interest of the hotel to manage their
parking; assume the hotel would implement valet parking if it comes to an over-crowded situation.
Was there mention of a wireless tower with the sign?
George Schroeder:
Said there is a current wireless facility within the large Vallco pylon sign on 280 and there is an
equipment enclosure on the ground level. As part of this project the equipment enclosure will be
relocated to accommodate some new parking spaces. Relative to safety reports with regard to
distance to the buildings, there will be a separate permit required for that piece of the project, during
that time they will require demonstrating that it will be a safe location to relocate the enclosure.
Com. Takahashi:
In the event that it is deemed marginal, is it up to the hotel developer to work with the wireless
provider to mitigate that?
George Schroeder:
Said the wireless provider will handle those details but also it would require the permission of the
property owner.
Com. Takahashi:
Relative to the trail, he said he was not clear if that is part of the development or allocation for future
element on that portion of the pedestrian bike trail. Since there is a mix of trees retained and new
trees being planted, is the plan to irrigate all the trees or just the new trees in place? Sounds like the
health of the trees has been driven by drought and lack of water.
216
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
5
Gary Chao:
Primarily over-crowding; they are fighting for water. There is going to be a future water calculation
and irrigation plan developed; we have also a water efficiency ordinance, while we want to ensure
that the high water usage trees get watered like redwoods, it is designed that drought tolerant methods
and strategies are employed as well throughout the project, so there is a condition to address that.
George Schroeder:
Said it was up to the operator of the farmers’ market to find an alternate location for the farmers’
market and they would need to apply for another Use Permit. We heard they intend to find another
location in the mall area.
Com. Takahashi:
Said the stone looks bare, but is purely aesthetics; no major changes on traffic. The impact given the
size of the project is minimal. It is more of a general Apple II and Main Street and the combination
of all projects going on in that area; with the level of concern of the city with regard to general
congestion of that area in the future.
Gary Chao:
Said they want the area to take up activity as it seems like a ghost town now. When Apple got their
project approved there was comprehensive traffic analysis and the analysis accounts for that as well
so its cumulative. The Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections cumulatively Apple plus this and
all the other recently approved projects have been accounted for, so we do value our LOS. The traffic
engineer would be out there if there was a problem and there are other measures that they would be
able to employ now based on the traffic consultant and traffic engineers now since they are
comfortable that the project will not degrade the LOS out there around the area.
Chair Brophy:
Relative to the landscape plan, he said he was on the ERC and spoke against the redwoods; they are
not made for flat lands and while overcrowding was an issue, so was lack of water and they are now
requiring planting plants out of a water budget and it would seem that requiring them to put up new
redwoods would just lead to future poor performance as the current ones. The issue of the map of the
height limits in So. Vallco; the project includes the Vallco Mall, the Rosebowl site and some parcels;
the height limit is 45 feet, however if there is a retail component, it would be 60 feet. In the Rosebowl
project there is ground level retail and 4 levels of apartments above it. The question is the retail in
this project that supposedly would allow 60 foot height and not 45 foot height is a 2500 foot
restaurant and bar. Said his understanding from staying at such hotels is they expect very limited use
of the restaurant and bar by the people other than those staying at the hotel. Is that a fair statement
based on experience in hotels like that?
Gary Chao:
Said it depends on the food; certain types of restaurants would become destination for customers,
which they hope will be the case. The applicant can address that in terms of what their vision is about
how that will be set up.
Chair Brophy:
Noted for the record that all Commissioners have met with Mr. Chan separately during the past week
to listen to his view of the project.
Edward Chan, Applicant, representing Cupertino Property Development:
Provided a background of the company based in Cupertino; they believe the upscale extended stay
hotel will bring a lot of benefits to Cupertino; unique in that they bring suites with kitchen and living
217
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
6
area for travelers looking for more apartment type hotel rooms. There is a full service restaurant and
bar; 2,500 sq. ft. of dining area not including the kitchen area; a good size restaurant; also 2,000 sq. ft.
of banquet space, cutting edge high tech board room, outdoor pool and lounges. The proposed
development will be upgrading the site’s interface with the existing mall as well as set up to
accommodate any future development in the mall area, and the pedestrian bike trail which will
connect to the future trail that will parallel out to 280.
Chris Talban, Vice President, Development Hyatt Hotels:
Said there was a high demand in the area for apartment style hotel rooms with a higher end food and
beverage concept. Said the way the restaurant and bar area was reoriented by Planning Commission
and staff is going to open up the bar and restaurant to outside which is very important to bring in
outside traffic.
Edward Chan:
Said they saw the alternative option they put together for the consulting architect, and feel strongly
that the updated full limestone front takes away from the tower element. Limestone is considered a
higher end material but at the same time it detracts from what they are trying to accomplish using a
lot of modern contemporary materials; and stone is an older style and will clash with what they are
trying to accomplish. Pointed out that the hotel does not have room service; it offers a destination
place for people to come, get drinks at the bar, Happy Hour, as well as dining.
In response to a question from Com. Sun about alternative parking for special events, he said if there
is an issue with parking they are open to having valet parking; also a shuttle will be available to take
people around town.
Com. Gong:
Two specimen trees Nos. 91 and 92 are marked for removal; is there any way to retain the trees as
they are specimen trees and don’t seem to be impacting the middle of the development. Any
retention alternatives?
Edward Chan:
Possibly, not sure where it sits in relation to the rest of the site trail. It looks like it might be hitting
the transformer or getting into the drive aisle. If it is outside the area, they can look into that.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Dr. Darrel Lun, representing Concerned Citizens of Cupertino:
Said they got a late start on the analysis of the project; during the EIR for the GPA for 2014 they
wrote an extensive review of the hotel in Cupertino and submitted it on June 25, 2014 with a second
analysis on July 31, 2014. With regard to the property, perhaps there could be some clarification of
the property lines on this diagram; will the project footprint interfere with any plans to upgrade the
southbound 280 onramp which has a LOS of F, and will the trail impact the project or vice versa
because it is in an area with parking, etc. so will that affect parking ratios?
With the recent fire at Vallco the project appears to have only one exit point which is from Wolfe Rd.
to a constricted area and goes around the project. Will a second access road be necessary? It would
seem that with a 10 ft. clearance, fire trucks would have difficulty getting through. Said they did not
realize that the hotel restaurant constitutes a retail element to qualify for the 60 ft. exception. To
bring some clarity to the matter, a loft hotel on DeAnza Blvd. initially was going to have a public
restaurant; they decided later that they were not going to have a public access restaurant, it would be
restricted to hotel guests only. Said he wondered if they could do the same thing, and if they are
extended suites not too many guests would likely eat at the restaurant. Does the approval of this
project constitute approval of the South Vallco connectivity plan? It seems like they are putting
218
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
7
something ahead of the GPA and it is possible that they will refer back to this project and say that the
South Vallco connectivity plan was already approved along with the hotel project.
Said he felt more questions need to be answered and need a more detailed plan of both the project and
how the studies for the Mary Ave. project from Apple is going to affect the onramps to South 280
because now there is only one access road, and one lane which expands to two; if they are going to
eventually expand that area, would the project tend to curtail that?
David Jeffers, Cupertino resident:
Asked whether the brick or granite on the building will be a façade or something thicker which would
possibly have problems with an earthquake; how is it addressed?
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gene Fall Associates rep:
Said there are several methods of putting stone on a building; typically something light in weight for
the structural integrity, such as veneer on a composite panel, where it would still show the stone on
the outside. If a stone product, a stone panel, composite panel that is lightweight would be
appropriate. In most cases a structural engineer will do the calculation to make sure that all materials
adhere to the code and life and safety of the building.
George Schroeder:
Relative to the concern about the fairly low clearance on the underpass under Wolfe Road, he said the
fire department reviewed the plans several times; they were involved early on to ensure that access
was provided to the site and also within the site. They are looking for the most direct and quickest
route to the site and that is generally from Wolfe Road and up the access road to the site. Staff
worked with the fire department to meet their standards in terms of the aisle width on sites because
the access has to be large enough to accommodate the larger trucks, with aerial apparatus, ladders,
more of a taller building. They have reviewed it and the access meets their standards; there may need
to be a few more refinements to the east driveway in terms of the radius they require but it is not
expected to have to drastically modify the site plan. That condition is part of the draft resolution.
The last question raised about the possible impact of the 280/Wolfe Rd. interchange was to be rebuilt;
either as already agreed under the Apple II campus or as a result of, he said as part of the Apple II
study there was some contribution to be made to look at the further work beyond what was required
by Apple. Is there any risk of making that an impossible problem if this project goes ahead?
Gary Chao:
In terms of the property line question, the project will not interfere with the existing operation of the
onramp to Wolfe Road. In terms of the plan referred to by Dr. Lun, the Wolfe Road Corridor
Improvement Plan, is a project that will be dictated by the Council through the GPA process, and it is
being considered in a study in an EIR that some alternatives refer to that, so a lot of how and when
and in terms of the studies involved, to realize that it would be dictated and discussed by the Council
through a public process after they decide which GP alternatives and what intensity they would like to
approve. It started with the Apple project and Apple contributed monetarily toward the future study
of that, but Council has to approve and give the green light as part of the GPA process and that is
when it is going to be flushed out. The terms are vague because the scope is not known, so they will
contribute toward that effort if the Council decides there is going to be an effort and there is going to
be a project depending on the General Plan direction they end up with.
Chair Brophy;
Said he felt the concern was more; are any of the alternatives being looked at, would they require the
city to acquire some of this property? Gary Chao responded that it would not.
219
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
8
Com. Sun:
In the future if the restaurant is failing and is converted to another purpose, the entire base of the hotel
will be non-existent; what kind of measurement would the city impose?
Gary Chao:
It is a good point in terms of specifically regarding the ability for the restaurant to be closed off to the
public; the Commission can discuss this topic and if they desire to enhance the condition by adding
language that the restaurant shall be made to be open to the public; that would be an appropriate
amendment to the condition regarding restaurants, so that if in the future for whatever reason
operationally or other reasons that prompts the conversation of potentially closing off the restaurant to
the public that they would have to come back to the city for review and approval. Moving forward
with this approval it should be made open to the public for anyone to be able to dine, and that is the
intent of the commercial or retail use.
Marriott rep:
Explained the difference between the Marriott Residence Inn and Hyatt Hotels relative to their
restaurant and bar models. Residence Inn offers a complementary evening reception; Hyatt Hotels
does not offer complementary reception, but has an H bar which is their signature bar, and they offer
hors d’ouvres in the $4 to $10 range; it is for hotel guests but they do not limit anyone from the
outside coming in. There will be people coming by after work between 5 and 7 p.m. It is open to
public also.
Chair Brophy:
If the argument for allowing an extra floor above the 45 foot limit, is that this is a concept that would
attract people either to the restaurant or the bar; there is a conference room for 100-120 people and
perhaps the parking study that compares the Hyatt to the Courtyard or Hilton Garden Inn isn’t valid,
and there may not be enough parking.
Hyatt rep:
Said the Hyatt’s concept is different than the Hilton Garden Inn and the Marriott Courtyard, but Hyatt
is providing more stalls today as part of their project than what the traffic study calls for; it is closer to
above one overall ratio in that sense, and if it were broken down more, they would still be fine on the
parking side.
Chair Brophy:
Said his argument is that perhaps the comps that the traffic consultant used, if they believe the
restaurant/bar concept and the conference room concept is unique to them, you, the observations that
the traffic consultant made would not be valid.
Hyatt rep:
Said it was difficult to say, but it may be time of use; the parking lot is going to be full of people
staying overnight vs. the meeting room unless it’s a banquet, meetings are usually taking place during
the day, so it’s a balance. If there is a parking problem, they will mitigate it because it is in their best
interest; they don’t want to have a hotel that has no parking and people can’t stay overnight.
Gary Chao:
Addressed more questions raised by Dr. Lun. What does this connectivity plan mean in the whole
scheme of the future Vallco Specific Plan which also will have a chapter on connectivity plan? Said
it is a conceptual connectivity plan geared towards demonstrating that the project will not be a
hindrance to future possible connection concepts. It primarily was geared to making sure that they
220
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
9
could interface the existing situation by the improvements they are proposing, e.g. crosswalk, cross
perimeter road, frontage design, making sure to demonstrate that it fits into the existing network; and
also looking into the future conceptually and demonstrating what they are proposing is also going to
be fitting into that. That is why the pathway came about in terms of a longer westerly boundary to
prepare for that.
The Council will have a formal process that will consider some of the recommendations and concepts
being generated by this concept connectivity plan. They can consider whether to incorporate and
change or modify taking on the additional public input and more of a comprehensive look at the entire
region and then formulate putting that into the final connectivity plan as part of the Vallco Specific
Plan later on. It depends a great deal on whatever options they choose from the GPA process; if they
choose one of the less intense options they won’t need to change a lot. In terms of the overall access
to the site we agree with Dr. Lun that there definitely needs to be some improvements because it is
similar to a maze, people trying to find their way into Vallco; it is part of the reason why some of the
stores aren’t doing too well.
The property owner has no control over perimeter road or any of the peripheral roads or interfaces
owned by the greater mall or the larger property owners within the Vallco district. Even if they
wanted to they would not be able to dictate the outcome of it now, especially not knowing what the
Council’s decisions are in terms of future allocations, intensity and land use for the Vallco Mall. It
will be one of the primary topics moving forward in the GP and afterwards in the Specific Plan
following the GPA.
Gary Chao:
Said that the project will not impact the trail in the future; it connects a pathway on their side to
prepare for it. If the trail never happens, they will have a nice walking experience along the west side
of their hotel site which helps buffer them from the onramp going onto 280; it takes the first step in
enhancing that connection or prepares for it.
Com. Gong:
Said that Dr. Lun brought up a good point that the closure of the retail space to the public negates the
reason for having the height; she suggested a condition be added that the retail space remains open to
the public. Said she understood Chair Brophy’s parking concern; the hotel is unique compared to
other ones in the area since there is an abundance of parking spaces adjacent to the particular lot; if
the hotel owner can reach an agreement with the Vallco management, their cooperation could
mitigate the parking problems and it would be in the owner’s best interest to mitigate the problems.
Said she was not concerned about the parking. The limestone façade vs. the modern look is a
personal preference; it should be the developer’s choice, not dictated by the Planning Commission.
Com. Sun:
After the detailed discussion about the project, it appears the most concerning issue is still parking.
He said he felt they need to amend the hotel parking; City Council in the next round of discussions
can work with the applicant to do some alternative for the parking. The hotel is unique in that it is a
suite or apartment style.
Relative to the issue of the trees, they want to remove almost 90% of the trees on 280 and Wolfe, but
he wanted to see if there is an alternative to possibly keep some of the trees. If the answer is no, they
will have to redraw the entire layout map; but if they can keep some trees he said at least one-third of
the trees are in good condition. Said it was not a very serious concern, he felt the most serious
concern is the parking issue.
The third issue relates to timing. Said he did not know when they would get into the GPA period; the
hotel is one step ahead of GPA; when they have all the public hearings and the public audience
coming here, they make all sorts of suggestions whether they can wait a short period for more input
and put the hotel there; or the hotel can move forward. He said generally he supported the project.
221
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
10
Com. Takahashi:
Said the design is well thought out, very contemporary and a good fit for the area; it will enhance the
area in that south Vallco has been an area of a lot of attention with regard to how to energize that area
and it is a step in the right direction.
With regard to Com. Sun’s GPA comment, the chicken/egg issue, that came up in one of the study
sessions, he said they cannot halt the development for the GPA, but from his perspective it looks
consistent with where the GP is going and is a good fit. The site is relatively isolated especially from
residents, so the fact that there really wasn’t a lot of public concern demonstrated from the standpoint
of privacy issues, noise issues, and traffic issues, is a testament of its location; it is well suited for this
specific application. There is a shortage of hotel space in Cupertino, and this will generate revenue
for the city from the standpoint of occupational taxes; and it is positive, as the Apple II campus opens,
the demand for hotels will increase and hotel rates will increase without expansion of supply, hotel
stays will be very expensive at least during the week days; it is needed.
From a parking perspective, parking is fine and the analysis looks to be sound; the study is adequate
and as stated by the applicant is somewhat a self-limiting element; it is in the interest of the property
owner to address the parking because it is going to impact their business. Much of the parking
sensitivity tends to be driven in the city by shopping centers that have a lot of restaurants which tends
to drive parking demands specifically in short durations, the lunch hour, the dinner time, and that is
where much of the frustration comes. The hotel has a different dynamic with regard to a single
restaurant, meeting rooms and guests, so I don’t see it as a source of frustration for residents because
the residents will be going there, not necessarily to stay there but to patronize the restaurant. Said he
supported the project and felt it would do well in the community; there is a demand for the hotel.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she supported a hotel use for the space but had two main concerns. First concern is the parking
should meet the parking ordinance requirements. Her second concern was that the square footage of
the restaurant is small; there is only one restaurant in the hotel and it is not large enough square
footage in terms of the whole gross building area.
Com. Gong:
Said she supported the use of a hotel on the site and felt it was the most appropriate land use for the
site. The proximity to other uses planned residential and existing residential of 300 ft. is appropriate;
the connectivity with staff, the work that staff did to make it connect to existing uses physically
linking to approved and existing development was good. Relative to tree removal, many trees have to
be removed because they do want to maximize the buildup of the site and get every parking space.
The exterior design of the building is an urban type style; it fits in with the remainder of the area; said
she preferred higher quality building materials; she liked the limestone and different stone veneers to
add to the overall quality of the project; it creates a nice juxtaposition with respect to breaking up a lot
of the concrete and plaster. Said she supported the project and liked the Hyatt brand. The project is
asking for parking exception; it is difficult to totally support that part and the second part is the small
restaurant and meeting room spaces planned for with such a large gross building area.
Chair Brophy:
Concurred with many of the points made by Vice Chair Lee. Said the site was appropriate for a hotel
and for a variety of reasons pointed out. Said in his mind the restaurant and bar are not retail
components; the purpose of giving an extra 15 feet was for projects like Rosebowl where what was
proposed was a mixed use project with commercial on the bottom and residential on top. The patrons
coming by for Happy Hour will overwhelmingly be the guests from the hotel with no retail
connection to the rest of the city.
Said there were many good things about the project; however there are certain circumstances in the
222
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
11
community that have made him decide that he would vote to deny the project.
According to the GPA currently studied and the EIR, there are already more jobs in Cupertino than
there are residential workers in the city; with the completion of the Apple II campus that disparity will
dramatically increase. Looking at some of the GPA proposals that various property owners have
included, they are faced with greater increases in office and hotel allocations which would cause the
disparity to grow even farther. There are proposals to increase heights on various sites, height
limitations and even beyond those it would be additional space for retail underneath and beyond that
there are proposals for adding space well above that under the rubric of “community benefits”.
Said under the circumstances the Planning Commission owes it to staff and fellow citizens not to
interpret the rules of allowing an extra 15 feet in the south Vallco area in the most lenient possible
manner. Said it was a single use and he could not vote for giving an extra 15 feet; he would be
pleased to see a 45 foot limit for the hotel but that is not what is before them this meeting; therefore
he was voting No.
Com. Sun:
Said he understood both Chair Brophy and Vice Chair Lee’s comments about the heights and parking
lot, and said he was concerned about the parking lot. Regarding whether the applicant is going to use
the first floor as a restaurant to reach the height of 60 ft. limit, it would be wise to impose a condition
to allow the restaurant to stay open to the public in the future.
Chair Brophy:
Clarified he was not arguing against the restaurant, but arguing against giving them an extra floor by
calling it some sort of supporting retail.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve Application EA-2014-06 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
MOTION: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0, Coms.
Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Development Permit DP-2014-04, to
include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 3-2-0, Coms.
Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Conditional Use Permit Application
U-2014-04, to include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0; Coms. Brophy and
Lee voted No, to approve Application ASA-2014-06, Architectural and Site
Approval; Application EXC-2014-07, Parking Exception, Application TR-2014-28,
Tree Removal Permit, and Application TR-2014-40 Tree Removal Permit
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
5. DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06 Wireless Communications Facility for Cupertino High
NSA Wireless/Verison Wireless School. Referral of a Director’s Minor Modification
(Fremont Union H.S. District to allow the construction of a personal wireless service
10100 Finch Avenue facility consisting of 6 panel antennas mounted on an Existing sports field light pole and a base equipment
Station located in a sports field building and an emergency generator located
In a fenced area on a concrete pad as a high school (Cupertino High School)
223
ASA-2014-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6752
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEW FIVE-STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE AND
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an
Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the
application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
1.The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan,
and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses;
and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate
potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
2.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable
planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other
224
Resolution No. 6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26, 2014
entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to
the following specific criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and
bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings.
The project is compatible with the scale of the surrounding buildings and streetscape in terms of height,
bulk, and form. The building is proposed at five stories and 60 feet in height, within the height limit
specified by the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. The building height is comparable to the
Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose Bowl) mixed-use building and several approved buildings in the Main Street
Cupertino project. The building is well within the setback to height ratios established in the General Plan.
b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials,
textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and
color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in
which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen
planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and
unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of
pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of
existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety
requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to
adjoining property owners.
The hotel building is designed in a contemporary theme similar to the hotel building approved in the Main
Street Cupertino development and the Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. The building exteriors feature
flat roof forms with architectural features along the rooflines; plaster exterior walls with smooth stone
accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefront windows and sliding pocket doors
along the ground floor; and other visual relief measures such as ground floor canopies, inset windows
(varying from three and a half to five and a half inches), wall projections (varying from one foot, five inches
to four feet, nine inches) and varying horizontal and vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as
the focal point from the main driveway. The proposed project design is consistent with the objectives of the
South Vallco Master Plan as it will improve the identity and character of the area and is compatible with
existing developments. All above ground utility installations are required to be screened from public view.
The design has incorporated decorative paving material that maximizes permeability and water-efficient
landscaping, as well as lighting to illuminate pedestrian paths and vehicular routes, which will not glare
onto adjoining properties. Most of the existing trees recommended for preservation by the City’s consultant
arborist have been retained in the project design. Replacement trees and landscaping screen the site from
the freeway and help to soften the building.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs
and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general
appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.
Signage is required as part of the project conditions of approval to be separately reviewed and approved as
part of a Master Sign Program.
d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and
visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate
design measures.
225
Resolution No. 6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26, 2014
The project has been designed to protected residents from noise through traffic, light and visually intrusive
effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The proposed
landscaping features and vegetation will provide adequate screening and buffering from the streets and
adjacent uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption; and
the application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application no. ASA-2014-06 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 no. ASA-
2014-06 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS
Prior to building permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including, but not limited to:
226
Resolution No. 6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26, 2014
a. Building design and exterior treatments (with consideration to further enhancements to the south
and west elevation main entry tower projections with stone or other similar high quality
material)
b. Frontage details, including work on adjacent parcels
c. Pool fencing design
d. Paving details
e. Parking stall adjustments (with consideration of moving surface employee parking stalls behind
the loading area in order to minimize disruption to hotel patrons)
f. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement
g. Perimeter Road plaza details and amenities (with consideration for water features, passive play
areas, decorative planters, and places to sit)
h. Perimeter Road street furniture and pedestrian amenities
i. Enhancements to Perimeter Road driveway intersections
j. Trail pathway design and materials
k. Screening of retaining walls
l. Fencing and lighting details
m. Other features consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved
plans. The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor
modifications as deemed appropriate to the above following building permit issuance and final
occupancy with review by the City. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the
Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval.
6. SIGHT DISTANCES AT PROJECT DRIVEWAYS
The project driveways shall be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby
ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on
Perimeter Road. Landscaping at the project driveways shall not conflict with a driver’s ability to
locate a gap in traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) shall be provided at all
project driveways in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be
measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The sight distance for outbound
vehicles exiting the first driveway is limited due to the downward slope on Perimeter Road, west of
the project site as Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road. However, since the intersection of this
driveway at Perimeter Road will be controlled by an all-way stop sign, vehicles will be able to exit
safely onto Perimeter Road. The second driveway to the east will have adequate sight distance for
exiting vehicles to safely locate a gap on Perimeter Road. Also, because of low traffic volumes on
Perimeter Road, vehicles exiting the hotel will be able to easily find gaps in traffic on Perimeter Road.
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
8. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
227
Resolution No. 6752 ASA-2014-06 August 26, 2014
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
9. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\ASA-2014-06 res.doc
228
DP-2014-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6753
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT
AND CONSTRUCT A 5-STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL OF APPROXIMATELY 102,200 SQUARE FEET
THAT INCLUDES A RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER A
35,400 SQUARE FOOT UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THAT CONTAINS TANDEM
PARKING, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DP-2014-04
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The proposed development, 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;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific
Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining
land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project 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.
229
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The project is consistent with all applicable aspects of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance (aside from the
Parking Exception requested), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan. The South
Vallco Master Plan identifies the project site as a potential location for a hotel. In addition, the design is
consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes , provide high quality
architecture, and improve connectivity. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible
with the adjacent and surrounding developments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption;
and the application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2014-04 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 no. DP-2014-04 as set forth
in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
230
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
5. RESTAURANT AND BAR OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE
Per Planning Commission direction, the restaurant and bar shall remain open to the public.
6. RELOCATION OF EXISTING FARMERS MARKET
An additional City approval is required if the development of this project requires the relocation of
the existing weekly farmer’s market elsewhere within the City (currently approved under file no.
DIR-2011-30).
7. RELOCATION/MODIFICATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
An additional City approval is required if the development of this project requires the
relocation/modification of the existing wireless communications facility and associated equipment
enclosure elsewhere within the site or City (currently approved under file no. DIR-2001-30).
8. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Development Permit approval is granted to allow the demolition of an existing parking lot and the
construction of a five-story, 148-room extended stay hotel that includes a 2,500 square foot
restaurant and bar, lounge and fitness areas, 2,480 square feet of conference room area, and other
ancillary uses as identified on the approved plans built over a 35,400 square foot underground
garage with tandem parking.
The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director
of Community Development.
9. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 148 hotel rooms from the Vallco Park South (or
alternative) General Plan hotel allocation area.
10. AUTO PARKING RATIO
The project auto parking supply shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.81 stalls per hotel room,
or 120 spaces, as approved under Parking Exception file no. EXC-2014-07.
11. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES (TDM)
The Director of Community Development has the ability to require additional transportation
demand measures (TDM) to address any future parking concerns. Examples of TDM may include,
but are not limited to:
a. Valet service
b. Off-site parking
c. Carpool or vanpool services
d. Additional onsite parking
e. Transit improvements
f. Non-motorized improvements
g. Shift peak-shared parking
h. Guaranteed ride home
i. Taxi service
j. Pricing
k. Increased shuttle service
231
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
12. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall maintain a minimum of 9 Class II bicycle parking stalls.
13. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SYSTEMS
The project shall comply with City Ordinance No. 14-2117 regarding electric vehicle charging
systems.
14. GREEN BUILDING
The project shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance (Chapter
16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). The applicant shall obtain LEED Silver certification or an
alternative reference standard in accordance with the ordinance since the building size is over
50,000 square feet. Third party LEED certification or alternative reference standard is required per
the ordinance criteria.
15. PUBLIC ART
Public art shall be provided for the project in accordance with General Plan Policy 2-66 and the
City’s Public Art Ordinance (Chapter 19.148 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). Per the ordinance,
the minimum expenditure for the artwork, including, but not limited to design, fabrication, and
installation is .25 percent of the total project budget, with an expenditure cap of $100,000. The project
pro forma shall be provided to the City to confirm the project budget.
The final public art plans (including location and design) shall be reviewed by the Fine Arts
Commission during the building permit stage, in advance of final occupancy. Once approved by the
Fine Arts Commission, the public artwork shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City prior to
final occupancy.
16. COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
The project shall be required to adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for
the project.
17. ROOFTOP WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
The applicant shall work with City staff to consider designing the project to accommodate future
rooftop wireless communications, given the building height and strategic location of the site. Design
features may include, but are not limited to:
a. Larger than required rooftop equipment screens.
b. Structural reinforcement of the roof to accept additional bearing loads.
c. Internalized telephone and power conduits to the roof since a retrofitted design often involves
cable chases on the building exteriors.
d. Reserve ground locations for base equipment enclosures/shelters.
18. RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENTS
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall record necessary reciprocal ingress and egress
easements between the adjoining properties to the south to run in perpetuity. The easements shall
contain a provision that it may not be modified without the prior express written approval of the
City. The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with
232
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
the County Recorder’s Office. A financial deposit will be required for the City Attorney’s Office
review time.
19. CONNECTING PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
The pathway connection on the west side of the property to the future trail along the south side of I-
280 shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. In addition, prior to
building permit issuance, an easement shall be recorded on the property allowing public access on
the property to utilize the trail connection in perpetuity per General Plan Policy 2-73, Strategy 3.
The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation with the
County Recorder’s Office. A financial deposit will be required for the City Attorney’s Office review
time.
20. TRAIL STUDY AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION
Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to final occupancy (as determined by the City), the
applicant shall contribute approximately $66,000 to administer necessary approvals and
improvements for a trail plan along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the
south side of I-280. If this fund is not used within five years of the project completion, then it shall be
returned to the applicant.
21. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES
The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying
the housing mitigation fees prior to issuance of building permits as per the Housing Mitigation
Manual. The estimated mitigation fee for this project is $613,200.00 based on the 2014-2015 fiscal
year rate of $6.00 per square foot of new hotel area.
22. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The applicant shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed by the school districts prior to
issuance of building permits.
23. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide Class II bicycle parking based on a minimum of five percent of the
required auto parking in accordance with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code.
24. SIGN PROGRAM
Signage is not approved with this application. A separate sign program application for the hotel and
ancillary tenants is required to submitted to the City and approved prior to final occupancy.
25. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall include,
but not be limited to the following:
a. Location and design of trash facilities (i.e. trash enclosures and receptacles). Trash enclosures
shall provide ample space to include trash, recycling, food waste, and waste receptacles along
with a tallow bin.
b. Quantity of trash receptacles.
c. Primary and alternative truck routes.
233
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
d. Signage for parking stalls displaced during pick-up and delivery hours.
e. Trash pick-up schedule.
f. Loading areas (with signage/markings restricting parking in these areas during loading times).
g. Delivery hours.
All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City and the City’s refuse service for review
and approval prior to issuance of building permits or final occupancy, as determined by the City.
26. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground
vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and
the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment.
Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street
areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
27. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility
plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not
limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves
(PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works,
Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies.
28. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND OTHER ABOVE-GROUND EQUIPMENT SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not
visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be
taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan
may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right-of-way.
The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
29. SITE LIGHTING
All new lighting must conform to the standards in the City’s Parking Ordinance, and the final
lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, a
licensed lighting consultant shall confirm that the lighting is in compliance with the City’s
standards.
30. CITY ARBORIST REVIEW OF PLANS, TREE PROTECTION, AND VERIFICATION OF NEW TREES
The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s Protected Tree
Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the municipal code) and City’s Consulting Arborist report dated July
24, 2014. MM BIO-1: The applicant shall comply with Section 6.0, General Protection Measures, of
the arborist Report. The recommendations in this section serve as general design guidelines to help
mitigate or avoid impacts to trees being retained. These measures are subject to revision upon
234
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
reviewing the updated project design, and the Arborist shall be consulted in the event any cannot be
feasibly implemented.
Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained by the
developer to review all construction permit drawings and in order to more accurately assess the
impacts to the neighboring trees. The developer shall implement any additional recommendations
and tree protection measures by the City’s consulting arborist.
The tree protection measures shall be listed on the plans, and protective fencing shall be shown
around the trees to remain prior to issuance of building permits. A report ascertaining the good
health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
Additionally, prior to final occupancy, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained to inspect the
new tree plantings to ensure that they were planted properly and according to the approved
planting plan.
31. TREE PROTECTION BOND/DEPOSIT
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a tree protection bond or deposit in an
amount determined by the City to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation. The bond or
deposit shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist
indicating the trees are in good health.
32. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal
per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist
(Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget
Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of building permits.
33. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the
landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final occupancy. The findings of
the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the
landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design
plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that
causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and
irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and
complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
34. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community
Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape
installation report prior to issuance of final occupancy, or any time before the landscape installation
report is submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
235
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall
either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest
control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
35. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration
rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for
amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.
The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and
irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the
soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the
landscape documentation package.
36. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
MM GEO-1: The applicant shall prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior to the issuance of a
building permit. A geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and approve them as
conforming to their recommendations prior to construction. The Project geotechnical engineer shall
provide geotechnical observation during the construction, which will allow the geotechnical
engineer to compare the actual with the anticipated soil conditions and to check that the contractors’
work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. The geotechnical
engineer will prepare letters and as-built documents, to be submitted to the City, to document their
observances during construction and to document that the work performed is in accordance with
the Project plans and specifications.
37. ACOUSTIC STUDY AND REDUCTION OF INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
MM NOISE-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit an
acoustic study to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director to demonstr ate
that all hotel rooms meet an interior noise level due to exterior noise of 45 dBA CNEL, consistent
with State and local noise standards. The study shall be based on precise grading and architectural
plans including specific construction method details and materials to calculate the necessary exterior
to interior noise reduction of approximately 30 dBA to achieve 45 dBA CNEL. The precise exterior to
interior reduction would be determined in the acoustical study when precise grading plans with
building elevations, footprints and architectural plans are available. The applicant will be required
to incorporate into the Project design all required noise insulation features and techniques necessary
to reduce interior noise levels to achieve the interior noise standard. To achieve the required interior
noise levels, features such as upgraded exterior wall and roof assemblies, upgraded windows, and
exterior doors may be required. In addition, a “windows closed” condition will be required with
minimum supply of fresh air per UBC requirements.
236
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
38. CONTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
The following construction noise mitigation measures shall be taken in order to reduce noise event
impacts to nearby receptor areas:
a. Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as
reasonable from residences adjacent to the site.
b. Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities.
c. Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule.
d. Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power
generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors.
e. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
f. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
g. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the project site.
h. Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the
cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the
notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
39. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction
meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public
Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction
management plan including, but not limited to:
a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval
b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way
c. Construction staging area
d. Construction schedule and hours
e. Construction phasing plan, if any
f. Contractor parking area
g. Tree preservation/protection plan
h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan
i. Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts
40. CONSTRUCTION HOURS
Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and
Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. The developer shall be
responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules
and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along
with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be
posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
237
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
41. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject
to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to
issuance of final demolition permits.
42. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MITIGATION DURING DEMOLITION
The following requirements shall apply for the demolition phase of the project:
a. In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and
possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine
the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials.
b. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed
in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code
Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control.
Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that
meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.
c. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to
building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will
be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the CCR, Section
1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
d. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs
identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated
above.
e. Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD
regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be
completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.
f. The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result
in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs.
43. DUST/PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL
MM AQ-1: The Project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Best
Management Practices for reducing construction emissions of coarse particulate matter (PM10) and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5):
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per
hour (mph). Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible), or as often as needed, all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
e. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the
vicinity of the Project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
238
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
h. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
44. MITIGATION OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall
implement the following standard measure to reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a
less than significant level:
The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality during
construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs would
include, but would not be limited to, the following measures:
Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system.
Incorporate effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment
control during the construction period.
Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution prior to
rainfall events or monitor runoff.
Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system.
45. MITIGATION OF POST-CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall
implement the following standard measures to reduce post-construction water quality impacts to a
less than significant level:
The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which
provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new
development.
Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include
provision for post-construction structural controls in the project design in compliance with the
NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm
water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the incorporation of
vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters to treat and reduce the amount of
runoff from the site.
The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design
and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading
permits.
To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily
infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a
minimum, the following conditions:
Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater;
Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater;
239
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained;
Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater
mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table,
BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such
as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar factors);
Unless storm water is first treated by non-infiltration means, infiltration devices shall not be
recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic trips on main roadway or 15,000 or
more average daily traffic trips on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car
washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and other land uses and activities
considered by the City as high threats to water quality; and
Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent
versions of the following documents:
City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix;
SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and
Redevelopment Projects;”
NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region;
California BMP Handbooks;
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the Source”
Design Guidance Manual;
BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water
Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and
City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard.
To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term
maintenance programs.
The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the
SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant
selection will be reflected in the landscape plans.
46. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
MM CUL-1: If historic/prehistoric artifacts or human remains are discovered during ground
disturbing activities, the following measures will be implemented:
a. In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94
of the Public Resources Code), in the event human remains are encountered during grading and
construction, all work within 50 feet of the find will stop and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s
office will be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would
notify the Native American Heritage Commission to identify the “Most Likely Descendant”
(MLD). The City of Cupertino, in consultation with the MLD, would then prepare a plan for
treatment, study, and re-internment of the remains.
240
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
b. In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94
of the Public Resources Code), in the event that historical artifacts are found, all work within 50
feet of the find will stop and a qualified archaeologist will examine the find. All significant
artifacts and samples recovered during construction would be cataloged and curated by a
qualified archaeologist and placed in an appropriate curation facility. The archaeologist must
then submit a plan for evaluation of the resource to the City of Cupertino for approval. If the
evaluation of the resource concludes that the found resource is eligible for the California
Register of Historic Resources, a mitigation plan must be submitted to the City of Cupertino for
approval. The mitigation plan must be completed before earthmoving or construction activities
can recommence within the designated resource area.
c. MM CUL-2: If paleontological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery shall be
halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and determine the
significance of the resource. Construction activities shall not recommence until the expert has
issued an opinion about the resource and appropriate mitigation has been determined.
47. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
48. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
49. 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.
Building Division:
50. INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PLANS
The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the City for review, including, but not limited
to the following information on the construction permit plans:
a. Indicate a clear (with a bold arrow line) accessible path of travel to the Wolfe Road sidewalk from
the main entrance.
b. Electrical room doors shall open towards the egress direction and shall have panic hardware.
241
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. CONTRIBUTION TO WOLFE ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The property owner of the project site will be required to provide a financial contribution to the
Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Project when the project is established by the City. The
contribution will be based on the project’s fair -share portion of the improvements as established by
the Wolfe Road Corridor Study, which will be conducted subsequent to the adoption of the City’s
2040 General Plan. The project study area will encompass the portion of Wolfe Road between Vallco
Parkway and Homestead Road. The scope of the improvements will be based on findings from the
Wolfe Road Corridor Study and may include widening of Wolfe Road, Wolfe Road bridge and
modifications to the Wolfe Road/Highway 280 interchange. The financial contribution may require
formation of a Wolfe Road Corridor Assessment District or other mechanism.
2. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
Developer shall demonstrate that the site has an accessible path of travel to Wolfe Road. If an
accessible path of travel cannot be demonstrated, the developer will be responsible for constructing
improvements to provide an accessible path.
3. CROSSWALK TO VALLCO SHOPPING MALL
Developer shall provide a crosswalk across Perimeter Road to the Vallco Shopping Mall to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. STREET WIDENING
Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and
specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
5. 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.
6. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino
Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the
City Engineer.
7. 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.
8. 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.
242
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
9. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post-
development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water
control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is
not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins,
vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and
improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via
buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid
an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private
properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible.
10. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
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. 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.
11. BICYCLE PARKING
Developer shall provide bicycle parking consistent with the City’s requirements to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
12. 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: $ Per current fee schedule ($4,183.00 or 6%)
b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,435.00 or 6%)
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 17,021.44 +/-
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule (N/A)
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
On-site Grading Bond: 115% 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
243
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
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.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground
vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and
the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment.
Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street
areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
14. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed
away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino
Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company.
15. 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.
16. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer
must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, 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.
17. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or
more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a
minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development
measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water
treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water
treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), 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 BMPs are each required.
All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third
party reviewer.
244
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
18. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer shall 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.
19. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all
grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
20. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final
occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard
appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk,
pavers, and street lights.
21. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by
the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well
as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout
the City.
22. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
23. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM
The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash
from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system. A
full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by
a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q
resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional
Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements).
24. TRASH, RECYCLING, AND COMPOST RECEPTACLES
The developer or business owner is required to install public bins (~ 30 gal) side-by-side for trash,
recycling, and composting, adjacent to the development or business to control pedestrian litter at the
site. The type and location of the receptacles are subject to the approval of the Environmental
Programs Manager (CMC 9.18.210 P).
25. TRASH, RECYCLING, AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Non -
Residential Building Trash and Recycling Enclosure, and to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Manager. Modifications to existing facilities shall, to the maximum extent possible, meet
the City’s guidelines and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Clearance by
the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit (CMC 9.18.210 H & K).
245
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
26. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
Developer shall obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse
truck access to the proposed development and trash, recycling, and compost enclosures. Plans for
access must be reviewed and approved by the City’s franchised refuse collector.
27. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
28. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
29. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of
any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically
Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and
fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
30. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as
needed.
31. STREAMSIDE PERMIT
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide plans and information that
satisfies the requirements of the Stream Side Permit as set forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative. These items include, but are not limited to, topographic survey,
specific measures to protect streams and/or water bodies from water quality impacts, coordination
with all interested jurisdictional agencies, etc.
32. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide California Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and
location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit
approval.
33. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the
underground basin or any underground strata beneath the property.
34. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
issuance of building permits.
35. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T,
and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
246
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT
1. REVIEW LIMITED TO ACCEPTABILITY OF SITE ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLY
Review of this development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as
they pertain to fire department operation, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan
review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
2. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The applicant is advised that current water infrastructure should be carefully analyzed by a
qualified consultant to determine if adequate flow and pressure can be achieved without significant
upgrades to the existing system. Please consult with the California Water Service regarding this
issue.
3. WIDER TURNING RADIUS
The proposed east turn of the accessible path of travel shown on Sheet A-0.1 does not appear to
provide the required turn radius, particularly as there may be a change of grade at that point. This
must be changed to ensure adequate access is maintained for the entire site.
4. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be
provided in the locations described in this section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18, whichever
is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas
shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings
or penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are
responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any
modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-
16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Sections
903.2 as adopted in Section 16-40-210 of the CMC.
5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water
supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact
the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that
purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire
protection system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable
water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not
be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are
documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and
Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
247
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
6. HOSE VALVES/STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Hose valves/standpipes shall be installed as per the 2010 CFC Sec. 905, or where emergency access
has been deemed minimal, shall be equipped with standpipes designed per NFPA Std. #14, and be
equipped with 2 ½” hose valves, located within the stair enclosure(s). Note specifically, within
parking structures at stairwells. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section
and NFPA 14 as amended by Chapter 47 and shall be manual wet.
7. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and
California Water Service. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet, with a minimum single
hydrant flow of 2,750 GPM at 20 PSI, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire
apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B, Table B105.1 and
Appendix C.
8. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS
Sec. 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section
503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches.
Sec. 503.2.2 Authority. The fire code official shall have the authority to require an increase in the
minimum access widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations.
Sec. 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities.
Sec. 503.2.4 Turning Radius. The required turning radius of fire apparatus access road shall be
determined by the fire code official.
Sec. 503.2.5 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the
lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access
roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines
shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway.
Width: Fire apparatus roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate
vicinity of any building or portion of buildings more than 30 feet in height.
Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be
located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be
positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.
9. MARKING
248
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that
include the words NO PARKING – FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to
identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designed
shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when
necessary to provide adequate visibility. CFC Sec. 503.3.
10. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and County
Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. The owner shall designate a person to be the fire
prevention program superintendent who shall be responsible for the fire prevention program and
ensure that it is carried out through completion of the project. A written plan, that includes specific
information about temporary standpipes, fire sprinkler activation on each floor during construction,
fire watch, and emergency procedures, must be submitted to County Fire. Provide appropriate
notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
11. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.
Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public right-of-
way, a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec.
505.1.
12. CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES
To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Development Review Conditions
shall be addressed as “notes” on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced
diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal.
SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
1. SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY
Sanitary sewer service is available for the project subject to final review and approval of the design,
including payment of all fees. Connection to the existing system will be reviewed with the design
plan submittal.
2. SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE
The Wolfe Road sanitary sewer trunk line has been identified as being at capacity. The District will
require hydraulic calculations from the intersection of Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek to Wolfe Road
downstream at Pruneridge. The design criterion is 2/3 full at wet weather flow.
3. LATERAL CONNECTION
The plans shall show the new lateral connection with elevations from the sewer main/manhole to
the proposed cleanout within five feet of the property line.
4. FEES AND PERMITS
Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the subject improvements.
249
Resolution No. 6573 DP-2014-04 August 26, 2014
5. INSTALLERS’ AGREEMENT
The applicant shall enter into an installers’ agreement with the District which will cover design and
construction of sewers, necessary right of way/easements, payment for all fees and costs, furnishing
bonds and indemnity.
SECTION VII: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
1. WATER SERVICE
An eight-inch main line exists on Perimeter Road, which is anticipated to provide sufficient capacity
for the site.
2. WATER LINE EASEMENT
The main line is required to be extended from Perimeter Road to the project site. Therefore, an
easement is required on the property to accommodate this extension.
3. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE
A backflow prevention device (BFP) shall be located near the water main near Perimeter Road. Any
screening enclosures must meet required clearances on all four sides. Variances may be considered
for greater BFP distances from the water meter.
4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Clarify whether there is a dedicated irrigation service. It is assumed the irrigation service is from
the domestic water line.
b. Size fire water line based on a single tap. A second tap will not be approved.
c. Both services will require RPs, and both lines will need to have boosting capability factored in.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\DP-2014-04 res.doc
250
EXC-2014-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6754
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PARKING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING AND 156
STALLS WHEN 184 STALLS ARE REQUIRED, LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2014-07
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Parking
Exception as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and
intent of this chapter;
The project proposes 156 parking stalls, or 1.05 stalls per room. Table 19.124.040 (A) of the City’s Parking
Ordinance requires the project to provide a total of 184 parking spaces (assuming separate ratios for the
hotel, restaurant/bar, and conference room space) at a rate of 1.24 spaces per room —resulting in a deficit of
28 stalls in the proposed parking supply. However, Section 19.24.040 (H) of the ordinance provides for
alternative parking considerations through a parking study prepared by transportation professionals.
Parking studies are especially useful for hotels since there are overlapping uses and activities that may not be
addressed by the ordinance ratios in Table 19.124.040 (A). The parking study found that the proposed
supply is adequate to meet the needs of the hotel and other ancillary uses. Applying Table 19.124.040 (A)
would result in a large number of excess stalls and would be inconsistent with other hotel parking ratios in
the City.
251
Resolution No. 6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26, 2014
b) The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be
detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific
Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining
land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to
mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project 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.
c) The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum
variance to accomplish the purpose;
See Section A above.
d) The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring properties;
Given that the project provides more than the minimum supply recommended by the parking study and
there are transportation demand measures proposed by the applicant and included in the conditions of
approval, the proposed exception is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to neighboring properties.
e) The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is
compatible with the proposed parking supply. Adjacent on-street parking may be included in the
parking supply;
Field parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton
Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates
varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81
stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the
most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room
space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls) for the
project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room,
the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
f) The project is owned or managed by a single entity; and
The project is owned by a single entity.
g) If adjacent properties are used to share parking, they are in close proximity to each other, and
reciprocal parking and access easements and maintenance agreements are recorded on the
applicable properties to run with the land.
There is no shared parking for this project. All of the parking study’s recommended parking s upply is
provided onsite.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
252
Resolution No. 6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26, 2014
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption;
and the application for a Parking Exception, Application no. EXC-2014-07 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 no. EXC-2014-07 as set
forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the Transportation Impact Analysis (including
parking survey) dated August 14, 2014 consisting of 180 pages entitled, “Hyatt House Hotel
Transportation Impact Analysis,” prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., except as
may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, DP-2014-04, TR-2014-28,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. PARKING EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Parking Exception approval is granted to allow eight tandem parking stalls and 156 stalls when 184
are required. The Director of Community Development may approve minor modifications to the
locations of the tandem and regular stalls, and the quantity of regular stalls, provided it does not
reduce stalls below the approved parking ratio.
The Planning Commission shall review modifications considered major by the Director of
Community Development.
6. AUTO PARKING RATIO
The project auto parking supply shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 0.81 stalls per hotel room,
or 120 spaces based on the parking study contained in the project transportation impact analysis.
253
Resolution No. 6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26, 2014
7. TANDEM PARKING STALL MANAGEMENT
Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall submit a tandem parking stall management plan.
Tandem parking stalls shall be reserved for employee use only. Employee vehicles shall be moved
when necessary in order to allow employees to leave when their shift is over. The plan shall take
into accound the start and end times of employees’ shifts in order to minimize the amount of vehicle
re-parking that needs to occur.
8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MEASURES (TDM)
The Director of Community Development has the ability to require additional transportation
demand measures (TDM) to address any future parking concerns. Examples of TDM may include,
but are not limited to:
a. Valet service
b. Off-site parking
c. Carpool or vanpool services
d. Additional onsite parking
e. Transit improvements
f. Non-motorized improvements
g. Shift peak-shared parking
h. Guaranteed ride home
i. Taxi service
j. Pricing
k. Increased shuttle service
9. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees an d costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
11. 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.
254
Resolution No. 6754 EXC-2014-07 August 26, 2014
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\EXC-2014-07 res.doc
255
TR-2014-28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6755
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 96 TREES TO
FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOTEL LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER RD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2014-28
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree
Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to
existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and
cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or
utility services;
The majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site are found
by the City’s Consulting Arborist to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water
or overcrowding. Nine Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the arborist as having
a high suitability for preservation since they appear reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or
defects. Three of these trees are proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the
other six will be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since
twenty-two of these are in poor health and since it will facilitate the construction of the pathway.
256
Resolution No. 6755 TR-2014-28 August 26, 2014
b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting
the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated
property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are in conflict with the
proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or
relocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption;
and the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-28 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 no. TR-2014-28 as set forth
in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the City’s consulting arborist report entitled,
“Arborist Report: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Wolfe Road and Interstate 280, Cupertino,
California (APN 316-20-092),” prepared by David Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist #399 dated
July 24, 2014 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07,
and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN
MM-BIO 2: The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of
site permits.
The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The
Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree
257
Resolution No. 6755 TR-2014-28 August 26, 2014
replacements as deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were
planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy.
4. IN-LIEU TREE REPLACEMENT FEES
The Director of Community Development has determined that accommodating the 56 remaining
required 24-inch box or 28 required 36-inch box trees on the property would not be feasible and
therefore a tree replacement in-lieu fee would be required. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall pay the in-lieu fees in the amount to procure and install the replacement trees.
5. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist
prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits . The bond shall be returned after
the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist.
6. STREET TREE REMOVAL (TREE 96)
Tree #96 is identified as a street tree on Wolfe Road. MM BIO-3: In order to remove any public street
trees within the Project site, the Project Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14.12,
Trees. The Project Applicant shall pay the required fee, prior to the issuance of a building permit,
per the New Street Tree Cost Schedule, for the purchase, planting, and maintenance of trees by the
City. All public trees shall be protected against damage during construction operations. There shall
be no storage of materials, tool washout, or vehicle parking near or upon public trees. This is in
accordance with Municipal Code Section 14.12.120, Condition for Development or Building Permit.
All planting costs associated with a building permit shall be collected by the Chief Building
Inspector, or his/her designee, for deposit into the City’s general fund prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The fees for public tree removal and/or damage to branches and roots shall be as
specified in the Public Tree Damage or Removal Fee Schedule adopted by Council Resolution.
Damage and removal fees shall be deposited into the City’s tree fund. This is in accordance with
Municipal Code Section 14.12.130, New Street Tree Costs and Public Tree Damage or Removal Fee
Schedules.
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
8. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
258
Resolution No. 6755 TR-2014-28 August 26, 2014
9. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\TR-2014-28 res.doc
259
U-2014-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6756
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 24-HOUR HOTEL, INCLUDING A RESTAURANT WITH INTERIOR
BAR LOCATED AT 10380 PERIMETER ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2014-04
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (APN 316-20-092)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit
as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of
the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)The proposed development, 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;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Heart of the City Specific Plan,
and the South Vallco Master Plan; is over 300 feet away from any existing or planned residential uses and
other sensitive receptors; the project 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.
b)The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino,
since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the design
is consistent with General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan policies that encourage development to
260
Resolution No 6756 U-2014-04 August 26, 2014
activate streetscapes and create community gathering places. General Plan Policy 2-92 supports late night
hours since the building is located a considerable distance from residential areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption;
and the application for a Use Permit, Application no. U-2014-04 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 no. U-2014-04 as set forth in the Minutes
of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; except as may be amended by conditions in this
resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not
limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage,
any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data
may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-
28, and TR-2014-40 shall be applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the
building plans.
5. RESTAURANT AND BAR OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE
Per Planning Commission direction, the restaurant and bar shall remain open to the public.
6. USE APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Approval is hereby granted to allow a 24-hour hotel operation including a restaurant with interior
bar. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the
261
Resolution No 6756 U-2014-04 August 26, 2014
Director of Community Development.
7. MAXIMUM LENGTH OF HOTEL STAYS
Hotel stays shall be limited to a maximum of 30 days per reservation.
8. SHUTTLE SERVICES
The hotel shall provide airport and local shuttle services for hotel guests in order to minimize traffic
and parking impacts.
9. ODOR ABATEMENT SYSTEM
If odor impacts from food use or other odor-generating uses become a nuisance in the future as
determined by the Community Development Director (typically if five or more complaints are
received within a 12-month period), the property owner shall install odor abatement systems to
reduce odor impacts to the adjacent community. Detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Department.
10. SECURITY PLAN
The applicant shall develop a comprehensive security plan for the entire hotel development, and
shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the County Sheriff’s Office prior to final occupancy.
11. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The property owner shall pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement time resulting from
documented incidents resulting at the project site at the City’s contracted hourly rate with the
Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
12. USE PERMIT REVIEW/ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
If complaints have been received related to the tenant(s) under this use permit, and the complaints
were not addressed immediately by the property management, then the Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the use permit at which time, the use permit approval may be modified
or revoked.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or parking restrictions as
prescribed by the Sheriff's Office.
13. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
14. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
262
Resolution No 6756 U-2014-04 August 26, 2014
15. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\DP-2014-04 res.doc
263
TR-2014-40
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6757
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
OF 19 TREES TO FACILITATE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOTEL LOCATED AT 10150 NORTH WOLFE ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2014-40
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: JC Penney Properties
Location: 10150 North Wolfe Road (APN 316-20-094)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree
Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the
application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a)That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to
existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot
be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility
services;
The majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site are found
by the City’s Consulting Arborist to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water
or overcrowding. Nine Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the arborist as having
a high suitability for preservation since they appear reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or
defects. Three of these trees are proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the
other six will be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since
twenty-two of these are in poor health and since it will facilitate the construction of the pathway.
264
Resolution No. 6757 TR-2014-40 August 26, 2014
b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting
the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated
property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are in conflict with the
proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or
relocation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
PAGE 2 thereof,:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-06) is hereby recommended for adoption; and
the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-40 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 no. TR-2014-40 as set forth
in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of August 26, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Planning Division:
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received August 13, 2014 consisting of 47 sheets
labeled A-0.0 to A-0.3, C-1.0 to C-5.0, C-5.1, C-6.0, L-1 to L-5, A-1.0 to A-1.4, A2.0 to A-2.6, A-3.0 to A-
3.8, A-4.0 to A-4.2, A-5.0, A-6.0, A-6.1, E-0.1, and E-1.0 to E-1.2, entitled, “Hyatt House, Cupertino
California, Wolfe Road & Interstate 280,” drawn by Gene Fong Associates, Sandis, Bruce Jett
Associates, and Emerald City Engineers, Inc.; and the City’s consulting arborist report entitled,
“Arborist Report: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Wolfe Road and Interstate 280, Cupertino,
California (APN 316-20-092),” prepared by David Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist #399 dated
July 24, 2014 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07,
and TR-2014-28 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN
MM-BIO 2: The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of
site permits.
The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of
Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as
265
Resolution No. 6757 TR-2014-40 August 26, 2014
deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly
and according to plan prior to final occupancy.
4. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist
prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits. The bond shall be returned after
the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist.
5. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the
proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any
submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its choice.
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gong, Sun, Takahashi
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission
266
Retail Component of Hyatt House hotel – the H Bar and meeting space
The ground floor of Hyatt House Cupertino contains 21,100 square feet in total. Approximately 3073
indoor square feet is dedicated to the Hyatt House H Bar bar and restaurant area and 4852 indoor
square feet to the meeting space and prefunction area. An additional 778 square feet of outdoor dining
space services the H Bar. The H Bar area of the hotel includes 45 seats indoors and 15 seats outdoors.
The building frontage is designed in such a way to bring the activity outside towards the street frontage.
It is intended that The H Bar shall be open daily with breakfast, lunch, and dinner offerings. Breakfast,
lunch, dinner and the bar offerings are open to the public, as well as to hotel guests as a pay for service.
As a hotel guest, breakfast is the only complimentary meal. Outside of breakfast, all food and beverage
is a pay for service. The menu includes appetizers, soups, salads, pizzas, sandwiches, entrees and a full
list of drinks, beers, wines, and cocktails. The H Bar bar and restaurant is open to the public. As a pay
for service, sales tax dollars will be generated through the H Bar. A sample menu is attached.
The meeting space is configured to allow both smaller and larger business and social gatherings. A
separate high tech board room is available for meetings. The main meeting hall can be configured to
multiple sizes to accommodate the renter’s needs – up to an estimated 130 seats in a banquet setting
and even more in a theater setting. Prefunction areas allow for break areas, cocktail receptions before
the meeting events and after meetings. These activities can spill outside to the outdoor patio and
poolside. The rental of these available meeting facilities generate sales tax dollars, as does the
associated food and beverage consumed during the use of the meeting spaces. The goal is to provide
offerings to benefit the public and hotel guests, as well as nearby businesses to keep them in Cupertino.
This complete hotel offering with the H Bar and meeting space retail components help generate
Transient Occupancy Tax dollars and sales tax dollars that will benefit the city and help reduce the
leakage of sales to neighboring cities.
Activated frontage
The total street frontage along Perimeter Road is approximately 571 feet. The building spans across 315
feet of that frontage. We have thoughtfully planned active indoor and outdoor space that covers
approximately 257 feet or 81% of the building frontage. The activity that this new hotel will bring to the
area will help promote a livelier active streetscape. In addition, there is a quasi-public plaza to provide
benefit to the pedestrians and the public to promote the active area. These active spaces include the H
Bar dining, bar, and billiards areas; outdoor dining and fire pit areas located near the H Bar; the outdoor
poolside patios; meeting space and board rooms available for rent; and active common area amenities
reserved for hotel guests such as the fitness room and swimming pool. With the ample outdoor spaces
and the use of sliding glass walls, we are blending the indoor and outdoor activity to promote a lively
streetscape in what previously was an unattractive underutilized parking lot. Patrons of the Hyatt
House hotel and the H Bar can take advantage of the mild California climate and enjoy their meals and
drinks in our outdoor seating area.
267
268
269
270
Hyatt House Hotel
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Placeworks
October 6, 2014
Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850, San Jose, CA 95113
Hexagon Phone: 408-971-6100
Job Number: 14TD01
Client Name: Placeworks.
Document Name: Hyatt House Hotel TIA 100614
271
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
ii | Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 13
3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 22
4. Background Conditions ................................................................................................................. 28
5. Background Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................ 32
6. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................... 36
7. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................. 40
8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 44
Appendices
Appendix A: New Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Intersection Level of Service Calculations
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................ v
Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections ............................ 10
Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ............ 12
Table 4 Existing Weekday VTA Bus Service ............................................................................... 15
Table 5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................... 21
Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................. 23
Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 27
Table 8 Background Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 31
Table 9 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 35
Table 10 Parking Survey Results ................................................................................................... 39
Table 11 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 41
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections .................................................................................. 7
Figure 2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 Existing Transit Services .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution Patterns ........................................................................................ 24
Figure 8 Project Trip Assignment ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 26
Figure 10 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 34
Figure 12 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 43
272
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
iii | Page
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed
Hyatt House hotel project on the KCR-owned parcel at the southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280 in
the City of Cupertino, California. The approximately 2-acre site is within the Vallco Shopping District, and
is currently used as a parking lot. The hotel is planned to be a 5-story building with 148 hotel rooms, with
a full service restaurant, bar, and meeting space. The proposed development includes 73 spaces of
surface parking and 83 spaces of garage parking. The project site provides two access driveways on
Perimeter Road. Figure 1 shows the study area and project site location. Figure 2 shows the site plan.
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying 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 Valley Transportation Agency (VTA). The VTA administers the
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Since the project would generate less
than 100 peak hour gross vehicle trips, a CMP analysis was not conducted. The study determined the
traffic impacts of the project on nine (9) signalized intersections, and one (1) unsignalized intersection in
the vicinity of the project site during the weekday AM and PM peak periods of traffic. Project impacts on
other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit services, were determined on the basis
of engineering judgment.
Project Trip Generation
The rates for Hotel (ITE land use code 310) were applied to estimate the project trips. No trip credits were
taken because the existing site is currently being used as a parking lot. Based on the ITE trip generation
rates, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,209 daily trips, with 78 trips occurring during the
AM peak hour and 89 trips occurring during the PM peak hour period.
Intersection Levels of Service
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under all project conditions show that all study intersections
would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours
of traffic.
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under all project conditions show that all of the study CMP
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM
peak hours of traffic.
273
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
iv | Page
Other Transportation Issues
There are currently no sidewalks on Perimeter Road or on the connecting ramps to Wolfe Road. Thus,
there are no good existing pedestrian connections from the hotel site to Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, or
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project will build a sidewalk on the north side of Perimeter Road, and two
crosswalks connecting the project site to the rest of the Vallco Shopping District will be provided. Also,
the proposed site plan shows a pedestrian connection from the hotel to the new sidewalk and crosswalks
on Perimeter Road.
The project will also provide a new pathway along the west side of the project site. This path will connect
to a future trail along the south side of I-280. Although the trail on the south side of I-280 has not yet
been fully studied, the pathway connection provided by the project will significantly enhance bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity if it is ever implemented.
Parking
The project will provide 156 parking spaces, which is a rate of 1.05 parking spaces per room. Hexagon
surveyed parking utilization at three similar hotels in Cupertino, and the highest ratio was found to be 0.81
occupied spaces per room. The proposed 156 parking spaces would be adequate, based on the highest
surveyed peak hour parking demand.
Based on Hexagon’s site observations of unoccupied parking spaces, the 2-acre hotel site is not needed
as part of the parking supply for the Vallco Shopping District. Therefore, the removal of the existing 2-
acre parking lot would not adversely impact the availability of parking for the Vallco Shopping District. .
274
Hy
a
t
t
Ho
u
s
e
Ho
t
e
l
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
6,
20
1
4
v | Page
Ta
b
l
e
E
S
1
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Av
g
.
A
v
g
.
A
v
g
.
A
v
g
.
I
n
c
r
.
I
n
A
v
g
.
A
v
g
.
I
n
c
r
.
I
n
St
u
d
y
P
e
a
k
C
o
u
n
t
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
C
r
i
t
.
D
e
l
a
y
I
n
c
r
.
I
n
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
C
r
i
t
.
D
e
l
a
y
I
n
c
r
.
I
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
H
o
u
r
D
a
t
e
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
C
r
i
t
.
V
/
C
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
)
C
r
i
t
.
V
/
C
1
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
&
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
A
M
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
3
4
.
0
C
3
4
.
0
C
4
0
.
9
D
4
1
.
2
D
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
4
3
9
.
9
D
4
0
.
0
D
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
4
PM
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
3
9
.
2
D
3
9
.
1
D
5
0
.
5
D
5
0
.
8
D
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
3
5
1
.
6
D
5
1
.
9
D
0
.
5
0
.
0
0
3
2
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
&
I
-
2
8
0
N
B
R
a
m
p
*
A
M
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
1
2
.
8
B
1
2
.
7
B
1
8
.
0
B
1
8
.
0
B
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
1
1
8
.
1
B
1
8
.
1
B
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
1
PM
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
1
3
.
4
B
1
3
.
4
B
2
6
.
8
C
2
7
.
6
C
0
.
7
0
.
0
0
3
2
7
.
6
C
2
7
.
9
C
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
3
3
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
&
I
-
2
8
0
S
B
R
a
m
p
*
A
M
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
1
0
.
6
B
1
0
.
6
B
1
7
.
9
B
1
8
.
1
B
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
4
1
9
.
2
B
1
9
.
4
B
0
.
5
0
.
0
0
4
PM
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
6
.
5
A
6
.
5
A
1
1
.
2
B
1
1
.
4
B
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
9
2
9
.
3
C
3
0
.
9
C
2
.
8
0
.
0
0
9
4
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
&
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
k
w
y
AM
05
/
0
4
/
1
1
1
8
.
1
B
1
8
.
1
B
2
7
.
3
C
2
7
.
3
C
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
2
2
8
.
0
C
2
8
.
0
C
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
2
PM
05
/
0
4
/
1
1
2
9
.
8
C
2
9
.
9
C
3
8
.
8
D
3
8
.
9
D
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
2
3
5
.
0
C
3
5
.
1
D
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
2
5
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
&
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
*
A
M
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
3
7
.
4
D
3
7
.
4
D
3
9
.
5
D
3
9
.
6
D
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
3
3
9
.
9
D
4
0
.
0
D
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
3
PM
05
/
0
5
/
1
1
3
8
.
3
D
3
8
.
3
D
4
3
.
8
D
4
4
.
0
D
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
3
4
9
.
2
D
4
9
.
6
D
0
.
6
0
.
0
0
3
6
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
d
&
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
k
w
y
AM
05
/
1
5
/
1
4
6
.
1
A
7
.
0
A
4
.
1
A
4
.
3
A
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
7
4
.
1
A
4
.
2
A
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
7
PM
05
/
1
5
/
1
4
1
1
.
1
B
1
1
.
5
B
6
.
8
A
7
.
1
A
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
8
6
.
0
A
6
.
1
A
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
8
7
F
i
n
c
h
A
v
e
&
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
k
w
y
1 2
AM
05
/
1
3
/
1
4
9
.
4
B
9
.
5
B
2
5
.
7
C
2
5
.
9
C
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
8
2
5
.
8
C
2
6
.
0
C
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
8
PM
05
/
1
3
/
1
4
1
.
3
B
1
.
3
B
3
7
.
9
D
3
9
.
0
D
1
.
1
0
.
0
0
9
3
8
.
1
D
3
9
.
2
D
1
.
1
0
.
0
0
9
8
F
i
n
c
h
A
v
e
&
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
A
M
05
/
1
2
/
1
1
2
3
.
5
C
2
3
.
6
C
2
3
.
8
C
2
3
.
8
C
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
2
6
.
3
C
2
6
.
3
C
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
PM
05
/
1
2
/
1
1
2
3
.
5
C
2
3
.
6
C
3
1
.
9
C
3
1
.
9
C
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
4
4
.
5
D
4
4
.
5
D
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
9
N
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
&
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
k
w
y
AM
06
/
0
1
/
1
1
2
4
.
1
C
2
4
.
5
C
2
8
.
4
C
2
8
.
5
C
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
1
2
7
.
2
C
2
7
.
3
C
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
1
PM
06
/
0
1
/
1
1
2
7
.
8
C
2
8
.
2
C
3
4
.
0
C
3
4
.
3
C
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
8
3
3
.
4
C
3
3
.
7
C
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
8
10
N
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
&
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
A
M
05
/
1
2
/
1
1
3
8
.
9
D
3
8
.
7
D
4
3
.
2
D
4
3
.
2
D
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
4
3
.
4
D
4
3
.
4
D
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
PM
05
/
1
2
/
1
1
3
8
.
8
D
3
8
.
6
D
4
6
.
8
D
4
7
.
0
D
0
.
2
0
.
0
0
1
4
9
.
4
D
4
9
.
6
D
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
1
No
t
e
s
:
*
d
e
n
o
t
e
s
C
M
P
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
1 T
h
i
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
u
n
d
e
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
s
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
u
n
d
e
r
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
2
L
O
S
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
s
t
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
L
O
S
Bo
l
d
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Cumulative + Project
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
27
5
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
6 | Page
1.
Introduction
This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed
Hyatt House hotel project on the KCR-owned parcel at the southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280 in
the City of Cupertino, California. The approximately 2-acre site is within the Vallco Shopping District, and
is currently used as a parking lot. The hotel is planned to be a 5-story building with 148 hotel rooms, with
a full service restaurant, bar, and meeting space. The proposed development includes 73 spaces of
surface parking and 83 spaces of garage parking. The project site provides two access driveways on
Perimeter Road. Figure 1 shows the study area and project site location. Figure 2 shows the site plan.
Scope of Study
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying 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 Valley Transportation Agency (VTA). The VTA administers the
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Since the project would generate less
than 100 peak hour gross vehicle trips, a CMP analysis was not conducted. The study determined the
traffic impacts of the project on nine (9) signalized intersections, and one (1) unsignalized intersection in
the vicinity of the project site during the weekday AM and PM peak periods of traffic. The following
intersections were studied.
Study Intersections
1. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road
2. Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramp*
3. Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramp*
4. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway
5. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard*
6. Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway
7. Finch Avenue and Vallco Parkway (unsignalized)
8. Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard
9. N Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway
10. N Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Asterisk (*) denotes CMP intersections.
Currently, Finch Road is being reconstructed between Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard as
part of the Main Street Development and is closed to traffic. The intersection of Vallco Parkway and
Finch Road was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions as this intersection
operated with stop control on Finch Avenue at the time the counts were conducted. This intersection is
proposed to be signalized with the completion of the Main Street project.
276
277
27
8
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
9 | Page
Traffic conditions at the study intersections 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 of
traffic is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods on an average weekday that the
most congested traffic conditions occur.
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes for seven of the study intersections were
obtained from the City of Cupertino (consistent with the Apple Campus 2 EIR traffic
counts), the 2012 CMP count database, and new 2014 manual turning-movement
counts (at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway/Finch Avenue). The
new count data are included in Appendix A.
Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project peak hour traffic volumes were
estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the
project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in
order to determine the effects the project would have on existing traffic conditions.
Scenario 3: Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to
existing peak hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed
developments. The added traffic from approved but not yet completed developments
was based on trips generated by approved projects assumed for the Apple Campus 2
EIR, including the Apple Campus. Background conditions are consistent with the
background plus project conditions assumed for the Apple Campus 2 EIR.
Scenario 4: Background Plus Project Conditions. Projected near-term peak hour traffic volumes with
the project were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic
generated by the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to
background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts according to the
City of Cupertino and VTA Level of Service Policy.
Scenario 5: Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic conditions were analyzed by adding the traffic
generated by pending developments to background plus project conditions. The traffic
generated by pending developments was based on the cumulative plus project
conditions presented in the Apple Campus 2 EIR. This traffic scenario was evaluated in
order to fulfill the CEQA and CMP requirements.
Study Methodology
This section describes 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, the City of Cupertino, the 2012
CMP Annual Monitoring Report, previous traffic studies and field observations. The following data were
collected from these sources:
existing traffic volumes
intersection lane configurations
signal timing and phasing
approved & pending project trips
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
279
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
10 | Page
no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are
described below.
City of Cupertino Intersections
The City of Cupertino level of service methodology for signalized intersections is the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) method. This method is applied using the TRAFFIX software. The 2000 HCM
operations method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time
for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX is also the CMP-designated intersection level of service
methodology, 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 control delay and level of service is shown in Table 2.
CMP Intersections
The designated level of service methodology for the CMP also is the 2000 HCM operations method for
signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The only difference in level of service standards is that in the
City of Cupertino the standard is LOS D or better, and the CMP level of service standard for signalized
intersections is LOS E or better.
Table 2
Intersection Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the
green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to
the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or lessA
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average
vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number
of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0C
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0F
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle
lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0D
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 80.0E
280
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
11 | Page
Intersection Operations
The analysis of intersection level of service is often supplemented with an analysis of intersection
operations for selected intersections where the project would add a significant number of left-turning
vehicles. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand turning-movements at
intersections. Vehicle queues are estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the
probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:
P (x=n) = n e – (
n!
where:
P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane
n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
Avg. # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr)
The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th
percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the
estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet
per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned
available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future left-
turn storage requirements at signalized intersections.
The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less
would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue
would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a
60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue
length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile
queue length is also known as the “design queue length.”
Unsignalized Intersections
One of the study intersections is unsignalized: Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue. Finch Avenue is
currently closed to vehicular access. It is being reconstructed as a private street between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Vallco Parkway, through the Main Street development. The intersection of Vallco Parkway
and Finch Avenue will be signalized with the completion of the Main Street development. Since this
intersection operated as an unsignalized intersection with a stop control on Finch Avenue when the traffic
counts were conducted, this intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing
conditions. Under background and cumulative conditions, this intersection was analyzed as a signalized
intersection. Table 3 shows the level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections.
281
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
12 | Page
Table 3
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
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.
Level of ServiceDescriptionAverage Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions
including the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under existing plus project conditions and describes the
method used to estimate project traffic. Chapter 4 presents the intersection operations under background
conditions. Chapter 5 presents the intersection operations under background plus project conditions and
describes the project’s impact on the near-term transportation system. Chapter 6 describes non-level of
service operational issues associated with the proposed project. Chapter 7 describes cumulative traffic
conditions. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of the traffic study.
282
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
13 | Page
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. Also included
are the existing levels of service of the key intersections in the study area.
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by I-280 and local access is provided by Wolfe Road,
Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue and Perimeter Road. These facilities and
other roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below.
I-280 is an eight-lane freeway (three mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) and is located
immediately north of the project site. I-280 is aligned in an east-west orientation within the project vicinity
and provides regional freeway access between the cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Cupertino
access to/from I-280 is provided via interchanges with De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and Lawrence Expressway. I-280 provides connections to SR 85 approximately 2.5 miles
west of the Wolfe Road interchange and to I-880 approximately 4.5 miles east of the Wolfe Road
interchange.
Homestead Road is a four-lane, east-west roadway that extends from Foothill Expressway in the west to
Lafayette Street in the east. Homestead Road is located to the north of the project site and provides
connections to Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue.
Wolfe Road is a four-to-six-lane north-south roadway and is located immediately west of the project site. It
extends north to the City of Sunnyvale and south to the City of Saratoga. North of Stevens Creek
Boulevard the roadway is called Wolfe Road and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard it is called Miller
Avenue. Wolfe Road has an interchange with I-280. Wolfe Road provides access to the project site via a
grade-separated interchange with Perimeter Road.
Tantau Avenue is a two-lane to four-lane, north-south roadway that extends from Bollinger Road in the
south to Homestead Road in the north. Tantau Avenue is located to the east of the project site and
provides connections to Stevens Creek Boulevard and to Vallco Parkway. Through traffic is not allowed
on Tantau Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Vallco Parkway is a short (less than 0.5 mile) six-lane, east-west roadway that provides a connection
between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Entitled development projects, including JC Penney, Rose
bowl, and Main Street, are located along Vallco Parkway. The lane configuration of Vallco Parkway will be
modified in conjunction with these development projects to four travel lanes with some on-street parking.
The road currently has one signalized intersection at Perimeter Road. With the new development
projects, two additional traffic lights will be added: one at Finch Avenue (Main Street) and the other at the
new entrance to the Main Street garage between Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue.
283
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
14 | Page
Perimeter Road is a two-lane roadway connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard, Vallco Parkway and Wolfe
Road. Perimeter Road runs under Wolfe Road, and connects via ramps to and from Wolfe Road. Access
to the project site is provided via two driveways on Perimeter Road.
Finch Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway that connects Vallco Parkway on the north and Phil Lane
on the south. Finch Avenue is currently being reconstructed as part of the Main Street project. It will be
reconstructed as a private street between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway through the
Main Street development, and its intersection with Vallco Parkway will be signalized. South of Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue provides access to Cupertino High School.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is an east-west six-lane divided arterial that connects western Cupertino to
downtown San Jose (via West San Carlos Street). Stevens Creek Boulevard provides access to SR 85, I-
280 and Lawrence Expressway via interchanges.
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks along most of the streets in the immediate vicinity of the project
site and crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads at all of the signalized intersections. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway.
However, there are no sidewalks on Perimeter Road or on the connecting ramps to Wolfe Road in the
immediate vicinity of the project site.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are
pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also
allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by
bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing
right-of-ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are
typically designated only with signs. Existing bicycle facilities within the study area are shown on Figure 3.
Within the immediate surroundings of the project site, Homestead Road Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Tantau Avenue north of Stevens Creek, Vallco Parkway between Wolfe and Tantau, and
Pruneridge Avenue between Wolfe and Tantau all have bike lanes. Miller Avenue and Tantau Avenue
south of Stevens Creek both are identified as bike routes.
Existing Transit Services
Existing transit services in the study area are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) and are described below. VTA operates bus service in Cupertino. The local bus lines that serve the
project study area are shown on Figure 4.
284
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
15 | Page
VTA Bus Service
The VTA bus lines that operate within the study area are listed in Table 4, including their terminus points
and commute hour headways.
Table 4
Existing Weekday VTA Bus Service
Weekday HoursHeadway During
Bus RouteRoute Descriptionof OperationCommute Periods
Local Route 23Alum Rock Transit Center to De Anza College5:20 AM - 1:00 AM12 min.
Local Route 26Eastridge Transit Center to Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center5:20 AM - 11:50 PM30 min.
Local Route 81San Jose State University to Vallco Shopping Mall6:25 AM - 8:50 PM30 min.
Express Route 101Camden & Hwy 85 to Palo Alto 6:50-7:50 AM/
4:50-6:00 PM
2 Trips Each
Direction Daily
Express Route 182IBM/Bailey Avenue to Palo Alto 5:50 AM/7:50 PM
5:35-6:15 PM
1 Trip Each
Direction Daily
Source: VTA, May 2014.
Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the De Anza College via
Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:20 am to 1:00 am with 12
to 30 minute headways. On weekends, this route operates on 15 to 30 minute headways between 6:15
am and 1:00 am.
Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and Sunnyvale Lockheed
Martin LRT Station via Wolfe Road in the vicinity of the project site. Weekday hours of operation are from
5:20 am to 11:50 pm with a 30-minute headway. On weekends, this route operates on 30 to 60 minute
headways between 6:30 am and 10:50 pm.
Route 81 is a local bus route that provides service between San Jose State University and Vallco
Shopping Mall via Wolfe Road in the vicinity of the project site. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:25
am to 8:50 pm with 30 to 60 minute headways. On weekends, this route operates on a 60-minute
headway between 9:30 am and 4:50 pm from the Santa Clara Transit Center to Vallco Shopping Mall.
Route 101 is an express bus route between the Park-n-Ride lot at Camden Avenue/State Route 85 and
Palo Alto. This route operates twice in the northbound direction between 6:50 am to 7:50 am and twice in
the southbound direction between 4:50 pm and 6:00 pm on Wolfe Road and I-280 near the project site.
This route does not operate on weekends.
Route 182 is an express bus route between the IBM at Bailey Avenue and Palo Alto. This route operates
once in the northbound direction at 5:50 am and once in the southbound direction at 7:50 pm. This route
does not operate on weekends. Route 182 operates on Wolfe Road and I-280 near the project site.
The closest bus stops for routes 26, 81, and 101 are located on Wolfe Road at Vallco Mall, approximately
850 feet from the project site. The bus stops for route 182 are located on Vallco Parkway, approximately
¼ mile from the project site. The closest stops for route 23 are on Stevens Creek Boulevard, about one-
half mile from the site. However, no sidewalks exist between the project site and any of the bus stops.
285
286
287
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
18 | Page
Existing Intersection Lane Configurations
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were confirmed by observations in the field and
are shown on Figure 5.
At the Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway intersection, since the release date of the Apple Campus 2 EIR, the
City of Cupertino has modified the westbound through lane to a shared through/right-turn lane for a total
of two left-turn lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Therefore, the
lane configuration at the intersection of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway has been modified from the Apple
Campus 2 EIR.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Cupertino (consistent with the Apple Campus 2
EIR) for all study intersections except for the intersections of Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road and Vallco
Parkway/Finch Avenue. New counts were conducted at these two intersections in May 2014. For the
three CMP-designated intersections, PM peak hour counts were obtained from the CMP traffic count
database.
Existing peak-hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. New count data are included in Appendix A.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Cupertino and CMP standards. The results of
the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 5.
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis show that all study intersections currently operate at an
acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis show that all of the study CMP intersections currently operate
at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.
The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
288
289
290
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
21 | Page
Table 5
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Avg.
StudyPeakCountDelay
NumberIntersectionHourDate(sec)LOS
1Wolfe Rd & Homestead RdAM05/05/1134.0C
PM05/05/1139.2D
2Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp*AM05/05/1112.8B
PM05/05/1113.4B
3Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp*AM05/05/1110.6B
PM05/05/116.5A
4Wolfe Rd & Vallco PkwyAM05/04/1118.1B
PM05/04/1129.8C
5Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd*AM05/05/1137.4D
PM05/05/1138.3D
6Perimeter Rd & Vallco PkwyAM05/15/146.1A
PM05/15/1411.1B
7Finch Ave & Vallco Pkwy 1 2 AM05/13/14 9.4B
PM05/13/14 1.3B
8Finch Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd AM05/12/1123.5C
PM05/12/1123.5C
9N Tantau Ave & Vallco Pkwy AM06/01/1124.1C
PM06/01/1127.8C
10N Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd AM05/12/1138.9D
PM05/12/1138.8D
Notes :
* denotes a CMP intersection
1 This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions and as a signalized
intersection under background and cumulative conditions.
2 LOS for unsignalized intersection represents worst movement LOS
291
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
22 | Page
3.
Existing Plus Project Conditions
This chapter describes existing plus project traffic conditions, including the method by which project traffic
is estimated. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be
occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. It is unlikely that this traffic condition would
occur, since other approved projects expected to add traffic to the study area would likely be built and
occupied during the time the project is going through the development review process.
Transportation Network Under Existing Plus Project Conditions
It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under existing plus project conditions would
be the same as the existing transportation network.
Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic 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. These procedures are described further in the following sections.
Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by
common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that
can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The
magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying
the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition publishes trip
generation rates based on numerous counts of existing development of the same land use type. The
rates published by ITE for Hotel (ITE land use code 310) were used for this project. The Hotel category
includes trips generated by typical hotel amenities such as restaurants, bars, and meetings places. No
trip credits were taken because the existing site is currently being used as a parking lot. Based on the ITE
trip generation rates, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,209 daily trips, with 78 trips
occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 trips occurring during the PM peak hour period. Table 6 shows
the project trip generation estimates.
292
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
23 | Page
No reduction was assumed in trip generation estimates attributed to the shuttle services such as airport
shuttles and limousine services because the ITE rates are based on surveys conducted at hotels with
similar services.
Trip Distribution Pattern
The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the
surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The traffic volumes on the
nearby street and freeway network were examined and the distribution percentages were calculated in
proportion to those volumes. Figure 7 shows the project trip distribution pattern.
Trip Assignment
The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in
accordance with the trip distribution pattern. Figure 8 shows the project trip assignment.
Table 6
Project Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily DailyPeak-Hour TotalPeak-Hour Total
Land Use Rate1 TripsRate 1 InOutTripsRate1 InOutTrips
Proposed
Hotel 1 148rooms8.171,2090.534632780.60454389
Notes:
1. ITE trip rates for Hotel (Land Use #310) used.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation , 9th Edition.
Size
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see
Figure 9).
Intersection Levels of Service Under Existing Plus Project Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Cupertino and CMP standards. The results of
the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 7.
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions show that all study
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic.
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions show that all of the study
CMP intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic.
The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
293
294
295
296
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
27 | Page
Table 7
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing
Avg.Avg.
StudyPeakCountDelayDelay
Number IntersectionHourDate(sec)LOS(sec)LOS
1Wolfe Rd & Homestead RdAM05/05/1134.0C34.0C
PM05/05/1139.2D39.1D
2Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp*AM05/05/1112.8B12.7B
PM05/05/1113.4B13.4B
3Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp*AM05/05/1110.6B10.6B
PM05/05/116.5A6.5A
4Wolfe Rd & Vallco PkwyAM05/04/1118.1B18.1B
PM05/04/1129.8C29.9C
5Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd*AM05/05/1137.4D37.4D
PM05/05/1138.3D38.3D
6Perimeter Rd & Vallco PkwyAM05/15/146.1A7.0A
PM05/15/1411.1B11.5B
7Finch Ave & Vallco Pkwy 1 2 AM05/13/149.4B9.5B
PM05/13/141.3B1.3B
8Finch Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM05/12/1123.5C23.6C
PM05/12/1123.5C23.6C
9N Tantau Ave & Vallco PkwyAM06/01/1124.1C24.5C
PM06/01/1127.8C28.2C
10N Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM05/12/1138.9D38.7D
PM05/12/1138.8D38.6D
Notes:
* denotes a CMP intersection
Existing + Project
1 This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions and as a signalized
intersection under background and cumulative conditions.
2 LOS for unsignalized intersection represents worst movement LOS
297
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
28 | Page
4.
Background Conditions
This chapter presents background traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to
completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from
existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site.
This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting
traffic conditions. The background scenario predicts a realistic traffic condition that would occur as
approved development gets built and occupied.
Background Traffic Volumes
Background peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the
estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. The added traffic from approved
but not yet constructed developments was obtained from the Apple Campus 2 EIR. All approved projects
assumed in the Apple Campus 2 EIR, including the Apple Campus, were included under background
conditions. Background traffic volumes are shown graphically on Figure 10.
Background Transportation Network
The following transportation improvements were assumed under background conditions.
1. Vallco Parkway/Finch Road intersection – Currently Finch Road is closed to traffic and being
reconstructed as a private street providing access to the Main Street development. This
intersection will be signalized with the completion of the Main Street development. The Main
Street development will also construct a new signalized intersection on Vallco Parkway between
Finch Road and Tantau Avenue that will provide access to the parking garage within the Main
Street development.
2. Wolfe Road/I-280 NB Ramps intersection – The Apple Campus 2 project will add a third through
lane to northbound Wolfe Road from just after the northbound I-280 loop on-ramp to Pruneridge
Avenue (increase from two northbound through lanes) and widen the northbound off-ramp to four
lanes (two westbound left-turn lanes and two westbound right-turn lanes).
3. Wolfe Road/I-280 SB Ramps intersection – The Apple Campus 2 project will widen the off-ramp
to two lanes exiting the freeway.
4. Vallco Parkway/Tantau Avenue – The Apple Campus 2 project will construct an exclusive
northbound through lane for a total of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane. An additional receiving lane on the north side of the intersection would
also be constructed. The exclusive eastbound through lane will be converted to a shared
through/left-turn lane. These improvements will require the provision of two northbound through
298
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
29 | Page
receiving lanes on Tantau Avenue. A southbound right-turn pocket (approximately 250 feet in
length) will be constructed, and the existing shared southbound through/right-turn lane will be
converted to an exclusive southbound through lane.
5. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue intersection – The Apple Campus 2 project will add a
southbound right-turn pocket (approximately 100 feet in length) and convert the existing shared
southbound left-turn/right-turn lane to an exclusive southbound left-turn lane.
Intersection Levels of Service Under Background Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Cupertino and CMP standards. The results of
the intersection level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 8.
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under background conditions show that all of the study
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic.
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under background conditions show that all of the study CMP
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM
peak hours of traffic.
The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
299
300
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
31 | Page
Table 8
Background Intersection Levels of Service
Avg.Avg.
Study Peak Delay Delay
NumberIntersection Hour(sec)LOS(sec)LOS
1Wolfe Rd & Homestead Rd AM34.0C40.9D
PM39.2D50.5D
2Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp*AM12.8B18.0B
PM13.4B26.8C
3Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp*AM10.6B17.9B
PM6.5A11.2B
4Wolfe Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM18.1B27.3C
PM29.8C38.8D
5Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd*AM37.4D39.5D
PM38.3D43.8D
6Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM6.1A4.1A
PM11.1B6.8A
7Finch Ave & Vallco Pkwy 1 AM9.4B25.7C
PM1.3B37.9D
8Finch Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM23.5C23.8C
PM23.5C31.9C
9N Tantau Ave & Vallco Pkwy AM24.1C28.4C
PM27.8C34.0C
10N Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM38.9D43.2D
PM38.8D46.8D
Notes :
* denotes a CMP intersection
ExistingBackground
1 This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions and as
a signalized intersection under background and cumulative conditions.
301
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
32 | Page
5.
Background Plus Project Conditions
This chapter describes near-term traffic conditions that most likely would occur when the project is
complete. It includes a description of the significance criteria used to establish what constitutes a project
impact, the method by which project traffic is estimated, and any impacts caused by the project.
Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to
determine potential project impacts. This traffic scenario represents a more congested traffic condition
than the existing plus project scenario, since it includes traffic generated by approved but not yet built
projects in the area.
Significant Impact Criteria
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used
to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on City of Cupertino Level of
Service standards.
City of Cupertino Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts
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 background plus 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 at the
intersection to increase by four (4) or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to
increase by one percent (.01) or more.
An exception to rule #2 above applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average
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 .01 or more.
A significant impact by City of Cupertino standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures
are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to background conditions or better.
302
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
33 | Page
CMP Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts
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.
Thus, a CMP intersection that operates at LOS F would fail to meet the CMP level of service standard.
Transportation Network Under Background Plus Project Conditions
It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background plus project conditions
would be the same as the background transportation network.
Project Trip Estimates
As previously described in Chapter 3 (see Table 6), the proposed project would generate 1,209 new daily
vehicle trips, with 79 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 89 new trips occurring during the
PM peak hour.
Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The peak hour trips generated by the project were added to background traffic volumes to obtain
background plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 11). The project trips were assigned to the roadway
system in accordance with the trip distribution patterns discussed in Chapter 3.
Intersection LOS Under Background Plus Project Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Cupertino and CMP standards. The results of
the intersection level of service analysis under background plus project conditions are summarized in
Table 9.
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under background plus project conditions show that all of the
study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM
and PM peak hours of traffic.
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under background plus project conditions show that all of the
study CMP intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM
and PM peak hours of traffic.
The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
303
304
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
35 | Page
Table 9
Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Avg.Avg.Incr. In
Study PeakDelay DelayCrit. DelayIncr. In
Number Intersection Hour(sec)LOS(sec)LOS(sec)Crit. V/C
1Wolfe Rd & Homestead Rd AM40.9D41.2D0.40.004
PM50.5D50.8D0.40.003
2Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp*AM18.0B18.0B0.10.001
PM26.8C27.6C0.70.003
3Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp*AM17.9B18.1B0.40.004
PM11.2B11.4B0.30.009
4Wolfe Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM27.3C27.3C0.00.002
PM38.8D38.9D0.10.002
5Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd*AM39.5D39.6D0.10.003
PM43.8D44.0D0.30.003
6Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM4.1A4.3A0.20.007
PM6.8A7.1A0.30.008
7Finch Ave & Vallco Pkwy 1 AM25.7C25.9C0.20.008
PM37.9D 39.0D1.10.009
8Finch Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM23.8C23.8C0.00.000
PM31.9C31.9C0.00.000
9N Tantau Ave & Vallco PkwyAM28.4C28.5C0.10.001
PM34.0C34.3C0.40.008
10N Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM43.2D43.2D0.00.000
PM46.8D47.0D0.20.001
Notes :
* denotes CMP intersection
Bold indicates a significant impact.
Background Background Plus Project
1 This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions and as a signalized
intersection under background and cumulative conditions.
305
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
36 | Page
6.
Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project, including:
Site access and circulation
Sight distance at project driveways
Potential project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, including the provision of a
new pathway on the west side of the project site
Parking
Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses in this
chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by
the traffic engineering community.
Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation
A site circulation and access review was conducted to determine the adequacy of the proposed site plan
in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The site plan prepared by Gene
Fong Associates (July 30, 2014) was used for this purpose. The site plan is shown on Figure 2.
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two entry points along Perimeter Road, along
the southern boundary of the project site. Both the entrances would be full access driveways. The
western driveway on Perimeter Road would provide direct access to the main entrance and drop-off area
that would be located on the south side of the hotel, facing Perimeter Road. The intersection of this
driveway and Perimeter Road would be controlled by an all-way stop sign. The second driveway to the
east would provide access to the parking aisle that circulates around the hotel building providing access
to 73 surface parking stalls and 83 underground parking spaces. This driveway would have a stop control
for the outbound approach. The underground parking garage would be accessible by the hotel’s two
elevator shafts and one of the two staircases.
306
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
37 | Page
Sight Distance at Project Driveway
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby
ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles traveling on Perimeter
Road. Landscaping at the project driveways should not conflict with a driver’s ability to locate a gap in
traffic. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at all project driveways in
accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet
back from the traveled way. The sight distance for outbound vehicles exiting the first driveway is limited
due to the downward slope on Perimeter Road, west of the project site as Perimeter Road runs beneath
Wolfe Road. However, since the intersection of this driveway at Perimeter Road will be controlled by an
all-way stop sign, vehicles will be able to exit safely onto Perimeter Road. The second driveway to the
east will have adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles to safely locate a gap on Perimeter Road. Also,
because of low traffic volumes on Perimeter Road, vehicles exiting the hotel will be able to easily find
gaps in traffic on Perimeter Road.
Transit Services
The closest bus stop is located on Wolfe Road at Vallco Mall about 850 feet walking distance from the
site. This bus stop serves Routes 26, 81, 101. The proposed hotel is not expected to generate many new
transit riders. If the hotel generates any transit riders, these new riders could be easily accommodated by
the current available ridership capacity of the existing bus service in the study area.
Shuttle Services
The project would include the use of an airport shuttle service for hotel guests to provide access to the
San Jose International Airport, running approximately 6 times per day. In addition, the project would
provide a local shuttle for hotel guests (limited to within a 5-mile radius of the Project site) that would run
approximately 2 times per day.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities typically consist of sidewalks and crosswalks, including crosswalks with pedestrian
signal heads at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Homestead Road, Wolfe
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway. However, there are currently no sidewalks on
Perimeter Road or on the connecting ramps to Wolfe Road. Thus, there are no good existing pedestrian
connections from the site to Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, or Stevens Creek Boulevard.
As shown on the site plan dated 7/30/2014, the hotel project will provide a sidewalk on the north side of
Perimeter Road and two crosswalks across Perimeter Road, connecting the site to the rest of the Vallco
Shopping District. One of the crosswalks will be located at the main entrance driveway, where there will
be 4-way stop control. The other crosswalk will be west of the second driveway that leads to parking
spaces. Also, the 7/30/2014 site plan shows a pedestrian connections from the hotel to the new
sidewalk on Perimeter Road near where the crosswalks will be placed..
307
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
38 | Page
Bicycle Facilities
The site is well-served by existing and planned bicycle facilities. The one street in the vicinity without
bicycle lanes is Perimeter Road, and it has low traffic volume and speed so it is conducive to bicycle
travel. The project will provide a new pathway along the west side of the project site. This path will
connect to a future trail along the south side of I-280. Although the trail on the south side of I-280 has not
yet been fully studied, the pathway connection provided by the project will significantly enhance bicycle
and pedestrian connectivity if it is ever implemented.
In accordance with Cupertino requirements, the project needs to provide bicycle parking equivalent to 5%
of the vehicle parking. Based on 156 spaces, 8 bicycle spaces will be required. The current site plan
shows that 10 bicycle spaces will be provided in front of the drop-off area along Perimeter Road, which
exceeds the City’s requirement.
Parking
City Parking Codes
The City of Cupertino Parking Code requirement is 1.0 space per room and 1.0 space per employee. The
proposed hotel would have 148 rooms and 9 employees per shift. This would require 157 parking spaces
by code. The proposed project also includes a full service restaurant (43 seats, including the seats on the
outdoor dining terrace), a bar (9 seats) and 2480 square feet of meeting rooms. The City of Cupertino' s
parking requirement for restaurants is one stall for every four seats, plus one for each employee on shift.
The requirement for a bar area is one stall for every three seats, plus one for each employee on a shift.
Since the proposed dining and bar areas would have 3 employees per shift, the City parking code would
require a total of 17 additional parking spaces for the restaurant and bar. For meeting rooms, the
requirement is one space per 250 square feet, which would be an additional 10 spaces. Therefore, 184
parking spaces would be required based on the City parking code. The project proposes to provide 156
parking spaces.
In order to determine whether the proposed parking would be sufficient to serve the project, parking
surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino during the period of peak parking demand.
The three hotels that were surveyed include: Aloft (located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard),
Cupertino Inn (located at 10889 N De Anza Boulevard) and Hilton Garden Inn (located at 10741 N Wolfe
Road). The Cupertino Inn has 124 guest rooms, a small bar area, and some small meeting rooms. The
Hilton Garden Inn has 164 guest rooms, a small bar and restaurant area, and three small meeting rooms.
The Aloft Cupertino has 138 guest rooms and also includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference
rooms. These three comparable hotels were chosen based on the following considerations:
Located in the City of Cupertino
Similar land uses (business hotel)
Proximity to major arterials providing freeway access (e.g., De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road)
Proximity to the Heart of the City Specific Plan area
Parking Survey Results
The counts were conducted on Wednesday June 11, 2014 and Saturday June 14, 2014 from 6:00 PM to
10:00 PM. These are the hours when hotel parking is at its highest level. Parking rates were calculated
for weekday and weekend. The results of the parking surveys are shown in Table 10.
The results indicate that weekday parking rates (Occupied spaces/Occupied room) varied from 0.32 to
0.59. The Cupertino Inn had a maximum parking demand of 0.47 spaces per occupied room, the Aloft
Cupertino had a maximum parking demand of 0.55 spaces per room, the, and the Hilton Garden Inn had
a maximum demand of 0.73 spaces per room. The average for these three hotels was 0.58 spaces per
room. This number is lower than the 85th percentile parking ratio of 0.71 spaces per room that is
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual.
308
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
39 | Page
The weekend survey results indicated a higher parking rate for the Cupertino Inn and the Hilton Garden
Inn and a lower rate at the Aloft Cupertino. The Cupertino Inn had a maximum parking demand of 0.77
spaces per occupied room, the Aloft Cupertino had a maximum parking demand of 0.40 spaces per room,
and the Hilton Garden Inn had a maximum demand of 0.81 spaces per room with 100% occupancy,
which is the highest rate among all the three hotels during either the weekday or weekend. The
maximum demand of 0.81 includes the demand for parking related to the restaurant and bar area seating
and employee staffing.
The proposed Hyatt House hotel includes a full service restaurant, bar, and meeting space, which is quite
similar to the Hilton Garden Inn. The proposed hotel would provide 156 parking spaces, a rate of 1.05
parking spaces per guestroom, which is higher than the highest parking rate of 0.81 from the survey.
Therefore, it could be concluded that the proposed 156 parking spaces would be adequate.
The site plan indicates that there will be four tandem parking stalls, providing eight of the parking spaces
provided in the garage. The applicant has indicated that those spaces would be only for employee use.
Tandem parking has proved to be a feasible solution in similar circumstances, as long as the
management develops a realistic plan for moving employee cars when necessary in order to allow
employees to leave when their shift is over. The hotel management will need to develop such a plan for
the tandem spaces, taking into account the start and end times of employees’ shifts in order to minimize
the amount of vehicle re-parking that needs to occur.
Table 10
Parking Survey Results
Time
Wednesday
June 11th
Saturday
June 14th
Wednesday
June 11th
Saturday
June 14th
Wednesday
June 11th
Saturday
June 14th
6:00 PM 40 62 31 36 58 77
6:30 PM36 68 30 34 49 69
7:00 PM376435335478
7:30 PM356431395985
8:00 PM386933407191
8:30 PM407032428297
9:00 PM4472424399112
9:30 PM52765647107122
10:00 PM 59876849119133
Occupied Rooms 126 113 123 121 164164
Highest Parking Ratio0.470.770.550.400.730.81
Parked Cars
Aloft Hotel
(Total 123 Rooms)
Cupertino Inn
(Total 126 Rooms)
Hilton Garden Inn
(Total 164 Rooms)
309
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
40 | Page
7.
Cumulative Conditions
This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions.
Cumulative conditions typically include specific development projects that are being reviewed (pending
projects) but are not yet approved. A significant cumulative traffic impact is identified by comparing project
traffic against baseline cumulative conditions. This cumulative traffic scenario is evaluated in order to fulfill
CMP and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Cumulative traffic conditions were calculated by adding the trips generated by pending developments to
background traffic volumes. Traffic volumes for the baseline cumulative conditions were based on the
traffic volumes assumed for the cumulative plus project conditions in the Apple Campus 2 EIR. The peak
hour baseline cumulative traffic volumes are shown graphically on Figure 13. Project traffic was then
added to the baseline cumulative conditions to evaluate project impacts under cumulative conditions.
Cumulative plus project peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 14.
Cumulative Transportation Network
The roadway network under cumulative conditions was assumed to include all the proposed
improvements under background conditions as well as the following additional improvement:
1. Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway intersection – The Apple Campus 2 project will modify the traffic
signal operations to provide an overlap phase for the westbound right-turn movement.
Southbound U-turns will be prohibited. The westbound approach will be modified to provide one
left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane, and two right-turn lanes.
Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of Cupertino and CMP standards. The results of
the intersection level of service analysis under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 11.
City of Cupertino Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that all of the study
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic.
310
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
41 | Page
CMP Intersection Analysis
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that all of the study CMP
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during the AM and PM
peak hours of traffic.
The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 11
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Avg.Avg.Incr. In
Study PeakDelayDelayCrit. DelayIncr. In
Number Intersection Hour(sec)LOS(sec)LOS(sec)Crit. V/C
1Wolfe Rd & Homestead Rd AM39.9D40.0D0.30.004
PM51.6D51.9D0.50.003
2Wolfe Rd & I-280 NB Ramp*AM18.1B18.1B0.10.001
PM27.6C27.9C0.20.003
3Wolfe Rd & I-280 SB Ramp*AM19.2B19.4B0.50.004
PM29.3C30.9C2.80.009
4Wolfe Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM28.0C28.0C0.00.002
PM35.0C35.1D0.10.002
5Wolfe Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd*AM39.9D40.0D0.20.003
PM49.2D49.6D0.60.003
6Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy AM4.1A4.2A0.20.007
PM6.0A6.1A0.10.008
7Finch Ave & Vallco Pkwy 1 AM25.8C26.0C0.20.008
PM38.1D39.2D1.10.009
8Finch Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM26.3C26.3C0.00.000
PM44.5D44.5D0.00.000
9N Tantau Ave & Vallco PkwyAM27.2C27.3C0.10.001
PM33.4C33.7C0.40.008
10N Tantau Ave & Stevens Creek BlvdAM43.4D43.4D0.00.000
PM49.4D49.6D0.30.001
Notes :
* denotes CMP intersection
Bold indicates a significant impact.
CumulativeCumulative Plus Project
1 This intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection under existing conditions and as a
signalized
311
312
313
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
44 | Page
8.
Conclusions
The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City
of Cupertino, and the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA). The VTA administers the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Program (CMP). Since the project would not generate more than 100 peak hour
gross vehicle trips, a CMP analysis was not conducted. The study determined the traffic impacts of the
project on nine (9) signalized intersections, and one (1) unsignalized intersection in the vicinity of the
project site during the weekday AM and PM peak periods of traffic. Project impacts on other
transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit services, were determined on the basis of
engineering judgment.
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that, measured against the City of Cupertino
and the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) standards, all of the study intersections are expected to
operate at acceptable levels of service under all conditions. The project would not cause a significant
impact at any of the study intersections.
Other Transportation Issues
There are currently no sidewalks on Perimeter Road or on the connecting ramps to Wolfe Road. Thus,
there are no good pedestrian connections from the hotel site to Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, or Stevens
Creek Boulevard. . As shown on the site plan dated 7/30/2014, the hotel project will provide a sidewalk
on the north side of Perimeter Road and two crosswalks across Perimeter Road, connecting the site to
the rest of the Vallco Shopping District. One of the crosswalks will be located at the main entrance
driveway, where there will be 4-way stop control. The other crosswalk will be west of the second
driveway that leads to parking spaces. Also, the 7/30/2014 site plan shows pedestrian connections from
the hotel to the new sidewalk on Perimeter Road near where the crosswalks will be placed..
The project will also provide a new pathway along the west side of the project site. This path will connect
to a future trail along the south side of I-280. Although the trail on the south side of I-280 has not yet
been fully studied, the pathway connection provided by the project will significantly enhance bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity if it is ever implemented.
314
Hyatt House Hotel October 6, 2014
45 | Page
Parking
The project will provide 156 parking spaces which is a rate of 1.05 parking spaces per room. Hexagon
surveyed parking utilization at three similar hotels in Cupertino, and the highest ratio was found to be 0.81
parking spaces per occupied room. The proposed 156 parking spaces would be adequate based on the
highest surveyed peak hour parking demand.
315
316
Hyatt House Hotel August 14, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
Technical Appendices
317
318
Hyatt House Hotel August 14, 2014
Appendix A
New Traffic Counts
319
320
AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS
Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Date:870 Castlewood Dr. #1
Counter:Patti Los Gatos, CA 95032
Intersection Name:Finch Ave and Vallco Parkway Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625
Weather:Clear Cupertino
East Approach South Approach
Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 5 5 2 18 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 18 5 23
7:30 0 0 6 6 4 56 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 49 5 54
7:45 0 0 9 9 12 111 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 87 10 97
8:00 0 0 17 17 17 142 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 111 10 121
8:15 1 0 21 22 20 169 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 137 11 148
8:30 2 0 22 24 25 217 0 242 0 0 0 0 0 170 14 184
8:45 2 0 29 31 27 256 0 283 0 0 0 0 0 201 17 218
9:00 3 0 33 36 33 285 0 318 0 0 0 0 0 242 20 262
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 0 17 17 17 142 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 111 10 121 297
7:15 - 8:15 1 0 16 17 18 151 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 119 6 125 311
7:30 - 8:30 2 0 16 18 21 161 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 121 9 130 330
7:45 - 8:45 2 0 20 22 15 145 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 114 7 121 303
8:00 - 9:00 3 0 16 19 16 143 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 131 10 141 319
Peak Volumes:2 0 16 18 21 161 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 121 9 130 330
Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
0 0 0 16 0 2 9 121 0 0 161 21
Finch Ave
Out In Total
30 18 48
Right Thru Left
2 0 16
To
t
a
l
29
3
Le
f
t
9 21
Ri
g
h
t
31
9
To
t
a
l
In
13
0
Th
r
u
12
1
16
1
Th
r
u
18
2
In
Ou
t
16
3
Ri
g
h
t
0 0
Le
f
t
13
7
Ou
t
0 0 0
Left Thru Right
0 0 0
Out In Total
Finch Ave
Vallco Parkway
5/13/14
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Finch Ave Vallco Parkway
North Approach West Approach
Finch Ave
321
PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS
Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Date:870 Castlewood Dr. #1
Counter:Patti Los Gatos, CA 95032
Intersection Name:Finch Ave and Vallco Parkway Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625
Weather:Clear Cupertino
East Approach South Approach
Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 2 0 4 6 3 30 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 33 5 38
4:30 2 0 6 8 7 65 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 66 5 71
4:45 4 0 8 12 9 108 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 100 8 108
5:00 4 0 11 15 11 153 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 118 8 126
5:15 4 0 17 21 12 224 0 236 0 0 0 0 0 148 11 159
5:30 4 0 23 27 17 300 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 180 11 191
5:45 4 0 25 29 17 378 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 221 16 237
6:00 4 0 25 29 17 442 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 274 17 291
Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour
4:00 - 5:00 4 0 11 15 11 153 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 118 8 126 305
4:15 - 5:15 2 0 13 15 9 194 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 115 6 121 339
4:30 - 5:30 2 0 17 19 10 235 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 114 6 120 384
4:45 - 5:45 0 0 17 17 8 270 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 121 8 129 424
5:00 - 6:00 0 0 14 14 6 289 0 295 0 0 0 0 0 156 9 165 474
Peak Volumes:0 0 14 14 6 289 0 295 0 0 0 0 0 156 9 165 474
Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
0 0 0 14 0 0 9 156 0 0 289 6
Finch Ave
Out In Total
15 14 29
Right Thru Left
0 0 14
To
t
a
l
45
4
Le
f
t
9 6
Ri
g
h
t
46
5
To
t
a
l
In
16
5
Th
r
u
15
6
28
9
Th
r
u
29
5
In
Ou
t
28
9
Ri
g
h
t
0 0
Le
f
t
17
0
Ou
t
0 0 0
Left Thru Right
0 0 0
Out In Total
Finch Ave
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
5/13/14
Finch Ave Vallco Parkway Finch Ave Vallco Parkway
North Approach West Approach
322
AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS
Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Date:870 Castlewood Dr. #1
Counter:Kevin and An Los Gatos, CA 95032
Intersection Name:Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625
Weather:Clear San Jose
East Approach South Approach
Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17
7:30 2 0 1 3 3 24 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 47
7:45 6 0 7 13 12 67 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 88 3 91
8:00 7 0 8 15 17 86 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 112 5 117
8:15 9 0 8 17 20 111 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 132 7 139
8:30 14 0 9 23 22 152 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 174 9 183
8:45 19 0 11 30 26 188 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 204 14 218
9:00 26 0 12 38 34 224 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 248 21 269
Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour
7:00 - 8:00 7 0 8 15 17 86 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 112 5 117 235
7:15 - 8:15 8 0 8 16 20 104 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 115 7 122 262
7:30 - 8:30 12 0 8 20 19 128 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 127 9 136 303
7:45 - 8:45 13 0 4 17 14 121 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 116 11 127 279
8:00 - 9:00 19 0 4 23 17 138 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 136 16 152 330
Peak Volumes:19 0 4 23 17 138 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 136 16 152 330
Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
0 0 0 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
Perimeter Road
Out In Total
33 23 56
Right Thru Left
19 0 4
To
t
a
l
30
9
Le
f
t
16 17
Ri
g
h
t
29
5
To
t
a
l
In
15
2
Th
r
u
13
6
13
8
Th
r
u
15
5
In
Ou
t
15
7
Ri
g
h
t
0 0
Le
f
t
14
0
Ou
t
0 0 0
Left Thru Right
0 0 0
Out In Total
Perimeter Road
Vallco Parkway
5/15/14
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Perimeter Road Vallco Parkway
North Approach West Approach
Perimeter Road
323
PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS
Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Date:870 Castlewood Dr. #1
Counter:Kevin and An Los Gatos, CA 95032
Intersection Name:Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625
Weather:Clear Cupertino
East Approach South Approach
Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 14 0 7 21 6 52 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 14
4:30 18 0 17 35 14 81 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 31 5 36
4:45 25 0 24 49 20 119 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 47 11 58
5:00 34 0 36 70 29 162 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 67 20 87
5:15 44 0 52 96 42 227 0 269 0 0 0 0 0 96 27 123
5:30 51 0 63 114 50 294 0 344 0 0 0 0 0 113 29 142
5:45 60 0 94 154 59 348 0 407 0 0 0 0 0 141 45 186
6:00 72 0 108 180 77 400 0 477 0 0 0 0 0 171 48 219
Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour
4:00 - 5:00 34 0 36 70 29 162 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 67 20 87 348
4:15 - 5:15 30 0 45 75 36 175 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 83 26 109 395
4:30 - 5:30 33 0 46 79 36 213 0 249 0 0 0 0 0 82 24 106 434
4:45 - 5:45 35 0 70 105 39 229 0 268 0 0 0 0 0 94 34 128 501
5:00 - 6:00 38 0 72 110 48 238 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 104 28 132 528
Peak Volumes:38 0 72 110 48 238 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 104 28 132 528
Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
0 0 0 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
Perimeter Road
Out In Total
76 110 186
Right Thru Left
38 0 72
To
t
a
l
40
8
Le
f
t
28 48
Ri
g
h
t
46
2
To
t
a
l
In
13
2
Th
r
u
10
4
23
8
Th
r
u
28
6
In
Ou
t
27
6
Ri
g
h
t
0 0
Le
f
t
17
6
Ou
t
0 0 0
Left Thru Right
0 0 0
Out In Total
Perimeter Road
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
5/15/14
Perimeter Road Vallco Parkway Perimeter Road Vallco Parkway
North Approach West Approach
324
Hyatt House Hotel August 14, 2014
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
325
326
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 117 774 141***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
126***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
109
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
463 2
Critical V/C: 0.573
1 545***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 33.1
0
181 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.0
2 257
LOS: C
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 264 826*** 193
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.59 0.41 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.66 0.34
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4864 735 1750 3800 1750 3150 3083 617
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.18
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.3 41.7 41.7 8.6 32.9 32.9 13.8 28.6 28.6 19.1 33.9 33.9
Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.57 0.29 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.57 0.47 0.40 0.47 0.57 0.57
Delay/Veh: 43.7 27.7 24.1 52.2 32.4 32.4 49.0 34.7 34.2 41.5 32.7 32.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 43.7 27.7 24.1 52.2 32.4 32.4 49.0 34.7 34.2 41.5 32.7 32.7
LOS by Move: D C C D C C D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 5 3 8 8 4 6 5 5 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
327
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 117 777 141***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
126***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
109
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
463 2
Critical V/C: 0.572
1 545***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 33.0
0
184 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.0
2 260
LOS: C
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 266 828*** 195
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 2 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 266 828 195 141 777 117 126 463 184 260 545 109
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: 266 828 195 141 777 117 126 463 184 260 545 109
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 266 828 195 141 777 117 126 463 184 260 545 109
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 266 828 195 141 777 117 126 463 184 260 545 109
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.58 0.42 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.64 0.36
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4899 738 1750 3800 1750 3150 3122 624
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.17 0.17
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.6 41.9 41.9 8.6 33.0 33.0 13.9 28.3 28.3 19.2 33.6 33.6
Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.57 0.29 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.57 0.47 0.41 0.47 0.57 0.57
Delay/Veh: 43.5 27.5 23.9 52.1 32.4 32.4 48.9 34.9 34.5 41.5 32.8 32.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 43.5 27.5 23.9 52.1 32.4 32.4 48.9 34.9 34.5 41.5 32.8 32.8
LOS by Move: D C C D C C D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 5 3 8 8 4 6 5 5 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
328
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1016 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
1
664***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.761
1! 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.2
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.8
1 371
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1501*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1501 273 0 1016 465 0 0 0 371 0 664
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 1501 273 0 1016 465 0 0 0 371 0 664
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 1501 273 0 1016 465 0 0 0 371 0 664
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1501 0 0 1016 0 0 0 0 371 0 664
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1501 0 0 1016 0 0 0 0 371 0 664
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1501 0 0 1016 0 0 0 0 371 0 664
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.64
Final Sat.: 0 3700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 2377 0 2873
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.76
Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 19.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 19.9
LOS by Move: A B A A A A A A A B A B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 11 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
329
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1024 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
1
664***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.752
1! 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.9
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.7
1 381
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1507*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1501 273 0 1016 465 0 0 0 371 0 664
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 1501 273 0 1016 465 0 0 0 371 0 664
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1507 273 0 1024 465 0 0 0 381 0 664
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1507 0 0 1024 0 0 0 0 381 0 664
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1507 0 0 1024 0 0 0 0 381 0 664
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1507 0 0 1024 0 0 0 0 381 0 664
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.64
Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 2388 0 2862
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 17.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.75
Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 19.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 19.5
LOS by Move: A B A A A A A A A B A B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
330
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 913 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
719***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.568
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 11.6
0
322 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.6
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1055*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1055 433 0 913 474 719 0 322 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1055 433 0 913 474 719 0 322 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1055 433 0 913 474 719 0 322 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1055 0 0 913 0 719 0 322 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1055 0 0 913 0 719 0 322 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1055 0 0 913 0 719 0 322 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 22.1 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 13.4 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 13.4 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A B A A A A B A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 3 0 6 0 2 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
331
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 931 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
719***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.572
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 11.6
0
333 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.6
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1068*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1055 433 0 913 474 719 0 322 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1055 433 0 913 474 719 0 322 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 13 7 0 18 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1068 440 0 931 474 719 0 333 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1068 0 0 931 0 719 0 333 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1068 0 0 931 0 719 0 333 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1068 0 0 931 0 719 0 333 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 13.5 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 13.5 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A B A A A A B A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 3 0 6 0 2 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
332
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 843 235***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
2***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
82
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.416
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.9
0
2 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.1
2 27
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 9 1389*** 130
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 9 1389 130 235 843 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
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 1389 130 235 843 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
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: 9 1389 130 235 843 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
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: 9 1389 130 235 843 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 9 1389 130 235 843 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 9 1389 130 235 843 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.07 1.93
Final Sat.: 1750 5120 479 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 127 3473
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.4 63.5 63.5 17.5 56.6 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.29 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.26 0.26
Delay/Veh: 33.5 13.6 13.6 42.8 15.2 0.0 48.3 45.5 45.5 48.9 47.0 47.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.5 13.6 13.6 42.8 15.2 0.0 48.3 45.5 45.5 48.9 47.0 47.0
LOS by Move: C B B D B A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
333
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 849 235***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
2***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
82
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.415
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.9
0
2 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.1
2 27
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 9 1398*** 130
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 9 1389 130 235 843 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
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 1389 130 235 843 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 9 1398 130 235 849 18 2 1 2 27 3 82
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: 9 1398 130 235 849 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 9 1398 130 235 849 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 9 1398 130 235 849 0 2 1 2 27 3 82
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.72 0.28 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.07 1.93
Final Sat.: 1750 5177 481 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 124 3386
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.2 63.5 63.5 17.5 56.8 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.29 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.27 0.27
Delay/Veh: 33.6 13.6 13.6 42.7 15.2 0.0 48.3 45.5 45.5 48.9 47.0 47.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 13.6 13.6 42.7 15.2 0.0 48.3 45.5 45.5 48.9 47.0 47.0
LOS by Move: C B B D B A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 10 10 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
334
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 270 184***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
418***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
99
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
515 3
Critical V/C: 0.638
2 778***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.7
0
74 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.4
2 44
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 160 875*** 101
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 160 875 101 184 270 468 418 515 74 44 778 99
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: 160 875 101 184 270 468 418 515 74 44 778 99
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: 160 875 101 184 270 468 418 515 74 44 778 99
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: 160 875 101 184 270 0 418 515 74 44 778 99
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 160 875 101 184 270 0 418 515 74 44 778 99
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 160 875 101 184 270 0 418 515 74 44 778 99
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.65 0.35
Final Sat.: 1750 5020 579 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4967 632
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.1 30.0 30.0 18.1 24.0 0.0 22.9 29.3 29.3 20.5 27.0 27.0
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.33 0.00 0.64 0.34 0.16 0.07 0.64 0.64
Delay/Veh: 37.6 36.1 36.1 47.6 36.4 0.0 41.9 32.7 31.1 37.0 38.2 38.2
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: 37.6 36.1 36.1 47.6 36.4 0.0 41.9 32.7 31.1 37.0 38.2 38.2
LOS by Move: D D D D D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 11 6 4 0 9 5 2 1 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
335
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 271 184***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
425***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
100
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
515 3
Critical V/C: 0.638
2 778***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.7
0
74 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.4
2 44
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 160 876*** 101
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 160 875 101 184 270 468 418 515 74 44 778 99
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: 160 875 101 184 270 468 418 515 74 44 778 99
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 5 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 160 876 101 184 271 473 425 515 74 44 778 100
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: 160 876 101 184 271 0 425 515 74 44 778 100
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 160 876 101 184 271 0 425 515 74 44 778 100
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 160 876 101 184 271 0 425 515 74 44 778 100
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.37
Final Sat.: 1750 5066 584 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5002 643
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.0 29.8 29.8 18.1 23.9 0.0 23.3 29.5 29.5 20.6 26.8 26.8
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.33 0.00 0.64 0.34 0.16 0.07 0.64 0.64
Delay/Veh: 37.7 36.3 36.3 47.6 36.5 0.0 41.6 32.6 31.0 36.9 38.3 38.3
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: 37.7 36.3 36.3 47.6 36.5 0.0 41.6 32.6 31.0 36.9 38.3 38.3
LOS by Move: D D D D D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 10 10 6 4 0 9 5 2 1 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
336
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 6 0 4***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
20***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
10
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
587 2
Critical V/C: 0.271
2 864***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.3
0
126 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.5
1 117
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 127*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
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: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
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: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
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: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.45 0.55 1.00 2.96 0.04
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4609 989 1750 5536 64
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 25.7 0.0 25.7 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 40.8 40.8 21.4 55.3 55.3
Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31
Delay/Veh: 35.3 0.0 35.0 45.5 0.0 45.7 49.6 25.0 25.0 38.8 16.2 16.2
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: 35.3 0.0 35.0 45.5 0.0 45.7 49.6 25.0 25.0 38.8 16.2 16.2
LOS by Move: D A C D A D D C C D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 6 6 4 6 6
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
337
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 6 0 4***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
20***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
10
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
587 2
Critical V/C: 0.268
2 865***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.4
0
126 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.6
1 117
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 127*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
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: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 864 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 865 10
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: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 865 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 865 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 127 0 116 4 0 6 20 587 126 117 865 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.43 0.57 1.00 2.96 0.04
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4623 992 1750 5629 65
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.15
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.0 0.0 26.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 40.6 40.6 21.4 55.0 55.0
Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31
Delay/Veh: 35.0 0.0 34.7 45.5 0.0 45.7 49.6 25.2 25.2 38.9 16.3 16.3
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: 35.0 0.0 34.7 45.5 0.0 45.7 49.6 25.2 25.2 38.9 16.3 16.3
LOS by Move: D A C D A D D C C D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 6 6 4 6 6
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
338
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway(CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 203 234 1***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
121***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
1
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13 1
Critical V/C: 0.407
1! 1
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.1
0
19 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24.1
0 2***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 136 522*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 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: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 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: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 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: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.98 0.02 1.00 1.05 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.25
Final Sat.: 1750 1766 34 1750 1980 1718 1750 1900 1750 875 438 438
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 33.3 77.0 77.0 7.0 50.7 50.7 18.0 18.0 18.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.48 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03
Delay/Veh: 36.3 13.0 13.0 55.3 24.7 24.7 50.1 45.7 45.9 52.6 52.6 52.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 36.3 13.0 13.0 55.3 24.7 24.7 50.1 45.7 45.9 52.6 52.6 52.6
LOS by Move: D B B E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 11 11 0 5 5 5 0 1 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
339
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway(CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 207 234 1***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
124***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
1
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13 1
Critical V/C: 0.392
1! 1***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.3
0
22 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24.5
0 2
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 140 522*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 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: 136 522 10 1 234 203 121 13 19 2 1 1
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 140 522 10 1 234 207 124 13 22 2 1 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: 140 522 10 1 234 207 124 13 22 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 140 522 10 1 234 207 124 13 22 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 140 522 10 1 234 207 124 13 22 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.98 0.02 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.23 0.26
Final Sat.: 1750 1861 36 1750 1938 1715 1750 1900 1750 893 446 446
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 33.0 75.8 75.8 7.0 49.8 49.8 19.2 19.2 19.2 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.46 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03
Delay/Veh: 36.6 13.3 13.3 55.3 25.3 25.3 48.9 44.7 45.0 52.6 52.6 52.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 36.6 13.3 13.3 55.3 25.3 25.3 48.9 44.7 45.0 52.6 52.6 52.6
LOS by Move: D B B E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 11 11 0 6 6 5 0 1 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
340
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 176*** 0 79
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
184***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
543 2
Critical V/C: 0.599
3 740***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.8
0
31 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.9
1 125
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 75 169 68***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 315
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: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 315
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: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 315
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 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 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.24 0.54 0.22 1.19 0.00 0.81 1.00 2.83 0.17 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 421 948 381 2078 0 1462 1750 5297 302 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 32.7 32.7 32.7 22.1 0.0 22.1 19.3 25.4 25.4 17.7 23.8 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.60 0.00
Delay/Veh: 34.9 34.9 34.9 36.6 0.0 42.3 45.0 36.5 36.5 42.8 39.6 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: 34.9 34.9 34.9 36.6 0.0 42.3 45.0 36.5 36.5 42.8 39.6 0.0
LOS by Move: C C C D A D D D D D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 10 10 2 0 7 6 5 5 4 7 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
341
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 176*** 0 82
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
184***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
543 2
Critical V/C: 0.595
3 741***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.6
0
31 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.7
1 125
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 75 169*** 68
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 315
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: 75 169 68 79 0 176 184 543 31 125 740 315
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 75 169 68 82 0 176 184 543 31 125 741 319
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 75 169 68 82 0 176 184 543 31 125 741 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 75 169 68 82 0 176 184 543 31 125 741 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 75 169 68 82 0 176 184 543 31 125 741 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.25 0.52 0.23 1.19 0.00 0.81 1.00 2.82 0.18 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 439 990 398 2081 0 1419 1750 5367 306 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.6 31.6 31.6 22.9 0.0 22.9 19.4 25.5 25.5 18.0 24.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.59 0.00
Delay/Veh: 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.9 0.0 41.6 44.8 36.3 36.3 42.5 39.4 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: 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.9 0.0 41.6 44.8 36.3 36.3 42.5 39.4 0.0
LOS by Move: D D D D A D D D D D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 10 10 2 0 7 6 5 5 4 7 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
342
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
119 1!
Critical V/C: 0.189
1! 155
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.4
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.4
0 6
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2 26 2
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Road Vallco Pkwy
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 2 xxxx xxxxx 28 xxxx xxxxx 153 66 2 126 65 27
Potent Cap.: 1634 xxxx xxxxx 1599 xxxx xxxxx 819 829 1088 853 830 1054
Move Cap.: 1634 xxxx xxxxx 1599 xxxx xxxxx 680 819 1088 750 820 1054
Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.02
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 7.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 811 xxxxx xxxx 839 xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.3 xxxxx xxxxx 10.5 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * A * * * B * * B *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.3 10.5
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
********************************************************************************
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
343
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.3 10.5
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=130]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=360]
FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[westbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.5]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=182]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=360]
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 #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
********************************************************************************
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
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 48
Minor Approach Volume: 182
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
344
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Stop
Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
127 1!
Critical V/C: 0.196
1! 161
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.5
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.5
0 6
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2 26 2
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Road Vallco Pkwy
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 119 2 6 155 21
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 0
Initial Fut: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 127 2 6 161 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 127 2 6 161 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 127 2 6 161 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 2 xxxx xxxxx 28 xxxx xxxxx 156 66 2 130 65 27
Potent Cap.: 1634 xxxx xxxxx 1599 xxxx xxxxx 815 829 1088 848 830 1054
Move Cap.: 1634 xxxx xxxxx 1599 xxxx xxxxx 672 819 1088 739 820 1054
Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.02
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 7.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 811 xxxxx xxxx 838 xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx 0.9 xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.4 xxxxx xxxxx 10.5 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * A * * * B * * B *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.4 10.5
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
********************************************************************************
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
345
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 127 2 6 161 21
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.4 10.5
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=138]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=374]
FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[westbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.6]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=188]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=374]
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 #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
********************************************************************************
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
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 127 2 6 161 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 48
Minor Approach Volume: 188
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
346
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-21
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 4
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
17
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
136 2
Critical V/C: 0.071
1 138***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.6
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.1
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
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 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
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 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
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 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.83 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.23
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 304 0 1446 1750 3800 0 0 3294 406
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 7.7 42.9 0.0 0.0 35.2 35.2
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 20.3 23.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 20.3 23.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.3
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
347
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-22
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 10
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
25
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
136 2
Critical V/C: 0.081
1 138***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.3
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.0
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
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 4 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 17
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 25
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 10 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 25
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 25
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 136 0 0 138 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.90
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.66 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.33
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 541 0 1028 1663 3800 0 0 3102 562
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.8 7.2 40.2 0.0 0.0 33.1 33.1
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 18.3 23.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 18.3 23.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
LOS by Move: A A A B A B C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
348
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-23
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 896 242***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
131
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
226
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
550 2
Critical V/C: 0.829
1 583
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 50.9
0
405*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.9
2 582***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 285 788 430***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
Added Vol: 17 9 38 44 81 0 0 103 148 161 7 5
App+Div: 4 -47 199 57 41 4 5 -16 76 164 31 112
Initial Fut: 285 788 430 242 896 121 131 550 405 582 583 226
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: 285 788 430 242 896 121 131 550 405 582 583 226
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 285 788 430 242 896 121 131 550 405 582 583 226
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 285 788 430 242 896 121 131 550 405 582 583 226
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.41 0.59
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4971 671 1750 3800 1750 3150 2674 1037
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.3 32.6 32.6 10.2 28.5 28.5 14.1 30.7 30.7 24.5 41.1 41.1
Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.52 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58
Uniform Del: 45.8 34.4 36.1 49.0 36.8 36.8 45.2 33.4 37.2 40.7 27.6 27.6
IncremntDel: 5.2 2.0 10.7 17.7 1.5 1.5 3.9 0.5 11.3 8.2 0.6 0.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 50.9 36.3 46.8 66.7 38.3 38.3 49.1 33.9 48.5 48.9 28.2 28.2
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: 50.9 36.3 46.8 66.7 38.3 38.3 49.1 33.9 48.5 48.9 28.2 28.2
LOS by Move: D D D E D D D C D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 14 5 10 10 4 7 14 12 11 11
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
349
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-24
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 899 242***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
131
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
226
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
550 2
Critical V/C: 0.833
1 583
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 51.3
0
408*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.2
2 585***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 300 790 432***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 281 779 392 198 815 121 131 447 257 421 576 221
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: 281 779 392 198 815 121 131 447 257 421 576 221
Added Vol: 17 9 38 44 81 0 0 103 148 161 7 5
Hyatt: 2 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 300 790 432 242 899 121 131 550 408 585 583 226
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: 300 790 432 242 899 121 131 550 408 585 583 226
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 300 790 432 242 899 121 131 550 408 585 583 226
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 300 790 432 242 899 121 131 550 408 585 583 226
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.41 0.59
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4973 669 1750 3800 1750 3150 2674 1037
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.7 32.6 32.6 10.1 28.0 28.0 14.1 30.8 30.8 24.5 41.1 41.1
Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.70 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.58 0.52 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58
Uniform Del: 45.6 34.4 36.2 49.1 37.3 37.3 45.2 33.4 37.2 40.8 27.6 27.6
IncremntDel: 5.6 2.0 11.1 18.3 1.7 1.7 3.9 0.4 11.7 8.5 0.6 0.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 51.2 36.4 47.3 67.4 39.0 39.0 49.0 33.8 48.9 49.3 28.2 28.2
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: 51.2 36.4 47.3 67.4 39.0 39.0 49.0 33.8 48.9 49.3 28.2 28.2
LOS by Move: D D D E D D D C D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 11 15 5 10 10 4 7 14 12 11 11
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
350
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-25
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 903 242***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
131
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
226
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
612 2
Critical V/C: 0.793
1 583
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 47.7
0
345*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.9
2 584***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 287 793 432***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
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: 264 826 193 141 774 117 126 463 181 257 545 109
Added Vol: 17 9 38 44 81 0 0 103 148 161 7 5
A+P+D: 6 -42 201 57 48 4 5 46 16 166 31 112
Initial Fut: 287 793 432 242 903 121 131 612 345 584 583 226
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: 287 793 432 242 903 121 131 612 345 584 583 226
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 287 793 432 242 903 121 131 612 345 584 583 226
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 287 793 432 242 903 121 131 612 345 584 583 226
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.41 0.59
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4976 667 1750 3800 1750 3150 2674 1037
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.16 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.0 34.3 34.3 10.7 29.9 29.9 13.6 27.4 27.4 25.7 39.5 39.5
Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.79 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.61 0.61
Delay/Veh: 49.1 34.5 42.4 61.8 36.8 36.8 50.6 38.6 48.3 45.5 29.7 29.7
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: 49.1 34.5 42.4 61.8 36.8 36.8 50.6 38.6 48.3 45.5 29.7 29.7
LOS by Move: D C D E D D D D D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 14 5 10 10 4 9 12 11 11 11
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
351
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-26
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 906 242***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
131
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
226
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
612 2
Critical V/C: 0.797
1 583
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.0
0
348*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.0
2 587***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 289 795 434***
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 270 784 394 198 822 121 131 509 197 423 576 221
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: 270 784 394 198 822 121 131 509 197 423 576 221
Added Vol: 17 9 38 44 81 0 0 103 148 161 7 5
Hyatt: 2 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 289 795 434 242 906 121 131 612 348 587 583 226
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: 289 795 434 242 906 121 131 612 348 587 583 226
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 289 795 434 242 906 121 131 612 348 587 583 226
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 289 795 434 242 906 121 131 612 348 587 583 226
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.41 0.59
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 4978 665 1750 3800 1750 3150 2674 1037
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.16 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.0 34.2 34.2 10.6 29.8 29.8 13.6 27.4 27.4 25.7 39.6 39.6
Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.61 0.61
Delay/Veh: 49.3 34.5 42.8 62.3 36.9 36.9 50.5 38.5 48.5 45.8 29.6 29.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 49.3 34.5 42.8 62.3 36.9 36.9 50.5 38.5 48.5 45.8 29.6 29.6
LOS by Move: D C D E D D D D D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 11 14 5 10 10 4 9 12 11 11 11
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
352
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-27
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1186 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
1059***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.898
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.5
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.0
2 421
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 2364*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1554 364 0 1102 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
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 1554 364 0 1102 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
Added Vol: 0 810 48 0 84 86 0 0 0 6 0 376
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2364 412 0 1186 568 0 0 0 421 0 1059
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2364 0 0 1186 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2364 0 0 1186 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2364 0 0 1186 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.34
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 20.6
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.90
Uniform Del: 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 16.2
IncremntDel: 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.3
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 25.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 25.5
LOS by Move: A B A A B A A A A B A C
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
353
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-28
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1194 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
1059***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.899
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.5
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.0
2 431
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 2370*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1554 364 0 1102 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
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 1554 364 0 1102 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
Added Vol: 0 810 48 0 84 86 0 0 0 6 0 376
Hyatt: 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2370 412 0 1194 568 0 0 0 431 0 1059
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2370 0 0 1194 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2370 0 0 1194 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2370 0 0 1194 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.34
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 20.6
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.90
Uniform Del: 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 16.2
IncremntDel: 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 9.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 25.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 25.7
LOS by Move: A B A A B A A A A B A C
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
354
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-29
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1198 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
1059***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.900
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.6
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.1
2 421
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 2376*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1566 426 0 1114 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
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 1566 426 0 1114 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
Added Vol: 0 810 48 0 84 86 0 0 0 6 0 376
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2376 474 0 1198 568 0 0 0 421 0 1059
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2376 0 0 1198 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2376 0 0 1198 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2376 0 0 1198 0 0 0 0 421 0 1059
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.34
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.5
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.90
Delay/Veh: 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 25.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 25.8
LOS by Move: A B A A B A A A A B A C
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
355
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-30
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1206 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
1059***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.902
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.7
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.1
2 431
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 2382*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1566 426 0 1114 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
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 1566 426 0 1114 482 0 0 0 415 0 683
Added Vol: 0 810 48 0 84 86 0 0 0 6 0 376
Hyatt: 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2382 474 0 1206 568 0 0 0 431 0 1059
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2382 0 0 1206 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2382 0 0 1206 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2382 0 0 1206 0 0 0 0 431 0 1059
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.34
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.5
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.90
Delay/Veh: 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 26.0
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 18.3 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 26.0
LOS by Move: A B A A B A A A A B A C
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 0 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
356
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-31
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1065 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
1310***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.907
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 22.3
0
743 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.9
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1491*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1217 467 0 1036 485 726 0 477 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1217 467 0 1036 485 726 0 477 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 274 6 0 29 61 584 0 266 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1491 473 0 1065 546 1310 0 743 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1491 0 0 1065 0 1310 0 743 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1491 0 0 1065 0 1310 0 743 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1491 0 0 1065 0 1310 0 743 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 25.2 0.0 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 13.8 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A C A A B A C A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 13 0 0 4 0 17 0 6 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
357
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-32
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1083 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
1310***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.911
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 22.7
0
754 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.1
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1504*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1217 467 0 1036 485 726 0 477 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1217 467 0 1036 485 726 0 477 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 274 6 0 29 61 584 0 266 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 13 7 0 18 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1504 480 0 1083 546 1310 0 754 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1504 0 0 1083 0 1310 0 754 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1504 0 0 1083 0 1310 0 754 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1504 0 0 1083 0 1310 0 754 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 25.1 0.0 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A C A A B A C A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 13 0 0 4 0 17 0 6 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
358
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1113 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
1310***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.928
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.5
0
840 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.2
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1560*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1286 490 0 1084 485 726 0 574 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1286 490 0 1084 485 726 0 574 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 274 6 0 29 61 584 0 266 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1560 496 0 1113 546 1310 0 840 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1560 0 0 1113 0 1310 0 840 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1560 0 0 1113 0 1310 0 840 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1560 0 0 1113 0 1310 0 840 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 24.7 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 25.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 25.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A C A A B A C A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 14 0 0 4 0 18 0 7 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
359
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1131 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
1310***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.931
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.9
0
851 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.4
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1573*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1286 490 0 1084 485 726 0 574 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1286 490 0 1084 485 726 0 574 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 274 6 0 29 61 584 0 266 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 13 7 0 18 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1573 503 0 1131 546 1310 0 851 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1573 0 0 1131 0 1310 0 851 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1573 0 0 1131 0 1310 0 851 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1573 0 0 1131 0 1310 0 851 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 24.6 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A C A A B A C A B A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 14 0 0 4 0 18 0 7 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
360
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-35
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 917 645***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
36***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
213
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.686
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.1
0
12 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.3
2 38
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 30 1682*** 151
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 30 1456 151 373 894 74 36 1 12 38 3 159
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 30 1456 151 373 894 74 36 1 12 38 3 159
Added Vol: 0 226 0 272 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 30 1682 151 645 917 74 36 1 12 38 3 213
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: 30 1682 151 645 917 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 30 1682 151 645 917 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 30 1682 151 645 917 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.03 1.97
Final Sat.: 1750 5194 466 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 49 3455
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 23.0 49.6 49.6 31.4 58.0 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.19 0.68 0.68
Uniform Del: 35.0 24.5 24.5 35.3 14.6 0.0 49.2 45.5 45.8 48.8 48.4 48.4
IncremntDel: 0.1 1.0 1.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.5 5.8 5.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 35.1 25.5 25.5 38.2 14.7 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.3 54.2 54.2
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: 35.1 25.5 25.5 38.2 14.7 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.3 54.2 54.2
LOS by Move: D C C D B A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 16 16 12 6 0 2 0 0 1 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
361
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-36
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 923 645***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
36***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
213
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.687
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.1
0
12 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.3
2 38
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 30 1691*** 151
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 30 1456 151 373 894 74 36 1 12 38 3 159
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 30 1456 151 373 894 74 36 1 12 38 3 159
Added Vol: 0 226 0 272 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 30 1691 151 645 923 74 36 1 12 38 3 213
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: 30 1691 151 645 923 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 30 1691 151 645 923 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 30 1691 151 645 923 0 36 1 12 38 3 213
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.03 1.97
Final Sat.: 1750 5196 464 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 49 3455
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 22.9 49.7 49.7 31.3 58.1 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.31 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.19 0.68 0.68
Uniform Del: 35.1 24.5 24.5 35.4 14.6 0.0 49.2 45.5 45.8 48.8 48.4 48.4
IncremntDel: 0.1 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.5 5.8 5.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 35.2 25.5 25.5 38.3 14.6 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.3 54.2 54.2
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: 35.2 25.5 25.5 38.3 14.6 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.3 54.2 54.2
LOS by Move: D C C D B A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 16 16 12 6 0 2 0 0 1 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
362
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 917 790***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
36***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
2
278
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.697
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 32.9
1
12 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.0
1 53
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 30 1710*** 175
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 30 1484 175 518 894 74 36 1 12 53 3 224
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: 30 1484 175 518 894 74 36 1 12 53 3 224
Added Vol: 0 226 0 272 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 30 1710 175 790 917 74 36 1 12 53 3 278
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: 30 1710 175 790 917 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 30 1710 175 790 917 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 30 1710 175 790 917 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 1.00 2.70 0.30 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.10 2.00
Final Sat.: 1750 5130 525 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3327 188 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.09
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 23.0 46.2 46.2 34.8 58.0 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 44.8
Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.25 0.18 0.22
Delay/Veh: 35.1 29.6 29.6 38.8 14.7 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.6 46.5 21.3
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: 35.1 29.6 29.6 38.8 14.7 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.6 46.5 21.3
LOS by Move: D C C D B A D D D D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 18 18 15 6 0 2 0 0 1 1 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
363
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 923 790***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
36***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
2
278
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1 1
Critical V/C: 0.698
0 3***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 32.9
1
12 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.0
1 53
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 30 1719*** 175
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 30 1484 175 518 894 74 36 1 12 53 3 224
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: 30 1484 175 518 894 74 36 1 12 53 3 224
Added Vol: 0 226 0 272 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 30 1719 175 790 923 74 36 1 12 53 3 278
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: 30 1719 175 790 923 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 30 1719 175 790 923 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 30 1719 175 790 923 0 36 1 12 53 3 278
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 1.00 2.70 0.30 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.10 2.00
Final Sat.: 1750 5133 523 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3327 188 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.09
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 22.9 46.3 46.3 34.7 58.1 0.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 44.7
Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.31 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.25 0.18 0.22
Delay/Veh: 35.2 29.7 29.7 38.9 14.6 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.6 46.5 21.4
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: 35.2 29.7 29.7 38.9 14.6 0.0 50.9 45.5 46.0 49.6 46.5 21.4
LOS by Move: D C C D B A D D D D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 18 18 15 6 0 2 0 0 1 1 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
364
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-39
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 282 215***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
505***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
298
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
734 3
Critical V/C: 0.778
2 931***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 42.6
0
82 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.5
2 74
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 173 928*** 141
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 173 899 136 206 279 512 451 648 82 72 907 155
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: 173 899 136 206 279 512 451 648 82 72 907 155
Added Vol: 0 29 5 9 3 11 54 86 0 2 24 143
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 173 928 141 215 282 523 505 734 82 74 931 298
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: 173 928 141 215 282 0 505 734 82 74 931 298
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 173 928 141 215 282 0 505 734 82 74 931 298
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 173 928 141 215 282 0 505 734 82 74 931 298
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.58 0.42 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.23 0.77
Final Sat.: 1750 4893 743 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4230 1354
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 23.0 26.8 26.8 17.4 21.2 0.0 22.7 36.0 36.0 17.8 31.1 31.1
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.78 0.39 0.14 0.15 0.78 0.78
Uniform Del: 38.2 38.8 38.8 44.5 38.7 0.0 41.3 28.6 26.1 39.6 36.3 36.3
IncremntDel: 1.0 2.9 2.9 13.1 0.3 0.0 5.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.5 2.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 39.1 41.7 41.7 57.5 39.1 0.0 47.2 28.7 26.2 39.7 38.8 38.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 39.1 41.7 41.7 57.5 39.1 0.0 47.2 28.7 26.2 39.7 38.8 38.8
LOS by Move: D D D E D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 13 13 8 4 0 12 6 2 1 13 13
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
365
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 283 215***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
512***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
299
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
734 3
Critical V/C: 0.781
2 931***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 42.7
0
82 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.6
2 74
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 173 929*** 141
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 173 899 136 206 279 512 451 648 82 72 907 155
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: 173 899 136 206 279 512 451 648 82 72 907 155
Added Vol: 0 29 5 9 3 11 54 86 0 2 24 143
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 5 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 173 929 141 215 283 528 512 734 82 74 931 299
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: 173 929 141 215 283 0 512 734 82 74 931 299
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 173 929 141 215 283 0 512 734 82 74 931 299
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 173 929 141 215 283 0 512 734 82 74 931 299
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.58 0.42 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.22 0.78
Final Sat.: 1750 4894 743 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4226 1357
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 23.0 26.7 26.7 17.3 21.1 0.0 22.9 36.1 36.1 17.8 31.0 31.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.78 0.39 0.14 0.14 0.78 0.78
Uniform Del: 38.2 38.9 38.9 44.5 38.8 0.0 41.2 28.5 26.0 39.5 36.3 36.3
IncremntDel: 1.0 3.0 3.0 13.4 0.3 0.0 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 2.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 39.2 41.8 41.8 57.9 39.2 0.0 47.2 28.6 26.2 39.7 38.9 38.9
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: 39.2 41.8 41.8 57.9 39.2 0.0 47.2 28.6 26.2 39.7 38.9 38.9
LOS by Move: D D D E D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 13 13 8 4 0 12 6 2 1 13 13
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
366
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-41
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 286 215***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
523***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
326
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
752 3
Critical V/C: 0.795
2 943***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 43.2
0
82 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.9
2 78
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 173 934*** 147
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 173 905 142 206 283 524 469 666 82 76 919 183
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 173 905 142 206 283 524 469 666 82 76 919 183
Added Vol: 0 29 5 9 3 11 54 86 0 2 24 143
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 173 934 147 215 286 535 523 752 82 78 943 326
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: 173 934 147 215 286 0 523 752 82 78 943 326
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 173 934 147 215 286 0 523 752 82 78 943 326
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 173 934 147 215 286 0 523 752 82 78 943 326
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.18 0.82
Final Sat.: 1750 4868 766 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4144 1433
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 22.7 26.5 26.5 17.0 20.9 0.0 23.0 36.7 36.7 17.7 31.5 31.5
Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.00 0.80 0.40 0.14 0.15 0.80 0.80
Delay/Veh: 39.5 42.5 42.5 59.8 39.4 0.0 47.9 28.2 25.7 39.8 39.1 39.1
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 42.5 42.5 59.8 39.4 0.0 47.9 28.2 25.7 39.8 39.1 39.1
LOS by Move: D D D E D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 14 14 8 4 0 12 7 2 1 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
367
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-42
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 287 215***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
530***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
327
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
752 3
Critical V/C: 0.798
2 943***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 43.4
0
82 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.0
2 78
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 173 935*** 147
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 173 905 142 206 283 524 469 666 82 76 919 183
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 173 905 142 206 283 524 469 666 82 76 919 183
Added Vol: 0 29 5 9 3 11 54 86 0 2 24 143
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 5 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 173 935 147 215 287 540 530 752 82 78 943 327
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: 173 935 147 215 287 0 530 752 82 78 943 327
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 173 935 147 215 287 0 530 752 82 78 943 327
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 173 935 147 215 287 0 530 752 82 78 943 327
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.18 0.82
Final Sat.: 1750 4869 765 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4141 1436
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 22.6 26.5 26.5 16.9 20.8 0.0 23.2 36.8 36.8 17.8 31.4 31.4
Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.00 0.80 0.39 0.14 0.15 0.80 0.80
Delay/Veh: 39.5 42.7 42.7 60.2 39.5 0.0 47.9 28.2 25.6 39.8 39.3 39.3
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: 39.5 42.7 42.7 60.2 39.5 0.0 47.9 28.2 25.6 39.8 39.3 39.3
LOS by Move: D D D E D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 14 14 8 4 0 12 7 2 1 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
368
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-43
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 74 0 72***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
76***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
76
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
830 2
Critical V/C: 0.403
2 1171***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 21.8
0
127 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.8
1 120
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 128*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 730 127 118 1002 76
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: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 730 127 118 1002 76
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 2 169 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1171 76
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: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1171 76
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1171 76
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1171 76
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.57 0.43 1.00 2.80 0.20
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4888 748 1750 5325 346
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.8 0.0 18.8 11.5 0.0 11.5 11.2 48.2 48.2 19.5 56.5 56.5
Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.39 0.22 0.00 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43
Uniform Del: 40.8 0.0 40.5 45.1 0.0 46.0 46.4 20.9 20.9 40.0 16.7 16.7
IncremntDel: 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.8 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 41.8 0.0 41.3 45.4 0.0 47.5 48.1 21.0 21.0 40.8 16.8 16.8
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: 41.8 0.0 41.3 45.4 0.0 47.5 48.1 21.0 21.0 40.8 16.8 16.8
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 1 0 3 3 7 7 4 8 8
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
369
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-44
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 74 0 72***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
76***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
76
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
830 2
Critical V/C: 0.404
2 1172***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 21.8
0
127 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.8
1 120
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 128*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 730 127 118 1002 76
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: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 730 127 118 1002 76
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 2 169 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1172 76
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: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1172 76
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1172 76
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 128 0 116 72 0 74 76 830 127 120 1172 76
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.57 0.43 1.00 2.80 0.20
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4888 748 1750 5325 345
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.8 0.0 18.8 11.5 0.0 11.5 11.2 48.2 48.2 19.5 56.5 56.5
Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 0.39 0.22 0.00 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43
Uniform Del: 40.8 0.0 40.5 45.1 0.0 46.0 46.4 20.9 20.9 40.0 16.7 16.7
IncremntDel: 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.8 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 41.8 0.0 41.3 45.4 0.0 47.5 48.1 21.0 21.0 40.8 16.8 16.8
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: 41.8 0.0 41.3 45.4 0.0 47.5 48.1 21.0 21.0 40.8 16.8 16.8
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 1 0 3 3 7 7 4 8 8
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
370
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-45
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 117 0 103***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
100***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
124
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
830 2
Critical V/C: 0.440
2 1171***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.0
0
127 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.3
1 120
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 128*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 730 127 118 1002 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: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 730 127 118 1002 124
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 2 169 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1171 124
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: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1171 124
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1171 124
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1171 124
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.57 0.43 1.00 2.69 0.31
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4888 748 1750 5112 541
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.5 0.0 16.5 16.7 0.0 16.7 12.9 46.1 46.1 18.6 51.8 51.8
Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.44 0.49 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.49 0.49
Delay/Veh: 44.2 0.0 43.7 41.1 0.0 43.6 47.2 22.5 22.5 41.7 20.1 20.1
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: 44.2 0.0 43.7 41.1 0.0 43.6 47.2 22.5 22.5 41.7 20.1 20.1
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 2 0 4 3 7 7 4 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
371
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-46
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 117 0 103***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
100***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
124
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
830 2
Critical V/C: 0.440
2 1172***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.0
0
127 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.3
1 120
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 128*** 0 116
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 730 127 118 1002 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: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 730 127 118 1002 124
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 2 169 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1172 124
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: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1172 124
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1172 124
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 128 0 116 103 0 117 100 830 127 120 1172 124
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.57 0.43 1.00 2.69 0.31
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 4888 748 1750 5113 541
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.5 0.0 16.5 16.7 0.0 16.7 12.9 46.1 46.1 18.6 51.8 51.8
Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.00 0.44 0.22 0.00 0.44 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.49
Delay/Veh: 44.3 0.0 43.7 41.1 0.0 43.6 47.2 22.5 22.5 41.6 20.1 20.1
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: 44.3 0.0 43.7 41.1 0.0 43.6 47.2 22.5 22.5 41.6 20.1 20.1
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 4 2 0 4 3 7 7 4 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
372
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-47
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 295 350 1***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
437
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
1
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13*** 0
Critical V/C: 0.507
1! 1***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.1
0
79 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.4
0 2
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 199 1230*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 199 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 79 2 1 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: 199 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 79 2 1 1
Added Vol: 0 700 0 0 64 54 272 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 199 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 79 2 1 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: 199 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 79 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 199 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 79 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 199 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 79 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 0.51 0.23 0.26
Final Sat.: 1750 3767 31 1750 3800 1750 3407 101 1750 893 446 446
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 30.3 68.2 68.2 7.0 44.9 44.9 26.8 26.8 26.8 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.25 0.47 0.59 0.59 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.03
Uniform Del: 39.9 18.6 18.6 55.2 27.8 30.3 43.7 43.7 39.9 52.5 52.5 52.5
IncremntDel: 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.1 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: 40.8 19.1 19.1 55.3 27.9 30.9 45.0 45.0 40.2 52.6 52.6 52.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 19.1 19.1 55.3 27.9 30.9 45.0 45.0 40.2 52.6 52.6 52.6
LOS by Move: D B B E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 15 15 0 4 9 8 8 3 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
373
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-48
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 299 350 1***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
440***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
1
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13 0
Critical V/C: 0.508
1! 1***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.2
0
82 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.5
0 2
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 203 1230*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 199 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 79 2 1 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: 199 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 79 2 1 1
Added Vol: 0 700 0 0 64 54 272 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 203 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 82 2 1 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: 203 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 82 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 203 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 82 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 203 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 82 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 0.51 0.23 0.26
Final Sat.: 1750 3767 31 1750 3800 1750 3407 101 1750 893 446 446
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 30.4 68.1 68.1 7.0 44.7 44.7 26.9 26.9 26.9 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.26 0.47 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.03
Uniform Del: 40.0 18.7 18.7 55.2 27.9 30.6 43.6 43.6 39.9 52.5 52.5 52.5
IncremntDel: 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.1 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: 40.8 19.2 19.2 55.3 28.0 31.1 44.9 44.9 40.2 52.6 52.6 52.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 40.8 19.2 19.2 55.3 28.0 31.1 44.9 44.9 40.2 52.6 52.6 52.6
LOS by Move: D B B E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 15 15 0 4 9 8 8 3 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
374
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-49
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 295 350 1***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
437
1
Cycle Time (sec): 115
0
1
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13*** 0
Critical V/C: 0.511
1! 1***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.2
0
80 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.2
0 2
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 201 1230*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 201 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 80 2 1 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: 201 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 80 2 1 1
Added Vol: 0 700 0 0 64 54 272 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 201 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 80 2 1 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: 201 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 80 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 201 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 80 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 201 1230 10 1 350 295 437 13 80 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 0.51 0.23 0.26
Final Sat.: 1750 3767 31 1750 3800 1750 3407 101 1750 893 446 446
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.9 61.7 61.7 7.0 40.9 40.9 24.3 24.3 24.3 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.26 0.47 0.61 0.61 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.03
Delay/Veh: 38.1 18.8 18.8 50.8 26.4 29.3 42.5 42.5 37.8 48.1 48.1 48.1
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: 38.1 18.8 18.8 50.8 26.4 29.3 42.5 42.5 37.8 48.1 48.1 48.1
LOS by Move: D B B D C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 14 14 0 4 8 8 8 2 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
375
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-50
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 299 350 1***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
440***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 115
0
1
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
13 0
Critical V/C: 0.512
1! 1***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.3
0
83 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.3
0 2
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 205 1230*** 10
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 201 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 80 2 1 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: 201 530 10 1 286 241 165 13 80 2 1 1
Added Vol: 0 700 0 0 64 54 272 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 205 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 83 2 1 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: 205 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 83 2 1 1
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 205 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 83 2 1 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
FinalVolume: 205 1230 10 1 350 299 440 13 83 2 1 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 0.51 0.23 0.26
Final Sat.: 1750 3767 31 1750 3800 1750 3407 101 1750 893 446 446
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.9 61.6 61.6 7.0 40.7 40.7 24.4 24.4 24.4 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.26 0.48 0.61 0.61 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.03
Delay/Veh: 38.2 18.9 18.9 50.8 26.5 29.5 42.5 42.5 37.8 48.1 48.1 48.1
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: 38.2 18.9 18.9 50.8 26.5 29.5 42.5 42.5 37.8 48.1 48.1 48.1
LOS by Move: D B B D C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 14 14 0 4 9 8 8 2 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
376
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-51
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 238*** 0 228
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
346***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
673 2
Critical V/C: 0.815
3 1100***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.0
0
45 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.2
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 92*** 204 69
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 92 172 69 192 0 210 255 664 45 127 957 346
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 92 172 69 192 0 210 255 664 45 127 957 346
Added Vol: 0 32 0 36 0 28 91 9 0 0 143 577
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 92 204 69 228 0 238 346 673 45 127 1100 923
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 92 204 69 228 0 238 346 673 45 127 1100 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 92 204 69 228 0 238 346 673 45 127 1100 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 92 204 69 228 0 238 346 673 45 127 1100 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.26 0.54 0.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 461 1023 346 3150 0 1750 1750 5314 355 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.19 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.9 26.9 26.9 18.4 0.0 18.4 26.7 33.5 33.5 19.2 26.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.43 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.81 0.00
Uniform Del: 39.2 39.2 39.2 41.2 0.0 44.2 39.3 30.4 30.4 40.4 39.7 0.0
IncremntDel: 11.0 11.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 16.0 11.5 0.2 0.2 0.9 3.9 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 50.2 50.2 50.2 41.7 0.0 60.2 50.9 30.6 30.6 41.3 43.6 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: 50.2 50.2 50.2 41.7 0.0 60.2 50.9 30.6 30.6 41.3 43.6 0.0
LOS by Move: D D D D A E D C C D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 14 14 14 4 0 9 13 6 6 4 11 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
377
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-52
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 238*** 0 231
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
346***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
673 2
Critical V/C: 0.815
3 1101***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.0
0
45 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.2
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 92*** 204 69
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 92 172 69 192 0 210 255 664 45 127 957 346
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 92 172 69 192 0 210 255 664 45 127 957 346
Added Vol: 0 32 0 36 0 28 91 9 0 0 143 577
Hyatt: 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 92 204 69 231 0 238 346 673 45 127 1101 927
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 92 204 69 231 0 238 346 673 45 127 1101 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 92 204 69 231 0 238 346 673 45 127 1101 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 92 204 69 231 0 238 346 673 45 127 1101 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.26 0.54 0.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 461 1023 346 3150 0 1750 1750 5314 355 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.19 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.9 26.9 26.9 18.4 0.0 18.4 26.7 33.5 33.5 19.2 26.1 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.44 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.82 0.00
Uniform Del: 39.2 39.2 39.2 41.2 0.0 44.2 39.3 30.4 30.4 40.4 39.7 0.0
IncremntDel: 11.0 11.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 16.1 11.6 0.2 0.2 0.9 4.0 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 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 50.2 50.2 50.2 41.8 0.0 60.2 50.9 30.6 30.6 41.3 43.6 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: 50.2 50.2 50.2 41.8 0.0 60.2 50.9 30.6 30.6 41.3 43.6 0.0
LOS by Move: D D D D A E D C C D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 14 14 14 4 0 9 13 6 6 4 11 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
378
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-53
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 238*** 0 229
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
346***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
704 2
Critical V/C: 0.825
3 1151***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.4
0
45 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.4
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 92*** 204 69
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 92 172 69 193 0 210 255 695 45 127 1008 348
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 92 172 69 193 0 210 255 695 45 127 1008 348
Added Vol: 0 32 0 36 0 28 91 9 0 0 143 577
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 92 204 69 229 0 238 346 704 45 127 1151 925
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 92 204 69 229 0 238 346 704 45 127 1151 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 92 204 69 229 0 238 346 704 45 127 1151 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 92 204 69 229 0 238 346 704 45 127 1151 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.26 0.54 0.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 461 1023 346 3150 0 1750 1750 5330 341 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.6 26.6 26.6 18.1 0.0 18.1 26.4 34.4 34.4 18.9 26.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.44 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.83 0.00
Delay/Veh: 51.5 51.5 51.5 42.0 0.0 61.8 52.2 30.1 30.1 41.6 43.5 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: 51.5 51.5 51.5 42.0 0.0 61.8 52.2 30.1 30.1 41.6 43.5 0.0
LOS by Move: D D D D A E D C C D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 14 14 14 4 0 9 13 6 6 4 12 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
379
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-54
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 238*** 0 232
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
346***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
704 2
Critical V/C: 0.825
3 1152***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.4
0
45 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.4
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 92*** 204 69
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 92 172 69 193 0 210 255 695 45 127 1008 348
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 92 172 69 193 0 210 255 695 45 127 1008 348
Added Vol: 0 32 0 36 0 28 91 9 0 0 143 577
Hyatt: 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 92 204 69 232 0 238 346 704 45 127 1152 929
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 92 204 69 232 0 238 346 704 45 127 1152 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 92 204 69 232 0 238 346 704 45 127 1152 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 92 204 69 232 0 238 346 704 45 127 1152 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.26 0.54 0.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 461 1023 346 3150 0 1750 1750 5330 341 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.6 26.6 26.6 18.1 0.0 18.1 26.4 34.4 34.4 18.9 26.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.45 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.83 0.00
Delay/Veh: 51.5 51.5 51.5 42.0 0.0 61.8 52.2 30.1 30.1 41.6 43.5 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: 51.5 51.5 51.5 42.0 0.0 61.8 52.2 30.1 30.1 41.6 43.5 0.0
LOS by Move: D D D D A E D C C D D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 14 14 14 4 0 9 13 6 6 4 12 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
380
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-55
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkey (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2*** 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9***
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
495 1!
Critical V/C: 0.505
1! 310***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.8
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.7
0 6
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2*** 26 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 223 2 6 256 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 223 2 6 256 21
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 495 2 6 310 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 495 2 6 310 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 495 2 6 310 21
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 495 2 6 310 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.07 0.86 0.07 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.91 0.07
Final Sat.: 124 1609 124 1502 188 0 34 1852 7 33 1720 117
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 31.0 31.0 31.0
Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
Uniform Del: 44.0 41.2 41.2 43.7 40.9 0.0 19.9 19.9 19.9 29.0 29.0 29.0
IncremntDel: 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 20.9 20.9 20.9 30.5 30.5 30.5
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: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 20.9 20.9 20.9 30.5 30.5 30.5
LOS by Move: D D D D D A C C C C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 11 11 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
381
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-56
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkey (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2*** 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9***
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
503 1!
Critical V/C: 0.513
1! 316***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.0
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.9
0 6
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2*** 26 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 223 2 6 256 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 223 2 6 256 21
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 0
Initial Fut: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 503 2 6 316 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 503 2 6 316 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 503 2 6 316 21
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 503 2 6 316 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.07 0.86 0.07 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.91 0.07
Final Sat.: 124 1609 124 1502 188 0 33 1852 7 33 1723 115
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 31.0 31.0 31.0
Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
Uniform Del: 44.0 41.2 41.2 43.7 40.9 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
IncremntDel: 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 30.7 30.7 30.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 30.7 30.7 30.7
LOS by Move: D D D D D A C C C C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 12 12 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
382
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-57
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkey (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2*** 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9***
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
496 1!
Critical V/C: 0.506
1! 312***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.8
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.8
0 6
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2*** 26 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 224 2 6 258 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 224 2 6 258 21
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 496 2 6 312 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 496 2 6 312 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 496 2 6 312 21
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 496 2 6 312 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.07 0.86 0.07 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.91 0.07
Final Sat.: 124 1609 124 1502 188 0 34 1852 7 33 1721 116
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 45.9 45.9 45.9 31.1 31.1 31.1
Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
Delay/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
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: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 30.5 30.5 30.5
LOS by Move: D D D D D A C C C C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 11 11 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
383
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-58
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkey (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 2*** 16
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9***
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
21
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
502 1!
Critical V/C: 0.514
1! 320***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.0
0
2 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.0
0 6
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 2*** 26 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 224 2 6 258 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 224 2 6 258 21
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 8 0
Initial Fut: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 502 2 6 320 21
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: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 502 2 6 320 21
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 502 2 6 320 21
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 2 26 2 16 2 0 9 502 2 6 320 21
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.96 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.07 0.86 0.07 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.92 0.06
Final Sat.: 124 1609 124 1502 188 0 33 1852 7 32 1725 113
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 45.7 45.7 45.7 31.3 31.3 31.3
Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
Delay/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.3 21.3 21.3 30.6 30.6 30.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 44.9 41.6 41.6 44.3 41.2 0.0 21.3 21.3 21.3 30.6 30.6 30.6
LOS by Move: D D D D D A C C C C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 12 12 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
384
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-59
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 4
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
17
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
567 2
Critical V/C: 0.115
1 280***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.8
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.1
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 295 0 0 226 17
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 4 0 19 16 295 0 0 226 17
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 17
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 4 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 17
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 17
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 17
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.81 1.00 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.83 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.12
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 268 0 1272 1663 3800 0 0 3533 214
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.1 23.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 21.3 23.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 21.3 23.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
385
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-60
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + Proj AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 10
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
25
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
567 2
Critical V/C: 0.122
1 280***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.1
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.3
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 295 0 0 226 17
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 4 0 19 16 295 0 0 226 17
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 25
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 10 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 25
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 25
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 567 0 0 280 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.66 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 0.18
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 541 0 1028 1663 3800 0 0 3423 306
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 21.2 23.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 23.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 23.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
386
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-61
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 4
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
17
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
736 2
Critical V/C: 0.138
1 356***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.6
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.1
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 464 0 0 302 17
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 4 0 19 16 464 0 0 302 17
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 17
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 4 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 17
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 17
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 17
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.81 1.00 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.83 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.10
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 268 0 1272 1663 3800 0 0 3587 171
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 21.3 23.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 21.3 23.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
387
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-62
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + Proj AM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Rd & Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 19*** 0 10
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
16***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
25
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
736 2
Critical V/C: 0.144
1 356***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.8
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.2
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 19 16 464 0 0 302 17
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 4 0 19 16 464 0 0 302 17
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 54 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 25
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 10 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 25
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 25
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 10 0 19 16 736 0 0 356 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.66 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.14
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 541 0 1028 1663 3800 0 0 3495 245
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 23.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 23.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
388
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-63
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 1113*** 159
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
201***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
108
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
713 2
Critical V/C: 0.758
1 773***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.8
0
251 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.2
2 444
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 322*** 758 189
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.69 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.75 0.25
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5050 549 1750 3800 1750 3150 3246 454
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.8 35.5 35.5 11.3 32.0 32.0 16.7 29.2 29.2 22.0 34.5 34.5
Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.62 0.33 0.49 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.71 0.54 0.71 0.76 0.76
Uniform Del: 45.9 31.5 28.3 46.6 35.5 35.5 44.7 36.5 34.6 41.0 34.0 34.0
IncremntDel: 7.7 1.0 0.4 1.2 2.1 2.1 11.9 2.3 1.3 3.7 2.9 2.9
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 53.6 32.5 28.7 47.8 37.6 37.6 56.7 38.8 35.9 44.7 36.9 36.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 53.6 32.5 28.7 47.8 37.6 37.6 56.7 38.8 35.9 44.7 36.9 36.9
LOS by Move: D C C D D D E D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 11 5 3 13 13 7 11 8 8 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
389
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-64
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 121 1116*** 159
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
201***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
108
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
713 2
Critical V/C: 0.753
1 773***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.6
0
254 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.1
2 447
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 325*** 761 192
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 325 761 192 159 1116 121 201 713 254 447 773 108
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: 325 761 192 159 1116 121 201 713 254 447 773 108
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 325 761 192 159 1116 121 201 713 254 447 773 108
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 325 761 192 159 1116 121 201 713 254 447 773 108
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.74 0.26
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5100 553 1750 3800 1750 3150 3299 461
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.1 35.7 35.7 11.3 32.0 32.0 16.8 29.0 29.0 22.0 34.2 34.2
Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.62 0.34 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.71 0.75 0.75
Delay/Veh: 53.0 32.3 28.6 47.8 37.5 37.5 56.1 39.1 36.3 44.9 36.9 36.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 53.0 32.3 28.6 47.8 37.5 37.5 56.1 39.1 36.3 44.9 36.9 36.9
LOS by Move: D C C D D D E D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 11 5 3 13 13 7 11 8 8 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
390
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-65
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1489*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
1
610
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.749
1! 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.1
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.4
1 617***
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1016 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1016 440 0 1489 702 0 0 0 617 0 610
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 1016 440 0 1489 702 0 0 0 617 0 610
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 1016 440 0 1489 702 0 0 0 617 0 610
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1016 0 0 1489 0 0 0 0 617 0 610
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1016 0 0 1489 0 0 0 0 617 0 610
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1016 0 0 1489 0 0 0 0 617 0 610
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50
Final Sat.: 0 3700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 2630 0 2620
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 17.2
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.74
Uniform Del: 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 16.9
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.9
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 18.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 18.8
LOS by Move: A A A A B A A A A B A B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 0 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
391
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-66
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1497*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
1
610
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.755
1! 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.2
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.4
1 627***
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1024 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1016 440 0 1489 702 0 0 0 617 0 610
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 1016 440 0 1489 702 0 0 0 617 0 610
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1024 440 0 1497 702 0 0 0 627 0 610
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1024 0 0 1497 0 0 0 0 627 0 610
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1024 0 0 1497 0 0 0 0 627 0 610
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1024 0 0 1497 0 0 0 0 627 0 610
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 0.00 1.49
Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 2637 0 2613
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 17.3
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.74
Delay/Veh: 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 18.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 18.7
LOS by Move: A A A A B A A A A B A B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 0 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
392
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-67
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1403 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
273***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.447
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.8
0
272 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.5
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1183*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1183 560 0 1403 703 273 0 272 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1183 560 0 1403 703 273 0 272 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1183 560 0 1403 703 273 0 272 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1183 0 0 1403 0 273 0 272 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1183 0 0 1403 0 273 0 272 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1183 0 0 1403 0 273 0 272 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 38.3 0.0 0.0 38.3 0.0 10.7 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 19.6 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 20.1 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 20.1 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A A A A A A C A C A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
393
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-68
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1421 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
273***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.452
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.9
0
282 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.5
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1201*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1183 560 0 1403 703 273 0 272 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1183 560 0 1403 703 273 0 272 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 18 9 0 18 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1201 569 0 1421 703 273 0 282 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1201 0 0 1421 0 273 0 282 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1201 0 0 1421 0 273 0 282 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1201 0 0 1421 0 273 0 282 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 38.2 0.0 10.8 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 19.9 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 19.9 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A C A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 5 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
394
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-69
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1183*** 219
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
55***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
1
454
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.436
0 13***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.6
0
15 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.8
2 209
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 42*** 930 74
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 42 930 74 219 1183 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
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: 42 930 74 219 1183 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
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: 42 930 74 219 1183 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
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: 42 930 74 219 1183 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 42 930 74 219 1183 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 42 930 74 219 1183 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.77 0.23 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.06 1.94
Final Sat.: 1750 5187 413 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 100 3500
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.13
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 46.0 46.0 17.8 56.9 0.0 8.6 24.6 24.6 19.6 35.5 35.5
Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.44 0.44
Uniform Del: 54.5 27.8 27.8 46.7 21.0 0.0 53.4 38.2 38.3 45.0 34.2 34.2
IncremntDel: 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 57.2 28.0 28.0 47.5 21.1 0.0 55.8 38.3 38.3 45.5 34.4 34.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 57.2 28.0 28.0 47.5 21.1 0.0 55.8 38.3 38.3 45.5 34.4 34.4
LOS by Move: E C C D C A E D D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 9 9 4 9 0 3 0 0 4 7 7
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
395
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-70
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1191*** 219
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
55***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
1
454
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.442
0 13***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.7
0
15 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.9
2 209
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 42*** 939 74
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 42 930 74 219 1183 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
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: 42 930 74 219 1183 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 42 939 74 219 1191 52 55 15 15 209 13 454
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: 42 939 74 219 1191 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 42 939 74 219 1191 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 42 939 74 219 1191 0 55 15 15 209 13 454
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.76 0.24 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.05 1.95
Final Sat.: 1750 5251 414 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 98 3410
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.13
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 45.7 45.7 17.8 56.5 0.0 8.5 24.8 24.8 19.7 36.0 36.0
Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.44
Delay/Veh: 57.2 28.2 28.2 47.5 21.4 0.0 56.0 38.1 38.2 45.4 34.2 34.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 57.2 28.2 28.2 47.5 21.4 0.0 56.0 38.1 38.2 45.4 34.2 34.2
LOS by Move: E C C D C A E D D D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 9 9 4 9 0 3 0 0 4 7 7
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
396
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-71
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 848*** 261
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
471***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
93
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
870 3
Critical V/C: 0.706
2 737***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.8
0
128 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.3
2 161
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 189*** 335 46
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 189 335 46 261 848 444 471 870 128 161 737 93
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: 189 335 46 261 848 444 471 870 128 161 737 93
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: 189 335 46 261 848 444 471 870 128 161 737 93
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: 189 335 46 261 848 0 471 870 128 161 737 93
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 189 335 46 261 848 0 471 870 128 161 737 93
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 189 335 46 261 848 0 471 870 128 161 737 93
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.65 0.35
Final Sat.: 1750 4923 676 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4972 627
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.15
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.8 19.5 19.5 32.1 34.8 0.0 23.3 32.7 32.7 13.7 23.1 23.1
Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.51 0.25 0.41 0.71 0.71
Uniform Del: 44.2 39.9 39.9 32.5 33.1 0.0 40.2 32.0 29.3 44.5 40.3 40.3
IncremntDel: 8.3 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.9 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.2 0.7 2.0 2.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 52.6 40.2 40.2 33.3 35.1 0.0 43.6 32.3 29.5 45.2 42.3 42.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 52.6 40.2 40.2 33.3 35.1 0.0 43.6 32.3 29.5 45.2 42.3 42.3
LOS by Move: D D D C D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 8 4 4 8 13 0 10 8 4 3 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
397
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-72
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 849*** 261
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
478***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
94
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
870 3
Critical V/C: 0.708
2 737***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.8
0
128 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.3
2 161
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 189*** 336 46
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 189 335 46 261 848 444 471 870 128 161 737 93
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: 189 335 46 261 848 444 471 870 128 161 737 93
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 189 336 46 261 849 450 478 870 128 161 737 94
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: 189 336 46 261 849 0 478 870 128 161 737 94
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 189 336 46 261 849 0 478 870 128 161 737 94
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 189 336 46 261 849 0 478 870 128 161 737 94
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.64 0.36
Final Sat.: 1750 4962 679 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5007 639
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.15
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.8 19.5 19.5 32.0 34.7 0.0 23.6 32.8 32.8 13.7 22.9 22.9
Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.51 0.25 0.41 0.71 0.71
Delay/Veh: 52.7 40.2 40.2 33.4 35.1 0.0 43.5 32.2 29.5 45.2 42.5 42.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 52.7 40.2 40.2 33.4 35.1 0.0 43.5 32.2 29.5 45.2 42.5 42.5
LOS by Move: D D D C D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 8 4 4 8 13 0 10 8 4 3 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
398
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-73
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 40 0 32***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
26
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1155*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.429
2 945
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23.9
0
89 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.5
1 110***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 152*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 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: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 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: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 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: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 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
FinalVolume: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.98 0.02
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5199 401 1750 5565 35
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.17 0.17
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 20.6 0.0 20.6 10.0 0.0 10.0 18.4 52.6 52.6 14.9 49.1 49.1
Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.38 0.38
Uniform Del: 39.8 0.0 37.7 45.9 0.0 46.5 38.7 19.3 19.3 43.9 20.3 20.3
IncremntDel: 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.1
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 40.9 0.0 38.0 46.1 0.0 47.4 38.9 19.4 19.4 45.3 20.4 20.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 40.9 0.0 38.0 46.1 0.0 47.4 38.9 19.4 19.4 45.3 20.4 20.4
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D B B D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 2 1 0 2 1 9 9 4 7 7
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
399
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-74
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 40 0 32***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
26
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1155*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.426
2 946
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.0
0
89 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.6
1 110***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 152*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 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: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 945 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 946 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: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 946 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 946 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
FinalVolume: 152 0 64 32 0 40 26 1155 89 110 946 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.77 0.23 1.00 2.98 0.02
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5260 405 1750 5661 36
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.17 0.17
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 20.7 0.0 20.7 10.0 0.0 10.0 18.6 52.3 52.3 15.0 48.7 48.7
Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.00 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.38 0.38
Delay/Veh: 40.7 0.0 37.9 46.1 0.0 47.4 38.7 19.5 19.5 45.2 20.6 20.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 40.7 0.0 37.9 46.1 0.0 47.4 38.7 19.5 19.5 45.2 20.6 20.6
LOS by Move: D A D D A D D B B D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 0 2 1 0 2 1 9 9 4 7 7
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
400
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-75
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkwy (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 190 485*** 1
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
178***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
0
2
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 1
Critical V/C: 0.372
1! 26
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.5
0
148 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.8
0 12***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 49*** 181 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
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: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
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: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
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: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.99 0.01 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.65 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 1790 10 1750 2658 1041 1750 1900 1750 525 1138 88
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.8 41.9 41.9 24.2 57.3 57.3 31.9 0.0 31.9 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.27
Uniform Del: 53.0 28.3 28.3 38.3 20.0 20.0 36.0 0.0 35.3 51.6 51.6 51.6
IncremntDel: 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 54.9 28.5 28.5 38.3 20.2 20.2 36.5 0.0 35.7 52.6 52.6 52.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 54.9 28.5 28.5 38.3 20.2 20.2 36.5 0.0 35.7 52.6 52.6 52.6
LOS by Move: D C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 5 5 0 8 8 6 0 5 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
401
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-76
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkwy (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 194 485*** 1
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
182***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
0
2
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 1
Critical V/C: 0.377
1! 26***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 26.9
0
152 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.2
0 12
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 53*** 181 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
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: 49 181 1 1 485 190 178 0 148 12 26 2
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 53 181 1 1 485 194 182 0 152 12 26 2
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: 53 181 1 1 485 194 182 0 152 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 53 181 1 1 485 194 182 0 152 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 53 181 1 1 485 194 182 0 152 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.99 0.01 1.00 1.39 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.63 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 1889 10 1750 2649 1060 1750 1900 1750 553 1199 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 9.4 41.0 41.0 24.9 56.5 56.5 32.1 0.0 32.1 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.26
Delay/Veh: 54.4 29.0 29.0 37.7 20.7 20.7 36.5 0.0 35.6 52.4 52.4 52.4
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: 54.4 29.0 29.0 37.7 20.7 20.7 36.5 0.0 35.6 52.4 52.4 52.4
LOS by Move: D C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 5 5 0 8 8 6 0 5 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
402
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-77
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 228*** 0 417
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
95
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1291*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.790
3 749
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 42.0
0
59 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.8
1 158***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 83*** 67 66
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 69
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: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 69
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: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 69
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 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 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.38 0.31 0.31 1.48 0.00 0.52 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 672 543 535 2586 0 914 1750 5355 245 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.2 17.2 17.2 34.7 0.0 34.7 15.0 33.5 33.5 12.6 31.1 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.51 0.00 0.79 0.40 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.47 0.00
Uniform Del: 44.7 44.7 44.7 30.7 0.0 34.3 43.3 35.0 35.0 47.4 32.6 0.0
IncremntDel: 14.4 14.4 14.4 0.4 0.0 5.3 1.1 2.6 2.6 18.9 0.2 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 59.1 59.1 59.1 31.1 0.0 39.6 44.4 37.6 37.6 66.3 32.8 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: 59.1 59.1 59.1 31.1 0.0 39.6 44.4 37.6 37.6 66.3 32.8 0.0
LOS by Move: E E E C A D D D D E C A
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 10 10 8 0 15 3 15 15 6 7 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
403
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-78
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 228*** 0 421
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
95
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1291*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.785
3 750
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 41.7
0
59 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.6
1 158***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 83 67*** 66
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 69
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: 83 67 66 417 0 228 95 1291 59 158 749 69
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 83 67 66 421 0 228 95 1291 59 158 750 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 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 83 67 66 421 0 228 95 1291 59 158 750 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 83 67 66 421 0 228 95 1291 59 158 750 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 83 67 66 421 0 228 95 1291 59 158 750 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.40 0.29 0.31 1.48 0.00 0.52 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 689 556 548 2590 0 910 1750 5431 248 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.9 16.9 16.9 35.1 0.0 35.1 15.0 33.3 33.3 12.7 31.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.51 0.00 0.78 0.40 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.47 0.00
Delay/Veh: 58.5 58.5 58.5 30.8 0.0 39.0 44.5 37.5 37.5 65.4 32.9 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: 58.5 58.5 58.5 30.8 0.0 39.0 44.5 37.5 37.5 65.4 32.9 0.0
LOS by Move: E E E C A D D D D E C A
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 9 9 8 0 15 3 14 14 6 7 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
404
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-79
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 0
0
155 1!
Critical V/C: 0.041
1! 287
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3
0 2
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20 2
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 468 471 156 479 xxxx xxxxx 293 xxxx xxxxx 156 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 509 494 896 501 xxxx xxxxx 1280 xxxx xxxxx 1436 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 506 490 896 481 xxxx xxxxx 1280 xxxx xxxxx 1436 xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.7 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * B * * A * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 509 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 12.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 12.5 12.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B B * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
********************************************************************************
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
405
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-80
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 6
ApproachDel: 12.5 12.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[northbound][lanes=1][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=32]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=506]
FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=14]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=506]
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 #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
********************************************************************************
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
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 460
Minor Approach Volume: 32
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 427
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
406
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-81
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Uncontrol
Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 0
0
163 1!
Critical V/C: 0.042
1! 295
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3
0 2
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20 2
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 155 1 2 287 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0
Initial Fut: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 163 1 2 295 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 163 1 2 295 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 163 1 2 295 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 484 487 164 495 xxxx xxxxx 301 xxxx xxxxx 164 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 497 484 886 489 xxxx xxxxx 1272 xxxx xxxxx 1427 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 494 480 886 469 xxxx xxxxx 1272 xxxx xxxxx 1427 xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.9 xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * B * * A * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 499 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 12.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: 12.7 12.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B B * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
********************************************************************************
Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
407
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-82
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 163 1 2 295 6
ApproachDel: 12.7 12.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[northbound][lanes=1][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=32]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=522]
FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach[southbound][lanes=1][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=14]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=4][total volume=522]
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 #501 Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
********************************************************************************
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
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 163 1 2 295 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 476
Minor Approach Volume: 32
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 417
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
408
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-83
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 72
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
48
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
104 2
Critical V/C: 0.174
1 238***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.2
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.1
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
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 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
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 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
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 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.34
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1145 0 605 1750 3800 0 0 3079 621
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.1 7.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 25.9 25.9
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18
Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 13.5 23.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 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: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 13.6 24.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 13.6 24.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5
LOS by Move: A A A B A B C A A A B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
409
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-84
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Ex + P PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 80
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
56
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
104 2
Critical V/C: 0.190
1 238***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.6
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.5
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
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 72 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 56
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 80 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 56
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 56
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 104 0 0 238 56
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.90
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.41
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1098 0 522 1663 3800 0 0 2942 692
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 22.3 7.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 24.7 24.7
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 13.0 24.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 13.0 24.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3
LOS by Move: A A A B A B C A A A B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
410
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-85
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 131 1224*** 224
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
221
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
221
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
797*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.924
1 853
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.8
0
301 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 50.5
2 686***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 491*** 867 495
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
Added Vol: 123 67 106 11 22 0 0 17 28 61 52 33
App+Div: 46 42 200 54 89 10 20 67 22 181 28 80
Initial Fut: 491 867 495 224 1224 131 221 797 301 686 853 221
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: 491 867 495 224 1224 131 221 797 301 686 853 221
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 491 867 495 224 1224 131 221 797 301 686 853 221
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 491 867 495 224 1224 131 221 797 301 686 853 221
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.69 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.56 0.44
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5107 547 1750 3800 1750 3150 2966 768
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.23 0.28 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.29 0.29
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.6 37.6 37.6 9.5 28.5 28.5 15.5 25.0 25.0 25.9 35.4 35.4
Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.76 0.92 0.89 0.89
Uniform Del: 45.0 30.8 33.2 49.5 39.7 39.7 46.4 41.6 39.7 41.1 35.5 35.5
IncremntDel: 22.0 1.3 9.3 18.5 10.1 10.1 31.0 15.4 8.2 17.2 8.9 8.9
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 67.0 32.2 42.5 68.0 49.8 49.8 77.5 56.9 47.9 58.3 44.4 44.4
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: 67.0 32.2 42.5 68.0 49.8 49.8 77.5 56.9 47.9 58.3 44.4 44.4
LOS by Move: E C D E D D E E D E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 11 15 5 16 16 9 14 10 14 18 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
411
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-86
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 131 1227*** 224
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
221
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
221
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
797*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.927
1 853
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 56.2
0
304 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 50.8
2 689***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 494*** 870 498
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 368 800 389 213 1202 131 221 780 273 625 801 188
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: 368 800 389 213 1202 131 221 780 273 625 801 188
Added Vol: 123 67 106 11 22 0 0 17 28 61 52 33
Hyatt: 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 494 870 498 224 1227 131 221 797 304 689 853 221
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: 494 870 498 224 1227 131 221 797 304 689 853 221
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 494 870 498 224 1227 131 221 797 304 689 853 221
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 494 870 498 224 1227 131 221 797 304 689 853 221
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.69 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.56 0.44
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5108 545 1750 3800 1750 3150 2966 768
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.23 0.28 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.29 0.29
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.6 37.7 37.7 9.4 28.5 28.5 15.5 24.9 24.9 26.0 35.3 35.3
Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.90 0.90
Uniform Del: 45.0 30.8 33.2 49.5 39.7 39.7 46.4 41.7 39.8 41.1 35.6 35.6
IncremntDel: 22.4 1.3 9.5 19.0 10.4 10.4 31.2 15.8 8.8 17.6 9.0 9.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 67.4 32.2 42.7 68.5 50.1 50.1 77.6 57.4 48.6 58.7 44.5 44.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 67.4 32.2 42.7 68.5 50.1 50.1 77.6 57.4 48.6 58.7 44.5 44.5
LOS by Move: E C D E D D E E D E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 11 16 5 16 16 9 14 10 14 18 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
412
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-87
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 131 1248*** 224
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
221
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
221
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
797*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.934
1 853
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 57.4
0
309 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 51.6
2 694***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 499*** 892 503
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
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: 322 758 189 159 1113 121 201 713 251 444 773 108
Added Vol: 123 67 106 11 22 0 0 17 28 61 52 33
A+P+D: 54 67 208 54 113 10 20 67 30 189 28 80
Initial Fut: 499 892 503 224 1248 131 221 797 309 694 853 221
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: 499 892 503 224 1248 131 221 797 309 694 853 221
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 499 892 503 224 1248 131 221 797 309 694 853 221
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 499 892 503 224 1248 131 221 797 309 694 853 221
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.69 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.56 0.44
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5117 537 1750 3800 1750 3150 2966 768
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.29
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.7 38.0 38.0 9.4 28.7 28.7 15.4 24.7 24.7 25.9 35.2 35.2
Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.68 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.90 0.90
Delay/Veh: 68.8 32.3 42.7 68.9 51.0 51.0 78.6 58.9 50.3 60.0 45.1 45.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 68.8 32.3 42.7 68.9 51.0 51.0 78.6 58.9 50.3 60.0 45.1 45.1
LOS by Move: E C D E D D E E D E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 12 16 5 16 16 8 14 10 15 18 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
413
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-88
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #18: Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 131 1251*** 224
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
221
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
221
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
797*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.937
1 853
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 57.8
0
312 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 51.9
2 697***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 502*** 895 506
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Homestead Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 376 825 397 213 1226 131 221 780 281 633 801 188
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: 376 825 397 213 1226 131 221 780 281 633 801 188
Added Vol: 123 67 106 11 22 0 0 17 28 61 52 33
Hyatt: 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0
Initial Fut: 502 895 506 224 1251 131 221 797 312 697 853 221
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: 502 895 506 224 1251 131 221 797 312 697 853 221
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 502 895 506 224 1251 131 221 797 312 697 853 221
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 502 895 506 224 1251 131 221 797 312 697 853 221
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.69 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.56 0.44
Final Sat.: 3150 3800 1750 3150 5118 536 1750 3800 1750 3150 2966 768
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.24 0.29 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.29
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.7 38.0 38.0 9.4 28.7 28.7 15.4 24.6 24.6 26.0 35.2 35.2
Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.68 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.80 0.94 0.90 0.90
Delay/Veh: 69.3 32.3 43.0 69.5 51.4 51.4 78.8 59.4 51.2 60.5 45.1 45.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 69.3 32.3 43.0 69.5 51.4 51.4 78.8 59.4 51.2 60.5 45.1 45.1
LOS by Move: E C D E D D E E D E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 12 16 5 16 16 8 14 11 15 18 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
414
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-89
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 2241*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
735***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.984
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.9
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.8
2 726
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1434 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1171 663 0 1670 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
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 1171 663 0 1670 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
Added Vol: 0 263 215 0 571 490 0 0 0 6 0 101
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1434 878 0 2241 1209 0 0 0 726 0 735
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1434 0 0 2241 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1434 0 0 2241 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1434 0 0 2241 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 13.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.98
Uniform Del: 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 20.9
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 28.9
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 0.0 49.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 0.0 49.7
LOS by Move: A A A A C A A A A D A D
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 13 0 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
415
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-90
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 2249*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 55
2
735
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.987
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 32.5
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.6
2 736***
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1442 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1171 663 0 1670 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
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 1171 663 0 1670 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
Added Vol: 0 263 215 0 571 490 0 0 0 6 0 101
Hyatt: 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1442 878 0 2249 1209 0 0 0 736 0 735
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1442 0 0 2249 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1442 0 0 2249 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1442 0 0 2249 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 13.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.99
Uniform Del: 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 20.9
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 29.3
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 50.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.5 0.0 50.2
LOS by Move: A A A A C A A A A D A D
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 14 0 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
416
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-91
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 2281*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 120
2
735***
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.901
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.0
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.6
2 726
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1474 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1211 985 0 1710 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
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 1211 985 0 1710 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
Added Vol: 0 263 215 0 571 490 0 0 0 6 0 101
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1474 1200 0 2281 1209 0 0 0 726 0 735
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1474 0 0 2281 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1474 0 0 2281 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1474 0 0 2281 0 0 0 0 726 0 735
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 79.9 0.0 0.0 79.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 31.1
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.90
Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 56.1
LOS by Move: A A A A C A A A A D A E
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 19 0 19
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
417
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-92
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #21: Wolfe Road and I-280 NB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 2289*** 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0
0
Cycle Time (sec): 120
2
735
0
Loss Time (sec): 9
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.904
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.3
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.9
2 736***
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0
Final Vol: 0 1482 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 NB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1211 985 0 1710 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
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 1211 985 0 1710 719 0 0 0 720 0 634
Added Vol: 0 263 215 0 571 490 0 0 0 6 0 101
Hyatt: 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1482 1200 0 2289 1209 0 0 0 736 0 735
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1482 0 0 2289 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1482 0 0 2289 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1482 0 0 2289 0 0 0 0 736 0 735
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Final Sat.: 0 5700 0 0 3800 1750 0 0 0 3150 0 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 31.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90
Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 56.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 56.3
LOS by Move: A A A A C A A A A E A E
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 7 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 19 0 19
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
418
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-93
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1833 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
468
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.810
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.8
0
669*** 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.2
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1934*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1641 642 0 1662 730 283 0 585 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1641 642 0 1662 730 283 0 585 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 293 6 0 171 406 185 0 84 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1934 648 0 1833 1136 468 0 669 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1934 0 0 1833 0 468 0 669 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1934 0 0 1833 0 468 0 669 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1934 0 0 1833 0 468 0 669 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 14.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 17.6 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 18.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 18.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A A A A A A B A C A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 5 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
419
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-94
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1851 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
468
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.819
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.1
0
679*** 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.4
0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1952*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1641 642 0 1662 730 283 0 585 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1641 642 0 1662 730 283 0 585 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 293 6 0 171 406 185 0 84 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 18 9 0 18 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1952 657 0 1851 1136 468 0 679 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1952 0 0 1851 0 468 0 679 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1952 0 0 1851 0 468 0 679 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 1952 0 0 1851 0 468 0 679 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 34.5 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 14.5 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 17.5 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 18.4 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 18.4 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A B A A A A B A C A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 12 0 0 5 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
420
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-95
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1994 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
468
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 1.031
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 44.3
0
991*** 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.3
0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 2296*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 2003 763 0 1823 730 283 0 907 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 2003 763 0 1823 730 283 0 907 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 293 6 0 171 406 185 0 84 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2296 769 0 1994 1136 468 0 991 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2296 0 0 1994 0 468 0 991 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2296 0 0 1994 0 468 0 991 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2296 0 0 1994 0 468 0 991 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 32.2 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A D A A A A B A E A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 26 0 0 7 0 4 0 19 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
421
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-96
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #22: Wolfe Road and I-280 SB Ramps (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 2012 0
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
468
2
Cycle Time (sec): 55
0
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 1.040
0 0
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 47.1
0
1001*** 2
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 30.9
0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 0 2314*** 0
Signal=Permit/Rights=Ignore
Street Name: Wolfe Road I-280 SB Ramps
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 2003 763 0 1823 730 283 0 907 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 2003 763 0 1823 730 283 0 907 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 293 6 0 171 406 185 0 84 0 0 0
Hyatt: 0 18 9 0 18 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 2314 778 0 2012 1136 468 0 1001 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 2314 0 0 2012 0 468 0 1001 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 2314 0 0 2012 0 468 0 1001 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 2314 0 0 2012 0 468 0 1001 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 0 3800 1750 0 5700 1750 3150 0 3150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 32.2 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 16.0 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS by Move: A D A A A A B A E A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 27 0 0 7 0 4 0 19 0 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
422
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-97
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1434 577***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
114***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
895
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.835
0 13***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 44.4
0
40 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.8
2 242
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 65 1219*** 120
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 65 1141 120 487 1269 166 114 15 40 242 13 674
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: 65 1141 120 487 1269 166 114 15 40 242 13 674
Added Vol: 0 78 0 90 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 65 1219 120 577 1434 166 114 15 40 242 13 895
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: 65 1219 120 577 1434 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 65 1219 120 577 1434 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 65 1219 120 577 1434 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.71 0.29 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.03 1.97
Final Sat.: 1750 5150 507 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 50 3454
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.26 0.26
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 11.2 31.2 31.2 24.1 44.1 0.0 8.6 23.1 23.1 19.6 34.1 34.1
Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.63 0.00 0.84 0.04 0.11 0.43 0.84 0.84
Uniform Del: 46.1 37.0 37.0 41.0 26.3 0.0 50.0 34.6 35.1 40.3 35.3 35.3
IncremntDel: 1.3 4.0 4.0 8.7 0.6 0.0 33.8 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.7 5.7
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 47.4 41.0 41.0 49.7 26.9 0.0 83.8 34.6 35.2 40.8 41.1 41.1
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: 47.4 41.0 41.0 49.7 26.9 0.0 83.8 34.6 35.2 40.8 41.1 41.1
LOS by Move: D D D D C A F C D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 14 14 12 13 0 6 0 1 4 16 16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
423
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-98
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1442 577***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
114***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
895
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.837
0 13***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 44.5
0
40 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.9
2 242
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 65 1228*** 120
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 65 1141 120 487 1269 166 114 15 40 242 13 674
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: 65 1141 120 487 1269 166 114 15 40 242 13 674
Added Vol: 0 78 0 90 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 65 1228 120 577 1442 166 114 15 40 242 13 895
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: 65 1228 120 577 1442 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 65 1228 120 577 1442 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 65 1228 120 577 1442 0 114 15 40 242 13 895
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.71 0.29 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.03 1.97
Final Sat.: 1750 5153 504 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3150 50 3454
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.26 0.26
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 11.1 31.3 31.3 24.1 44.3 0.0 8.6 23.1 23.1 19.5 34.1 34.1
Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.63 0.00 0.84 0.04 0.11 0.43 0.84 0.84
Uniform Del: 46.1 36.9 36.9 41.1 26.3 0.0 50.0 34.6 35.1 40.3 35.4 35.4
IncremntDel: 1.3 4.0 4.0 8.8 0.6 0.0 34.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.8 5.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 47.4 41.0 41.0 49.9 26.9 0.0 84.3 34.6 35.3 40.9 41.2 41.2
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: 47.4 41.0 41.0 49.9 26.9 0.0 84.3 34.6 35.3 40.9 41.2 41.2
LOS by Move: D D D D C A F C D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 15 15 12 13 0 6 0 1 4 16 16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
424
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-99
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1434 1059***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
114
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
2
1233
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.813
0 13
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 45.7
1
40*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.0
1 323***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 65 1364*** 200
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 65 1286 200 969 1269 166 114 15 40 323 13 1012
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: 65 1286 200 969 1269 166 114 15 40 323 13 1012
Added Vol: 0 78 0 90 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 65 1364 200 1059 1434 166 114 15 40 323 13 1233
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: 65 1364 200 1059 1434 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 65 1364 200 1059 1434 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 65 1364 200 1059 1434 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 1.00 2.59 0.41 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 2.00
Final Sat.: 1750 4917 721 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3375 136 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.39
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.0 38.3 38.3 46.5 68.8 0.0 9.4 10.0 10.0 13.2 13.8 60.3
Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.44 0.00 0.83 0.09 0.27 0.87 0.83 0.78
Delay/Veh: 47.5 43.3 43.3 40.9 14.7 0.0 87.4 51.1 52.6 71.0 65.5 27.0
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: 47.5 43.3 43.3 40.9 14.7 0.0 87.4 51.1 52.6 71.0 65.5 27.0
LOS by Move: D D D D B A F D D E E C
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 18 18 22 10 0 7 1 2 7 7 22
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
425
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-100
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #23: Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 1442 1059***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
114
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
2
1233
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
15 1
Critical V/C: 0.815
0 13
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 45.8
1
40*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.1
1 323***
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 65 1373*** 200
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Road Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 65 1286 200 969 1269 166 114 15 40 323 13 1012
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: 65 1286 200 969 1269 166 114 15 40 323 13 1012
Added Vol: 0 78 0 90 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
Hyatt: 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 65 1373 200 1059 1442 166 114 15 40 323 13 1233
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: 65 1373 200 1059 1442 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 65 1373 200 1059 1442 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 65 1373 200 1059 1442 0 114 15 40 323 13 1233
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.83
Lanes: 1.00 2.59 0.41 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 2.00
Final Sat.: 1750 4922 717 3150 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 3375 136 3150
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.39
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.9 38.5 38.5 46.3 68.9 0.0 9.4 10.0 10.0 13.2 13.8 60.1
Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.44 0.00 0.83 0.09 0.27 0.87 0.83 0.78
Delay/Veh: 47.6 43.3 43.3 41.1 14.7 0.0 87.7 51.1 52.6 71.3 65.7 27.1
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: 47.6 43.3 43.3 41.1 14.7 0.0 87.7 51.1 52.6 71.3 65.7 27.1
LOS by Move: D D D D B A F D D E E C
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 18 18 23 10 0 7 1 2 7 7 23
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
426
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-101
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 904*** 359
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
586***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
280
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1152 3
Critical V/C: 0.877
2 1060***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.1
0
140 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.8
2 248
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 206*** 392 106
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 206 385 105 293 881 526 561 1125 140 234 1021 234
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: 206 385 105 293 881 526 561 1125 140 234 1021 234
Added Vol: 0 7 1 66 23 77 25 27 0 14 39 46
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 206 392 106 359 904 603 586 1152 140 248 1060 280
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: 206 392 106 359 904 0 586 1152 140 248 1060 280
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 206 392 106 359 904 0 586 1152 140 248 1060 280
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 206 392 106 359 904 0 586 1152 140 248 1060 280
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.32 0.68 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.33 0.67
Final Sat.: 1750 4406 1192 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4430 1170
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.8 13.7 13.7 30.9 29.9 0.0 23.3 38.4 38.4 15.0 30.0 30.0
Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.58 0.88 0.88
Uniform Del: 46.7 46.3 46.3 35.8 38.3 0.0 41.9 29.2 25.3 44.6 38.2 38.2
IncremntDel: 28.8 3.5 3.5 5.5 8.6 0.0 12.5 0.4 0.2 2.0 6.1 6.1
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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 75.5 49.8 49.8 41.3 46.9 0.0 54.5 29.6 25.5 46.5 44.3 44.3
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: 75.5 49.8 49.8 41.3 46.9 0.0 54.5 29.6 25.5 46.5 44.3 44.3
LOS by Move: E D D D D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 7 7 12 15 0 15 11 4 5 15 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
427
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-102
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 905*** 359
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
593***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
281
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1152 3
Critical V/C: 0.880
2 1060***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.4
0
140 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.0
2 248
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 206*** 393 106
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 206 385 105 293 881 526 561 1125 140 234 1021 234
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: 206 385 105 293 881 526 561 1125 140 234 1021 234
Added Vol: 0 7 1 66 23 77 25 27 0 14 39 46
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 206 393 106 359 905 609 593 1152 140 248 1060 281
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: 206 393 106 359 905 0 593 1152 140 248 1060 281
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 206 393 106 359 905 0 593 1152 140 248 1060 281
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 206 393 106 359 905 0 593 1152 140 248 1060 281
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.32 0.68 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.33 0.67
Final Sat.: 1750 4409 1189 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4426 1173
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.7 13.7 13.7 30.8 29.8 0.0 23.5 38.5 38.5 15.0 30.0 30.0
Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.58 0.88 0.88
Uniform Del: 46.8 46.3 46.3 35.8 38.4 0.0 41.9 29.1 25.3 44.5 38.3 38.3
IncremntDel: 29.4 3.6 3.6 5.6 8.9 0.0 12.7 0.4 0.2 2.0 6.2 6.2
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 76.2 49.9 49.9 41.4 47.3 0.0 54.6 29.5 25.5 46.5 44.5 44.5
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: 76.2 49.9 49.9 41.4 47.3 0.0 54.6 29.5 25.5 46.5 44.5 44.5
LOS by Move: E D D D D A D C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 7 7 12 15 0 15 11 4 5 15 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
428
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-103
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 924*** 359
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
646***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
425
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1212 3
Critical V/C: 0.947
2 1120***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 57.7
0
140 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.2
2 268
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 206*** 412 126
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 206 405 125 293 901 586 621 1185 140 254 1081 379
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: 206 405 125 293 901 586 621 1185 140 254 1081 379
Added Vol: 0 7 1 66 23 77 25 27 0 14 39 46
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 206 412 126 359 924 663 646 1212 140 268 1120 425
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: 206 412 126 359 924 0 646 1212 140 268 1120 425
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 206 412 126 359 924 0 646 1212 140 268 1120 425
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 206 412 126 359 924 0 646 1212 140 268 1120 425
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.25 0.75 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.12 0.88
Final Sat.: 1750 4279 1309 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4037 1532
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.24 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.09 0.28 0.28
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.7 13.4 13.4 28.5 28.3 0.0 23.8 40.0 40.0 16.0 32.2 32.2
Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.58 0.22 0.58 0.95 0.95
Delay/Veh: 93.8 53.2 53.2 47.1 57.5 0.0 64.7 28.7 24.4 45.8 50.0 50.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 93.8 53.2 53.2 47.1 57.5 0.0 64.7 28.7 24.4 45.8 50.0 50.0
LOS by Move: F D D D E A E C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 8 8 13 18 0 17 11 3 5 17 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
429
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-104
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #24: Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave (CUP/CMP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Ignore
Final Vol: 0 925*** 359
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
653***
2
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
426
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1212 3
Critical V/C: 0.950
2 1120***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 58.2
0
140 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.6
2 268
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 206*** 413 126
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 206 405 125 293 901 586 621 1185 140 254 1081 379
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: 206 405 125 293 901 586 621 1185 140 254 1081 379
Added Vol: 0 7 1 66 23 77 25 27 0 14 39 46
Hyatt: 0 1 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 206 413 126 359 925 669 653 1212 140 268 1120 426
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: 206 413 126 359 925 0 653 1212 140 268 1120 426
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 206 413 126 359 925 0 653 1212 140 268 1120 426
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 206 413 126 359 925 0 653 1212 140 268 1120 426
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.25 0.75 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.12 0.88
Final Sat.: 1750 4282 1306 1750 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 4034 1534
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.24 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.09 0.28 0.28
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.6 13.4 13.4 28.5 28.2 0.0 24.0 40.1 40.1 16.1 32.2 32.2
Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.58 0.22 0.58 0.95 0.95
Delay/Veh: 94.7 53.3 53.3 47.3 58.1 0.0 65.1 28.6 24.3 45.8 50.5 50.5
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: 94.7 53.3 53.3 47.3 58.1 0.0 65.1 28.6 24.3 45.8 50.5 50.5
LOS by Move: F D D D E A E C C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 8 8 13 18 0 18 11 3 5 17 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
430
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-105
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 250*** 0 263
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
211***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
218
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1408 2
Critical V/C: 0.703
2 1328***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 35.2
0
92 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.9
1 127
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 155*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1314 92 114 1230 218
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: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1314 92 114 1230 218
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 13 98 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1328 218
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: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1328 218
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1328 218
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1328 218
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 2.55 0.45
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5322 348 1750 4838 794
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.27 0.27
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 0.0 13.9 22.3 0.0 22.3 18.9 48.5 48.5 13.3 42.9 42.9
Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.00 0.29 0.41 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.70
Uniform Del: 46.1 0.0 43.6 38.1 0.0 40.7 42.9 23.4 23.4 45.8 28.2 28.2
IncremntDel: 9.8 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 6.2 7.3 0.4 0.4 4.7 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 55.9 0.0 44.3 38.5 0.0 47.0 50.3 23.8 23.8 50.6 29.2 29.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 55.9 0.0 44.3 38.5 0.0 47.0 50.3 23.8 23.8 50.6 29.2 29.2
LOS by Move: E A D D A D D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 0 2 5 0 10 7 12 12 4 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
431
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-106
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 250*** 0 263
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
211***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
218
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1408 2
Critical V/C: 0.703
2 1329***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 35.2
0
92 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 31.9
1 127
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 155*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1314 92 114 1230 218
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: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1314 92 114 1230 218
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 13 98 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1329 218
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: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1329 218
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1329 218
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 155 0 64 263 0 250 211 1408 92 127 1329 218
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 2.55 0.45
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5322 348 1750 4838 794
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.27 0.27
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 0.0 13.9 22.3 0.0 22.3 18.9 48.5 48.5 13.3 43.0 43.0
Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.00 0.29 0.41 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.70
Uniform Del: 46.1 0.0 43.6 38.1 0.0 40.8 42.9 23.4 23.4 45.8 28.2 28.2
IncremntDel: 9.8 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 6.3 7.3 0.4 0.4 4.7 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 55.9 0.0 44.4 38.5 0.0 47.0 50.3 23.8 23.8 50.5 29.2 29.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 55.9 0.0 44.4 38.5 0.0 47.0 50.3 23.8 23.8 50.5 29.2 29.2
LOS by Move: E A D D A D D C C D C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 0 2 5 0 10 7 12 12 4 14 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
432
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-107
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 475*** 0 424
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
291***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
379
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1408 2
Critical V/C: 0.933
2 1328***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.2
0
92 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.5
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 155*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1314 92 114 1230 379
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: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1314 92 114 1230 379
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 13 98 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1328 379
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: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1328 379
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1328 379
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1328 379
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 2.29 0.71
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5322 348 1750 4352 1242
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.27 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.31 0.31
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.4 0.0 10.4 32.0 0.0 32.0 19.6 43.6 43.6 12.0 36.0 36.0
Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.00 0.39 0.46 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.93 0.93
Delay/Veh: 99.9 0.0 48.3 32.3 0.0 62.3 78.4 28.0 28.0 55.8 45.2 45.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 99.9 0.0 48.3 32.3 0.0 62.3 78.4 28.0 28.0 55.8 45.2 45.2
LOS by Move: F A D C A E E C C E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 0 3 7 0 21 12 14 14 4 20 20
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
433
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-108
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #26: Stevens Creek Blvd and Finch Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 475*** 0 424
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
291***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
0
379
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
1
1408 2
Critical V/C: 0.933
2 1329***
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.2
0
92 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.5
1 127
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 155*** 0 64
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Finch Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South 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 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1314 92 114 1230 379
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: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1314 92 114 1230 379
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 13 98 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1329 379
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: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1329 379
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1329 379
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 155 0 64 424 0 475 291 1408 92 127 1329 379
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 2.29 0.71
Final Sat.: 1750 0 1750 3150 0 1750 1750 5322 348 1750 4352 1241
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.27 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.31 0.31
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.4 0.0 10.4 32.0 0.0 32.0 19.6 43.6 43.6 12.0 36.0 36.0
Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.00 0.39 0.46 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.93 0.93
Delay/Veh: 100.0 0.0 48.3 32.3 0.0 62.4 78.5 28.0 28.0 55.8 45.2 45.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 100.0 0.0 48.3 32.3 0.0 62.4 78.5 28.0 28.0 55.8 45.2 45.2
LOS by Move: F A D C A E E C C E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 0 3 7 0 21 12 14 14 4 20 20
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
434
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-109
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 500*** 840 1
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
379
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
2
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.643
1! 26***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.8
0
326*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.0
0 12
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 152*** 397 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 152 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 326 12 26 2
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: 152 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 326 12 26 2
Added Vol: 0 175 0 0 340 221 90 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 152 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 326 12 26 2
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: 152 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 326 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 152 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 326 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 152 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 326 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.63 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 3790 10 1750 3800 1750 3500 0 1750 553 1199 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.9 44.2 44.2 23.8 52.1 52.1 34.0 0.0 34.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.53 0.68 0.39 0.00 0.68 0.27 0.27 0.27
Uniform Del: 51.6 28.7 28.7 40.5 26.7 29.1 36.6 0.0 40.1 53.6 53.6 53.6
IncremntDel: 8.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.3 0.0 3.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 59.8 28.8 28.8 40.5 27.1 31.7 36.9 0.0 44.1 54.5 54.5 54.5
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: 59.8 28.8 28.8 40.5 27.1 31.7 36.9 0.0 44.1 54.5 54.5 54.5
LOS by Move: E C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 5 5 0 11 16 6 0 11 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
435
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-110
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 504*** 840 1
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
383
1
Cycle Time (sec): 124
0
2
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.650
1! 26***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 41.2
0
330*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.3
0 12
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 156*** 397 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 152 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 326 12 26 2
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: 152 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 326 12 26 2
Added Vol: 0 175 0 0 340 221 90 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 156 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 330 12 26 2
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 156 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 330 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 156 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 330 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 156 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 330 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.63 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 3790 10 1750 3800 1750 3500 0 1750 553 1199 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.1 44.2 44.2 23.8 51.9 51.9 34.0 0.0 34.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.53 0.69 0.40 0.00 0.69 0.27 0.27 0.27
Uniform Del: 51.6 28.7 28.7 40.5 26.9 29.4 36.7 0.0 40.3 53.6 53.6 53.6
IncremntDel: 8.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.8 0.3 0.0 4.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 60.1 28.8 28.8 40.5 27.2 32.2 36.9 0.0 44.4 54.5 54.5 54.5
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: 60.1 28.8 28.8 40.5 27.2 32.2 36.9 0.0 44.4 54.5 54.5 54.5
LOS by Move: E C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 5 5 0 11 16 6 0 11 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
436
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-111
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 500*** 840 1
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
379
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
0
2
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.647
1! 26***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.1
0
328*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.4
0 12
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 153*** 397 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 153 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 328 12 26 2
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: 153 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 328 12 26 2
Added Vol: 0 175 0 0 340 221 90 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 153 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 328 12 26 2
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: 153 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 328 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 153 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 328 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 153 397 1 1 840 500 379 0 328 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.63 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 3790 10 1750 3800 1750 3500 0 1750 553 1199 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.3 41.9 41.9 23.3 49.9 49.9 32.8 0.0 32.8 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.53 0.69 0.40 0.00 0.69 0.26 0.26 0.26
Delay/Veh: 58.7 28.5 28.5 39.0 26.6 31.4 35.8 0.0 43.2 52.4 52.4 52.4
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: 58.7 28.5 28.5 39.0 26.6 31.4 35.8 0.0 43.2 52.4 52.4 52.4
LOS by Move: E C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 5 0 11 16 6 0 11 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
437
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-112
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #31: Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 504*** 840 1
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split
Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
383
1
Cycle Time (sec): 120
0
2
1
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
0 0
Critical V/C: 0.655
1! 26***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.5
0
332*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.7
0 12
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 157*** 397 1
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Vallco Parkway
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 153 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 328 12 26 2
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: 153 222 1 1 500 279 289 0 328 12 26 2
Added Vol: 0 175 0 0 340 221 90 0 0 0 0 0
Hyatt: 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 157 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 332 12 26 2
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: 157 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 332 12 26 2
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 157 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 332 12 26 2
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 157 397 1 1 840 504 383 0 332 12 26 2
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.63 0.05
Final Sat.: 1750 3790 10 1750 3800 1750 3500 0 1750 553 1199 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 15.5 41.9 41.9 23.3 49.7 49.7 32.8 0.0 32.8 10.0 10.0 10.0
Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.53 0.69 0.40 0.00 0.69 0.26 0.26 0.26
Delay/Veh: 59.0 28.5 28.5 39.0 26.8 31.8 35.9 0.0 43.5 52.4 52.4 52.4
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: 59.0 28.5 28.5 39.0 26.8 31.8 35.9 0.0 43.5 52.4 52.4 52.4
LOS by Move: E C C D C C D A D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 5 5 0 11 16 6 0 11 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
438
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-113
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 332 0 870***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
213
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1620*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.915
3 1215
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 50.6
0
98 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 46.8
1 166***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 102 83 68***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 102 75 68 595 0 266 185 1554 98 166 1169 147
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 102 75 68 595 0 266 185 1554 98 166 1169 147
Added Vol: 0 8 0 275 0 66 28 66 0 0 46 138
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 102 83 68 870 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1215 285
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 102 83 68 870 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1215 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 102 83 68 870 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1215 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 102 83 68 870 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1215 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.41 0.31 0.28 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.82 0.18 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 724 589 483 3150 0 1750 1750 5349 324 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.21 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.9 16.9 16.9 33.2 0.0 33.2 17.4 36.4 36.4 11.4 30.5 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.63 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.77 0.00
Uniform Del: 45.8 45.8 45.8 37.0 0.0 33.1 44.4 35.3 35.3 48.8 36.6 0.0
IncremntDel: 32.5 32.5 32.5 13.0 0.0 2.4 12.4 7.4 7.4 43.2 2.4 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 78.4 78.4 78.4 50.1 0.0 35.5 56.8 42.7 42.7 92.0 38.9 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: 78.4 78.4 78.4 50.1 0.0 35.5 56.8 42.7 42.7 92.0 38.9 0.0
LOS by Move: E E E D A D E D D F D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 12 12 12 19 0 10 8 20 20 7 13 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
439
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-114
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 332 0 874***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
213
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1620*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.916
3 1216
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 50.7
0
98 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 47.0
1 166***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 102 83 68***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 102 75 68 595 0 266 185 1554 98 166 1169 147
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 102 75 68 595 0 266 185 1554 98 166 1169 147
Added Vol: 0 8 0 275 0 66 28 66 0 0 46 138
Hyatt: 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 102 83 68 874 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1216 289
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 102 83 68 874 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1216 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 102 83 68 874 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1216 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 102 83 68 874 0 332 213 1620 98 166 1216 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.41 0.31 0.28 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.82 0.18 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 724 589 483 3150 0 1750 1750 5349 324 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.21 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.9 16.9 16.9 33.3 0.0 33.3 17.4 36.4 36.4 11.4 30.4 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.63 0.77 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.77 0.00
Uniform Del: 45.8 45.8 45.8 37.0 0.0 33.0 44.4 35.3 35.3 48.8 36.6 0.0
IncremntDel: 32.9 32.9 32.9 13.2 0.0 2.4 12.6 7.5 7.5 43.5 2.4 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 78.7 78.7 78.7 50.2 0.0 35.4 57.0 42.9 42.9 92.4 39.0 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: 78.7 78.7 78.7 50.2 0.0 35.4 57.0 42.9 42.9 92.4 39.0 0.0
LOS by Move: E E E D A D E D D F D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 13 13 13 19 0 10 8 20 20 7 13 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
440
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-115
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 332 0 872***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
213
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1783*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.947
3 1377
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 54.5
0
98 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.4
1 166***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 102 83 68***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 102 75 68 597 0 266 185 1717 98 166 1331 148
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 75 68 597 0 266 185 1717 98 166 1331 148
Added Vol: 0 8 0 275 0 66 28 66 0 0 46 138
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 102 83 68 872 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1377 286
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 102 83 68 872 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1377 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 102 83 68 872 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1377 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 102 83 68 872 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1377 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.41 0.31 0.28 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.83 0.17 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 724 589 483 3150 0 1750 1750 5379 296 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.24 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.4 16.4 16.4 32.1 0.0 32.1 16.6 38.5 38.5 11.0 32.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.65 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.81 0.00
Delay/Veh: 87.2 87.2 87.2 56.3 0.0 36.9 61.7 45.2 45.2 101.8 38.6 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: 87.2 87.2 87.2 56.3 0.0 36.9 61.7 45.2 45.2 101.8 38.6 0.0
LOS by Move: F F F E A D E D D F D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 13 13 13 20 0 10 8 23 23 7 15 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
441
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-116
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #32: Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Avenue (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 332 0 876***
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Ignore Lanes: Final Vol:
213
1
Cycle Time (sec): 110
1
0
0
Loss Time (sec): 12
0
1783*** 2
Critical V/C: 0.949
3 1378
1
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 54.8
0
98 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.6
1 166***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 102 83 68***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Blvd
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 102 75 68 597 0 266 185 1717 98 166 1331 148
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 75 68 597 0 266 185 1717 98 166 1331 148
Added Vol: 0 8 0 275 0 66 28 66 0 0 46 138
Hyatt: 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Initial Fut: 102 83 68 876 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1378 290
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
PHF Volume: 102 83 68 876 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1378 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 102 83 68 876 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1378 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 0.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 102 83 68 876 0 332 213 1783 98 166 1378 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 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.41 0.31 0.28 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.83 0.17 1.00 3.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 724 589 483 3150 0 1750 1750 5379 296 1750 5700 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.24 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 16.3 16.3 16.3 32.2 0.0 32.2 16.6 38.4 38.4 11.0 32.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.65 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.81 0.00
Delay/Veh: 87.6 87.6 87.6 56.5 0.0 36.8 62.0 45.4 45.4 102.2 38.7 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: 87.6 87.6 87.6 56.5 0.0 36.8 62.0 45.4 45.4 102.2 38.7 0.0
LOS by Move: F F F E A D E D D F D A
HCM2kAvgQ: 13 13 13 20 0 10 8 23 23 7 15 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
442
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-117
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14***
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
534*** 1!
Critical V/C: 0.730
1! 700
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.0
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.9
0 2***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20*** 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 444 1 2 479 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 444 1 2 479 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 534 1 2 700 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 534 1 2 700 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 534 1 2 700 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
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 534 1 2 700 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.90 0.98 0.90 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.33 0.60 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.01
Final Sat.: 562 1123 112 1663 0 0 31 1860 3 5 1875 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.37 0.37 0.37
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 43.5 43.5 43.5
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Uniform Del: 35.1 41.2 41.2 43.6 0.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 25.4 25.4 25.4
IncremntDel: 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 11.2 8.9 8.9 8.9
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 42.3 42.3 42.3 34.4 34.4 34.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 42.3 42.3 42.3 34.4 34.4 34.4
LOS by Move: D D D D A A D D D C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 21 21 21
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
443
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-118
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14***
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
542*** 1!
Critical V/C: 0.739
1! 708
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.0
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.0
0 2***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20*** 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 444 1 2 479 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 444 1 2 479 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0
Initial Fut: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 542 1 2 708 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 542 1 2 708 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 542 1 2 708 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
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 542 1 2 708 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.90 0.98 0.90 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.33 0.60 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.01
Final Sat.: 562 1123 112 1663 0 0 31 1861 3 5 1875 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.38
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 43.5 43.5 43.5
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Uniform Del: 35.1 41.2 41.2 43.6 0.0 0.0 31.2 31.2 31.2 25.7 25.7 25.7
IncremntDel: 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 12.3 12.3 12.3 9.8 9.8 9.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 43.4 43.4 43.4 35.5 35.5 35.5
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: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 43.4 43.4 43.4 35.5 35.5 35.5
LOS by Move: D D D D A A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 21 21 21
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
444
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-119
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14***
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
536*** 1!
Critical V/C: 0.732
1! 701
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.2
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.1
0 2***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20*** 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 446 1 2 480 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 446 1 2 480 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 536 1 2 701 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 536 1 2 701 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 536 1 2 701 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
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 536 1 2 701 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.90 0.98 0.90 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.33 0.60 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.01
Final Sat.: 562 1123 112 1663 0 0 31 1860 3 5 1875 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.37 0.37 0.37
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 43.5 43.5 43.5
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Delay/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 34.6 34.6 34.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 34.6 34.6 34.6
LOS by Move: D D D D A A D D D C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 21 21 21
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
445
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-120
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #501: Finch Road and Vallco Pkwy
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 14***
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
9
0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0
6
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
0
544*** 1!
Critical V/C: 0.741
1! 709
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.3
0
1 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.2
0 2***
LOS: D
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 20*** 2
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 446 1 2 480 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 446 1 2 480 6
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0
Initial Fut: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 544 1 2 709 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: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 544 1 2 709 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 544 1 2 709 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
FinalVolume: 10 20 2 14 0 0 9 544 1 2 709 6
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.90 0.98 0.90 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 0.33 0.60 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.01
Final Sat.: 562 1123 112 1663 0 0 31 1861 3 5 1875 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.38
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 33.6 33.6 33.6 43.4 43.4 43.4
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Delay/Veh: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 43.6 43.6 43.6 35.7 35.7 35.7
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: 35.2 41.7 41.7 44.1 0.0 0.0 43.6 43.6 43.6 35.7 35.7 35.7
LOS by Move: D D D D A A D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 1 1 1 1 0 0 17 17 17 22 22 22
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
446
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-121
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 72
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
48
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
508 2
Critical V/C: 0.320
1 712***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.9
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.8
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 418 0 0 491 48
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 72 0 38 28 418 0 0 491 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 48
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 72 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 48
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 48
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 48
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.14
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1057 0 558 1663 3800 0 0 3509 237
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 11.8 7.0 42.2 0.0 0.0 35.2 35.2
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35
Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 20.8 23.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.4
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 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: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 6.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 6.5
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 3
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
447
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-122
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Bkgd + P PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 80
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
56
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
508 2
Critical V/C: 0.328
1 712***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.2
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.1
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 418 0 0 491 48
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 72 0 38 28 418 0 0 491 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 56
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 80 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 56
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 56
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 508 0 0 712 56
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.16
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1098 0 522 1663 3800 0 0 3463 272
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 12.3 7.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 34.7 34.7
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36
Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 20.5 23.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 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: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.1 24.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 21.1 24.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
448
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-123
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 72
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
48
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
1070 2
Critical V/C: 0.442
1 1131***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.4
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.0
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 980 0 0 910 48
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 72 0 38 28 980 0 0 910 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 48
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 72 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 48
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 48
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 48
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.92
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1057 0 558 1663 3800 0 0 3611 153
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 23.4 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 23.4 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 6 6
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
449
COMPARE Thu Aug 14 13:39:37 2014 Page 3-124
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose
Hyatt House Hotel TIA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative + P PM
Intersection #504: Perimeter Road and Vallco Pkwy (CUP)
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38*** 0 80
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect
Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
28***
1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0
56
0
Loss Time (sec): 6
1
1070 2
Critical V/C: 0.451
1 1131***
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.5
0
0 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.1
0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Perimeter Rd Vallco Pkwy
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 72 0 38 28 980 0 0 910 48
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 72 0 38 28 980 0 0 910 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 221 0
Hyatt: 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 56
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 80 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 56
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 56
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 80 0 38 28 1070 0 0 1131 56
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.91
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 0.10
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1098 0 522 1663 3800 0 0 3581 177
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.14 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 23.6 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 23.6 24.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6
LOS by Move: A A A C A C C A A A A A
HCM2kAvgQ: 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 6 6
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
450
A RBOR R ESOURCES
professional consulting arborists and tree care
p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net
phone: 650.654.3351 fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763
ARBORIST REPORT
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL
AT VALLCO PARK
WOLFE ROAD & INTERSTATE 280
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
(APN 316-20-092)
Submitted to:
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board‐Certified Master Arborist #WE‐4001B
_______
August 25, 2014
451
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ……...…………………………………..………….…………… 1
2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION ...............................……….… 2
3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ..……...………………….…… 3
4.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ..……………............…….….….... 5
4.1 Proposed Removals ................................................………..….….... 5
4.2 Potential Significant Impacts ............................................….….... 5
5.0 GUIDELINES FOR TREE REPLACEMENTS .......................…….…… 8
6.0 GENERAL PROTECTION MEASURES .......…......………………….…… 10
6.1 Design Guidelines ..................................................………..….….... 10
6.2 Before Demolition, Grading and Construction .................….….... 12
6.3 During Demolition, Grading and Construction .................….….... 13
7.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .………………….….... 15
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT TITLE
A TREE INVENTORY TABLE (20 sheets)
B SITE MAP (one sheet)
C PHOTOGRAPHS (11 sheets)
452
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 1 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino Community Development Department has retained me to prepare
this Arborist Report in connection with the proposed application to construct a five-story,
148-room hotel named Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park; the property is a triangular-
shaped lot, bordered by Interstate 280 to the north, N. Wolfe Road to the west, and
Perimeter Road to the south (APN 316-20-092), and currently serves as an overflow
parking lot for Vallco Mall.
Specific tasks assigned to perform are as follows:
Visit the site on May 12 and 15, 2014 to identify 150 trees having trunks with
diameters of four inches and greater at 54 inches above grade.
Determine each tree's trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade or where appropriate
to obtain the best representation of trunk size. Diameters are rounded to the nearest
inch, and trees listed with more than one diameter are formed by multiple trunks.
Ascertain each tree's health and structural integrity, and assign an overall condition
rating (e.g. good, fair, poor or dead).
Determine each tree’s suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low).
Obtain photographs; see Exhibit C.
Identify which trees have trunks situated within the public right-of-way.
Assign tree numbers in a sequential pattern, and those locations can and numbers can
be viewed on Sheet A-0.2 presented in Exhibit B (copy of the Demolition/Tree
Removal Plan, dated 7/15/14).
Affix metal tags with engraved, corresponding numbers to each accessible trunk or
major limb (the tags are round aluminum).
Review the plan set dated 7/15/14 to identify potential tree disposition and impacts.
Provide tree replacement guidelines.
Develop general protection measures to help avoid or mitigate impacts to trees
planned for retention.
Prepare a written report that presents the aforementioned information, and submit via
email as a PDF document.
453
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 2 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION
One-hundred fifty (150) trees of eight various species were inventoried for this report.
They are sequentially numbered as 1 thru 150, and the table below, and continued on the
following two pages, identifies their common names, assigned numbers, counts and overall
percentages.
NAME TREE NUMBER(S) COUNT
% OF
TOTAL
coast live oak 91, 92, 145, 146 4 3%
coast redwood 1, 2, 4, 5-89, 93-95, 97-102, 107 98 65%
cork oak 90, 143, 144 3 2%
evergreen pear 109, 110, 136-139 6 4%
honey locust 103, 131-133, 142, 147-150 9 6%
Monterey pine 129, 130, 134, 135, 140, 141 6 4%
pin oak 127, 128 2 1%
Shamel ash 3, 96, 104-106, 108, 111-126 22 15%
Total 150 100%
As illustrated above, the site is populated predominantly by coast redwoods, which form a
highly dense and established screen along the north (Hwy 280) and west (N. Wolfe Road)
boundaries. They exhibit symptoms of significant or severe stress from not receiving
sufficient water for a good number of years, and the vast majority appear in poor health.
Of these, many are beyond recovery, and others might improve if an assertive watering
program is immediately implemented. Absent of supplemental water, continued,
progressive decline can be expected, and those otherwise intended for retention and
protection may ultimately die and/or require removal.
454
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 3 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the table in Exhibit A. The
trees' locations and corresponding numbers can be viewed on the site map in Exhibit B,
and photographs are presented in Exhibit C.
One tree, #96, is a within the public right-of-way along N. Wolfe Road and defined as a
street tree.
Four coast live oaks are defined as “specimen trees” pursuant to Appendix B of Ordinance
No. 07-2003; they include #91, 92, 145 and 146.
3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION
Each tree has been assigned either a “high,” “moderate” or “low” suitability for
preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure and consider their existing health,
structural integrity, anticipated life span, available growing space, location, size and
species. A description of these ratings are presented below; note that the “high” category
comprises nine (or 6%), the “moderate” category 58 (or 39%), and the “low” category 83
(or 55%) of the total inventoried trees.
High: Applies to trees #14, 20, 29, 32, 33, 44, 89, 95 and 97.
These trees offer a good potential for contributing long-term to the site; appear reasonably
healthy with stable structures; have no apparent, significant health issues or structural
defects; and require regular care to maintain their longevity and vigor.
Moderate: Applies to trees #3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16, 21-28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45-52,
54, 55, 57-59, 61, 63-65, 75, 82, 87, 91-93, 98-102, 107, 118, 119, 124, 125, 131, 132, 139
and 143.
These trees contribute to the site but at levels less than those assigned a high suitability;
have health and/or structural issues that can potentially be reasonably addressed and
455
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 4 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
property mitigated; and frequent care is typically required for their remaining lifespan. A
good number of redwoods within this rating serve as established screening elements
between Interstate 280 and N. Wolfe Road; they are assigned moderate suitability solely
for this reason, as well as the potential of health recovery, including numerous that have
been "topped" and/or suppressed growth due to adjacent, more established trees (they
would otherwise be assigned a low suitability for their poor health condition).
Low: Applies to trees #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 17-19, 27, 34, 37, 38, 40, 43, 53, 56, 60, 62,
66-74, 76-81, 83-86, 88, 90, 94, 96, 103-106, 108-117, 120-123, 126-130, 133-138, 140-
142 and 144-150.
These trees are either dead, nearly dead, severely declined, highly suppressed in terms of
canopy and trunk development, and/or have such serious structural defects that they are
expected to worsen regardless of tree care measures employed (i.e. beyond recovery).
None appear suitable for retention.
Of low suitability trees, the following four should be immediately removed: #94, 123,
126 and 145. Trees #94, 123 and 126 are dead. Tree #145 has a massive split where four
leaders originate, and is at severe risk of breaking at any time (presents an immediate,
hazardous risk to persons and vehicles below).
456
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 5 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
4.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
4.1 Proposed Removals
The following 114 trees are identified for removal to accommodate the proposed project
design and/or low suitability for preservation: #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 17-19, 27, 34, 37, 38,
40, 43, 53 and 56-150.
The above list considers the following:
All redwood trees along the western boundary for construction of the proposed path
(the vast majority are in poor condition).
All trees at the southwest section of the site to accommodate the proposed path,
driveway, and grading.
All trees within the existing parking lot for construction of the building and garage.
All trees within the planter strip along Perimeter Road for site improvements.
Select redwoods along the north boundary due to being in poor condition.
Trees at the northwest corner of the property for the bioretention planter.
Of the 114 trees, three are assigned a high suitability, 27 a moderate suitability, and 84 a
low suitability; none are suitable for relocation. The high suitability trees include #89, 95
and 97, all sizeable coast redwoods with trunk diameters of 30, 22 and 24 inches,
respectively, but appear in only fair health condition; their removal appears necessitated by
the proposed path, driveway, and associated grading at the southwest corner of the site.
4.2 Potential Significant Impacts
Of the 36 trees planned for retention, implementation of the proposed design would
subject a number to a high or severe level of impacts. Discussion and recommendations
for design modification to achieve adequate protection are provided in this section.
Redwood trees #14, 15, 16, 20 and 21 will sustain potentially severe root loss during
excavation for the new section of parking lot at the northeast section of the property. To
achieve protection, the section of existing planter within at least 12 feet from their
457
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 6 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
trunks should remain intact and be regarded as their Tree Protection Zone ("TPZ"
hereinafter). Please note that information provided on A-0.2 regarding "portion of exist.
planter shall remain intact to ensure..." does not achieve protection of the specific
redwoods without a redesign that area.
The proposed relocation of the cellular equipment enclosure will result in excavation
within a significant section of tree #10's root zone, and the process may expose root
damage or loss to #14-16, 20 and 21. I recommend a plan for relocating this feature is
provided to best assess impacts.
For trees retained along the northern border, excavation for the proposed storm drain and
inlets would expose retained redwoods to potential loss and/or damage of large roots
within the parking lot. To reduce the risk of damage or impacts, I recommend the main
line is established at least ten feet from the trunks. The inlets can be placed at the edge of
proposed lot, however, must be strategically located away from retained trees (i.e. in voids
containing trees that are either small or proposed for removal), and the lines connecting the
inlets to the storm in a radial direction to tree trunks. A possible alternative is for the line
to be directionally-bored by 36 inches or more below grade, and the access pits established
beyond the canopies of retained trees.
The proposed nine light poles along the north boundary show footings within the existing
planter and immediately adjacent to the following 12 trees: #16, 21, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 41,
44, 45, 49 and 54. To avoid potentially significant impacts, I recommend the light poles
are situated or designed so that no drilling or excavation is needed within the planter (a
possible alternative is to place them within the finger islands). The electrical layout should
also be configured as described above for the storm drains.
Another potential impact for trees along the north boundary involves the footing design
and installation method of the proposed wall/curb. It is critical that constructing the
future wall/curb and gutter does not require lateral excavation into the existing planter (i.e.
any soil and roots behind existing back of curb), including for overexcavation to form and
458
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 7 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
pour. Additionally, the wall/curb and gutter should not require excavation into existing
base material, or have the flexibility for as-built changes should roots of two inches and
greater in diameter be encountered. Additionally, existing base material should be
utilized for the new lot where roots of this size become encountered.
The electrical layout for lighting or other purposes is critical to avoid trenching within
protection zones, and subsequently, resulting in severe root loss. To avoid this from
occurring, I recommend the layout is established, reviewed, and approved prior to building
permit issuance, and the routes established beyond TPZs.
The path proposed along the north side of the northern shared fence line appears to
present no significant impacts to adjacent redwoods, provided excavation is not needed for
its construction (i.e. a no-dig design, including for base materials, forms and edging), and
direct compaction of existing soil grade can be avoided grade. A material that may achieve
these specifications is Tensar® Biaxial Geogrid (www.tensarcorp.com).
Note that for any redwoods being considered for retention, it is critical to begin
immediately supplying them with supplemental water. Their current, overall poor and
dying condition can be attributed to an absence of water for numerous years.
459
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 8 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
5.0 GUIDELINES FOR TREE REPLACEMENTS
Applying Section 14.18.185, Table A, of the City Code, one of the following options
would be applied for mitigating removal of the 114 trees:
Installing 187 trees of 24-inch box size.
Installing 109 trees of 24-inch box size plus 39 of 36-inch box size.
Installing 109 trees of 24-inch box size, and for the additional 78 trees of 24-inch
box size, any combination of one 36-inch box for every two 24-inch boxes.
Per L-3's table, a total of 121 trees are proposed for installation, 106 of which are 24-inch
box size and 15 are of 36-inch box size. Applying Code Section 14.18.185, there is a
difference of 51 trees of 24-inch box trees to meet mitigation replacements.
Regarding redwoods proposed for installation along the west boundary, the existing coast
redwoods are roughly spaced, on average, nine to ten feet apart. I suggest that 12 feet
between each tree is appropriate spacing for this site.
For redwoods to be installed along the north boundary, there are some instances where
redwoods are proposed for removal due to being under highly suppressed and crowded-
growing conditions, and installing a new redwood would be futile due to inadequate space,
sunlight, and the established dominance of adjacent redwoods with broad canopies;
examples include #9, 27, 34, 40, 43 and 56.
Also along the north boundary, there are other instances where trees are proposed for
removal due to being in poor condition, and there appears sufficient sunlight and spacing
to promote the growth of a new redwood; if not one replacement to each removed, then
one between where two are removed. Specific considerations are as follows:
Replacements for #1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 53 and 60-63 should be installed within the
same trunk areas as of the removed trees.
One tree is suggested between #17 and 18, and another between #37 and 38.
The spacing between new and existing would vary along the north boundary to
accommodate the above recommendations and consider existing conditions, such
as the existing redwoods dominating available planting space and sunlight.
460
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 9 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
For new redwoods installed, I do not anticipate those planted in close proximity of
established ones will sustain sufficient growing space and sunlight to reach a
similar height. Those setback some from established ones do present a reasonably
good opportunity though, and estimate that under favorable growing conditions,
they may produce a similar height in 15 to 20 years.
Sheet L-3 does not show the northeast corner where trees #1, 2 and 4 are proposed for
removal, and new trees could be installed as replacements (e.g. new redwoods); I
recommend the plan is updated accordingly.
The proposed palette for new trees should be further reviewed by the Public Works
arborist and/or me to determine whether numerous of the proposed London planes should
be substituted with an alternative species.
Based on the amount of new trees to be installed, they should be selected and tagged at
the nursery by an ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) certified arborist and/or the
landscape architect prior to being shipped to the site. They should have relatively
symmetrical structures mostly free of obvious defects, wounds and girdling roots.
Additionally, the arborist and/or landscape architect should be retained to examine and root
prune, as needed, once the boxes are removed and before being installed.
All new trees should be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-
licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree service company, and performed to
professional industry standards. Only if necessary to stand upright, they should be double-
staked (no cross-brace) with rubber tree ties or equivalent, and the support stakes cut below
the first main lateral branch. Percolation tests should also be performed for each planting
pit to ensure drainage is achieved.
All irrigation should be supplied through valves and automatic timers separate from that
of shrubs, plants and groundcover, and supplied by two bubblers placed and staked on the
surface of the root ball (versus against the trunk or in a sleeve) at around the one-half or
three-quarters of the distance between the trunk and rootball edges. Additionally, an eight-
inch tall circular berm formed by soil should be formed around the perimeter of the
rootball (for water from the bubblers to flood). A three-inch layer of wood-chip mulch
should be spread on top and 12 inches beyond the root ball (but not piled against trunks).
461
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 10 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
6.0 GENERAL PROTECTION MEASURES
Recommendations presented within this section serve as general design guidelines to help
mitigate or avoid impacts to trees being retained. They are subject to revision upon
reviewing the updated project design, and I should be consulted in the event any cannot be
feasibly implemented. Please note that all referenced distances from trunks are intended
to be from the closest edge (face of) of their outermost perimeter at soil grade.
6.1 Design Guidelines
1. All recommendations presented in Section 4.0 of this report should be considered
part of this section.
2. A TPZ is where all trenching, soil scraping, compaction, grading (cut and fill),
removal of underground utilities and vaults, finish-grading, overexcavation,
subexcavation, swales, bioswales, storm drains, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and
dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation shall be avoided. For general
design purposes, the minimum TPZs of select trees that may potentially be retained
are provided in Section 4.0 of this report. For all other inventoried trees not
mentioned in Section 4.0 but being retained, I recommend their TPZs are up to 12
inches from proposed improvements, and beneath their entire canopies in all other
directions. Where an impact encroaches slightly within a setback, it can be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
3. The tree numbers of all retained trees should be added to the civil and landscape
plans to allow for efficient design review for both the City and contractors.
4. Sheet C-3.0 should show the limits of grading.
5. All existing, unused lines, pipes and manholes within a TPZ should be abandoned
and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent
root damage); this provision should be specified on A-0.2.
462
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 11 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
6. Overexcavation for constructing any curb, gutter, walk, foundation etc. within a
TPZ should be reduced to the maximum extent possible, such as six inches.
7. Shoring should be specified for the north side of the proposed underground garage.
8. The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, should not
require water being discharged within TPZs. Also, any swales needed for drainage
within a TPZ should require no more than a three-inch soil cut and fill, and roots two
inches and greater in diameter retained and not damaged.
9. Any underground utilities and services (e.g. electrical) should be routed beyond
TPZs. Where this is not feasible, the section of line(s) within the TPZ should be
directionally-bored by at least four feet below existing grade, or installed by other
means (e.g. pipe-bursting) to avoid an open trench. The ground above any tunnel
must remain undisturbed, and access pits and any above-ground infrastructure (e.g.
splice boxes, meters and vaults) established beyond all TPZs.
10. The future staging area and route(s) of access should be shown on the final site plan
and avoided on unpaved areas beneath or near canopies. Where not feasible, I should
be consulted to review the location and proximity to particular trees, and strive to
identify a temporary root zone buffer that could potentially minimize soil compaction
within a TPZ, and in turn, lessen impacts to a tree's vigor and longevity.
11. To restrict spoils and runoff from traveling into root zones, the future erosion
control design should establish any silt fence and/or straw rolls away from a tree's
trunk (not against it), and as close to the canopy edge as possible. Additionally,
where within a TPZ, the material should require none or a maximum vertical soil cut
of two inches for its embedment.
12. The landscape design should conform to the following additional guidelines:
a. Large growing trees, such as those that can exceed the height of retained trees,
should be installed beyond TPZs, and at least 10 to 15 feet from a future
foundation, wall and hardscape.
463
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 12 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
b. Plant material installed beneath canopies of oaks must be drought-tolerant,
limited in amount, and planted at least five or more feet from their trunks. Plant
material installed beneath the canopies of all other trees should be at least 36
inches from their trunks.
c. Irrigation and lighting features (e.g. main line, lateral lines, valve boxes,
wiring and controllers) should be established so that no trenching occurs within
a TPZ. In the event this is not feasible, they may require being installed in a
radial direction to a tree’s trunk, and terminate a specific distance from a trunk
(versus crossing past it).
d. Ground cover beneath canopies should be comprised of a three- to four-inch
layer of coarse wood chips or other high-quality mulch (gorilla hair, bark or
rock, stone, gravel, black plastic or other synthetic ground cover should be
avoided). Mulch should not be placed against the trees’ trunks.
e. Tilling, ripping and compaction within TPZs should be avoided.
f. 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).
g. Providing ongoing supplemental water during the dry months of the year
following the project would benefit the longevity of redwoods and, possibly
applied through bubblers strategically located throughout the root zones.
Additional discussion can be provided upon request.
h. Ensure no recycled water is supplied to the redwoods.
6.2 Before Demolition, Grading and Construction
13. A site meeting with the general contractor and me ("project arborist" hereinafter)
should be conducted several weeks prior to work commencing for the purpose of
reviewing tree fencing locations and other measures presented in this report.
Additional site visits include reviewing root pruning and tree impacts during
construction, and providing a final assessment of project impacts (for scheduling
purposes, I request a minimum five business-day notice for these subsequent visits).
14. Tree protective fencing is needed prior to any grading, trenching or excavation for
the purpose of restricting access into and enclosing the entire TPZs. Its location can
be identified during the initial site meeting, and should remain intact and be
464
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 13 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
maintained throughout construction. One approach is to utilize five-foot tall chain
link panels mounted on steel posts or concrete blocks, and the panels firmly
established to avoid easily being shifted or opened. Another includes mounting five-
to six-foot tall chain link on two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven into the
ground 24 inches deep.
15. The limits of sidewalk, streetscape and grading should be staked prior to any
digging occurring.
16. Wood chips may need to be spread on exposed ground beneath the canopies of select
trees. They should be coarse (e.g. ¼- to ¾-inch in size), and spread to a four- to five-
inch layer beyond improvements, not piled against a trunk, and remain throughout
construction.
6.3 During Demolition, Grading and Construction
17. Great care must be taken during demolition of all existing features, to including the
existing structures, curbs, gutter, etc. to avoid excavating into the ground and
disturbing roots.
18. Any approved digging or trenching within a TPZ should be manually performed
without heavy equipment or tractors, including small ones, operating within a TPZ.
19. Any roots encountered during the process with diameters less than two inches in
diameter can be cleanly severed at a 90-degree angle to the direction of root growth.
In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g. loppers or handsaw) shall be used, and the cut
should occur against the tree side of the trench. Roots considered for removal with
diameters of two inches and greater must first be reviewed by the project arborist.
20. Spoils created during digging must not be piled or spread within a TPZ. If necessary,
they can be temporarily piled on plywood or a tarp.
21. Tree trunks shall not be used as winch supports for moving or lifting heavy loads.
465
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 14 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
22. Supplemental water is essential to promote, and in many instances improve, the
vigor and longevity of trees being retained, as well as help offset impacts. The
methodology, amount and frequency can be discussed prior to construction.
23. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline)
is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or
near TPZs. Herbicides should not be used with a TPZ; where used on site, they
should be labeled for safe use near trees.
24. Any tree pruning should be performed by a California state-licensed tree service
company (D-49 classification) that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role,
carries General Liability and Worker’s Compensation insurance, and abides by in
accordance with ANSI A300-2001 (Pruning) and ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety
Operations) standards.
466
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino Page 15 of 15
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
7.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
All information presented herein reflects my observations and measurements obtained from the
project site on May 12 and 15, 2014.
My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I
cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered
by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located.
The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other
trees on or surrounding the project area.
I cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of
any trees or property in question may not arise in the future.
No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary measures
(verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved.
I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
I assume no responsibility for the means and methods used by any person or company
implementing the recommendations provided in this report.
The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way
contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion or value.
The numbers shown on the site map in Exhibit B are intended to only roughly approximate a
tree's location and should not be considered as surveyed trunk locations.
This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without
prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who
submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby.
If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation shall be invalid.
Prepared By: ________________________ Date: August 25, 2014
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board‐Certified Master Arborist #WE‐4001B
467
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
EXHIBIT A:
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
(20 sheets)
468
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
1
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Near bottom of hill. Dead branches. Water may improve health.
2
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )17 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Topped, a condition that adversely impacts long-term structural integrity. At bottom of hill.
3
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )27 60%40%Fair Moderate
Comments:Multiple leader structure. Lower trunk is covered by ivy. At top of hill.
4
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Near top of hill. Topped. Very stressed canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
5
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )16 40%50%PoorModerate
Comments:Roots have contributed to large mounds in adjacent asphalt lot. Trunk has outgrown small
planter. Adjacent curb is cracked.
6
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 20%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery.
7
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )23 20%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. Adjacent curb is raised, and roots have formed mounds
in parking lot.
8
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 50%40%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped. Sparse canopy, and improvement only possible with regular watering.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
1 of 20
August 25, 2014
469
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
9
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )14 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Declining canopy with highly questionable recovery.
10
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )25 40%70%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped and very sparse canopy. Recovery possible, but only with regular watering.
11
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent to tall sign. Topped. Very sparse canopy with highly questionable recovery.
12
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )19 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent to tall sign. Topped. Very sparse canopy with highly questionable recovery.
13
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )21 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Lower trunk sweeps (i.e. curves) then grows vertical. Very sparse canopy with highly
questionable recovery.
14
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 80%70%GoodHigh
Comments:Relatively healthy tree with good structure.
15
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 40%40%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped. A large buttress roots grows around an existing beam. Declining health, and
recovery may be possible with regular watering.
16
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 40%40%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped. Declining health, and recovery may be possible with regular watering.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
2 of 20
August 25, 2014
470
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
17
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed and crowded-growing conditions.
18
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )8 40%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed growth adjacent to #19.
19
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed growth adjacent to #18.
20
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )28 70%80%GoodHigh
Comments:Relatively healthy tree with a stable structure.
21
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )21 60%60%FairModerate
Comments:Nearly the entire trunk sweeps (i.e. grows with curves).
22
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )25 70%50%FairModerate
Comments:Relatively healthy tree with decent structure.
23
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )15 80%40%FairModerate
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Appears healthy.
24
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )23 40%70%PoorModerate
Comments:Declined canopy, and recovery only possible through regular watering.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
3 of 20
August 25, 2014
471
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
25
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 40%70%PoorModerate
Comments:Declined canopy, and recovery only possible through regular watering.
26
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )32 40%70%PoorModerate
Comments:Declined canopy - needs regular water for recovery. Excessive branch weight.
27
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )14 40%50%PoorModerate X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions adjacent to #26. Declined canopy - needs water for recovery.
28
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 50%50%FairModerate
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions adjacent to #29. Needs regular water for health improvement.
29
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 60%80%FairHigh
Comments:Fairly healthy tree with a stable structure.
30
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 50%50%FairModerate
Comments:Needs regular watering for health improvement.
31
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 40%70%FairModerate
Comments:Declined canopy - needs regular watering for health improvement.
32
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )18 60%70%FairHigh
Comments:Fairly healthy tree with a stable structure.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
4 of 20
August 25, 2014
472
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
33
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 80%70%GoodHigh
Comments:Relatively healthy tree with a stable structure.
34
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )16 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions.
35
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )17 50%50%FairModerate
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Regular watering is needed to improve health.
36
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )32 50%70%FairModerate
Comments:Sparse canopy. Excessive branch weight. Regular watering is needed to improve health.
37
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions.
38
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )12 60%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions.
39
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 50%30%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped. Excessive branch weight needs addressing through pruning. Regular watering
needed to improve health.
40
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )12 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Topped. Crowded-growing conditions between adjacent, dominant trees.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
5 of 20
August 25, 2014
473
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
41
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )32 60%30%PoorModerate
Comments:Topped. Regular watering needs for improving health.
42
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 40%70%FairModerate
Comments:Declined canopy - needs regular watering for health improvement.
43
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )10 50%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions.
44
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 60%80%FairHigh
Comments:Relatively healthy tree with a stable structure.
45
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 50%50%FairModerate
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions has resulted in a narrow canopy.
46
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 70%40%FairModerate
Comments:Topped.
47
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 40%50%PoorModerate
Comments:
48
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 60%50%FairModerate
Comments:
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
6 of 20
August 25, 2014
474
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
49
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )32 60%40%FairModerate
Comments:Topped.
50
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 50%60%FairModerate
Comments:Needs regular watering for health improvement.
51
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 40%40%PoorModerate
Comments:Declined health and poor structure.
52
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 40%50%PoorModerate
Comments:Declined health - needs regular watering for health improvement. Has a crook about
midway up trunk.
53
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy with a highly questionable recovery.
54
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 40%50%PoorModerate
Comments:Trunk bifurcates into codominant leaders about midway up trunk. Needs regular water if
health improvement is expected.
55
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 50%60%FairModerate
Comments:Top curves. Regular watering is needed to improve health.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
7 of 20
August 25, 2014
475
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
56
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )15 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions.
57
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )23 60%70%FairModerate X
Comments:
58
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )30 60%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Excessive branch weight.
59
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 50%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Regular watering is needed to improve health.
60
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )18 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy, and recovery is highly questionable.
61
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )30 60%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Topped. Needs regular watering for health improvement.
62
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )12 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions contributes to poor trunk development.
63
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 60%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Needs regular watering for health improvement.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
8 of 20
August 25, 2014
476
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
64
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )14 50%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Topped. Crowded-growing conditions. Regular watering is needed for health improvement.
65
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )30 40%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Codominant tops. Declined canopy - needs regular watering for improvement.
66
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 20%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely poor health and beyond recovery.
67
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )8 40%20%PoorLow X
Comments:Declined and highly suppressed canopy.
68
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 20%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely poor health and beyond recovery.
69
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )10 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed, crowded-growing conditions. Very sparse canopy.
70
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy. Recovery highly questionable.
71
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )18 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
9 of 20
August 25, 2014
477
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
72
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Topped. Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
73
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy and recovery highly questionable.
74
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )10 20%30%Poor Low X
Comments:Has a dead top. Crowded-growing conditions. Extremely sparse and beyond recovery.
75
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )36 40%80%FairModerate X
Comments:Adjacent curb is buckled and raised. Declined canopy - needs regular watering if to recover.
76
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed growth and a very sparse canopy. Recovery high questionable.
77
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy and recovery highly questionable.
78
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 20%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely sparse canopy and beyond recovery.
79
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )12 20%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely sparse canopy and beyond recovery. Crooked top. Crowded-growing conditions.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
10 of 20
August 25, 2014
478
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
80
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 20%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely sparse canopy and beyond recovery.
81
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )4 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Very sparse canopy and recovery highly questionable.
82
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )12 40%70%FairModerate X
Comments:Declined canopy and requires regular watering if recovery is expected.
83
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )30 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable. Topped.
84
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
85
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )17 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent curb is buckled. Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
86
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 30%60%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent curb is buckled. Very sparse canopy and recovery is highly questionable.
87
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 50%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Trunk curves. Regular watering is needed if improvement to health is expected.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
11 of 20
August 25, 2014
479
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
88
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )14 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions.
89
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )30 60%70%FairHigh X
Comments:Needs regular watering to improve health.
90
cork oak
(Quercus suber )13 30%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Structure formed by three codominant leaders. Canopy is one-sided and extremely sparse.
Recovery is unlikely.
91
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia )15 80%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Asymmetrical, nearly one-sided canopy (making poor structural form). Reasonably healthy.
92
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia )14 90%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Formed by codominant leaders at 10' high. Asymmetrical, one-sided canopy. Encroaches
on large light pole. Lower trunk has a large wound. Healthy canopy.
93
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )11 40%40%PoorModerate X
Comments:Suppressed growth due to crowded-growing conditions.
94
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )13 0%0%DeadLow X
Comments:Tree is dead and should be removed immediately.
95
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 50%80%FairHigh X
Comments:Needs water if expected to improve in health.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
12 of 20
August 25, 2014
480
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
96
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )24 50%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Weak structure. On road side of fence, near sidewalk. Street tree.
97
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )24 50%70%FairHigh X
Comments:Needs regular watering to improve health.
98
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )11 60%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Needs regular watering to improve health.
99
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )8 60%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions. Needs regular watering to improve health.
100
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )21 40%70%FairModerate X
Comments:Sparse canopy - needs water if expected to improve in health.
101
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )14 50%80%FairModerate X
Comments:Needs water if expected to improve in health.
102
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )20 40%70%FairModerate X
Comments:Sparse canopy - needs water if expected to improve in health.
103
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )13 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Structure comprised of codominant leaders.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
13 of 20
August 25, 2014
481
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
104
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )17 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Extremely sparse canopy and buried root collar. Recovery unlikely.
105
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )11 60%40%FairLow X
Comments:Poor form.
106
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )13 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Has substantial deadwood in lower canopy.
107
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )22 40%70%FairModerate X
Comments:Sparse canopy - needs water if expected to improve in health.
108
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )23 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Has a large girdling root. Canopy is sparse and formed by multiple leaders.
109
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )9 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:
110
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )8 70%40%FairLow X
Comments:Large limbs cut from lower trunk. Poor structure.
111
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )18 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Formed by multiple leaders at 12 feet high. Has a large girdling root.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
14 of 20
August 25, 2014
482
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
112
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )19 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Codominants originate at eight feet high.
113
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )10 40%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Very weak structure. Large limb previously cut. Canopy is highly asymmetrical and has
poor form.
114
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )14 50%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Severely pruned in past.
115
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )6 30%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Suppressed and very sparse canopy. Extensive deadwood. Buried root collar.
116
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )13 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Very sparse canopy.
117
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )5 20%20%PoorLow X
Comments:Mostly dead and well-beyond recovery.
118
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )11 50%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Declined canopy.
119
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )10 40%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Declined canopy.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
15 of 20
August 25, 2014
483
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
120
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )8 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Declined canopy and poor form.
121
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )7 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Declined canopy and poor form.
122
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )13 20%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Extensive dieback and well-beyond recovery.
123
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )9 0%0%DeadLow X
Comments:Tree is dead and should be immediately removed.
124
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )19 80%60%GoodModerate X
Comments:Curb along downhill side is raised, and roots have formed mounds in adjacent asphalt walk.
125
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )16 50%60%FairModerate X
Comments:Curb downhill is broken. Declined canopy.
126
Shamel ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )7 0%0%DeadLow X
Comments:Tree is dead and should be immediately removed.
127
pin oak
(Quercus palustris )10 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Has a large wound along major limb, as well as a small girdling root. Canopy is sparse
and broad.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
16 of 20
August 25, 2014
484
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
128
pin oak
(Quercus palustris )11 40%20%PoorLow X
Comments:Large deadwood and very sparse canopy. Form is very poor. There is a large decaying
wound along most of trunk, as well as extensive decay at trunk's base.
129
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )15 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Has red turpentine beetle. Trunk has outgrown planter, and the adjacent curb has buckled
at multiple locations. Formed by codominant tops. Sparse canopy and beyond recovery.
130
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )32 50%20%PoorLow X
Comments:Base of trunk is above adjacent lot. Trunk has outgrown planter. Excessive limb weight.
Structure is formed by five leaders that form weak attachments. Adjacent curb has buckled
along both sides of planter.
131
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )10 50%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Declined canopy and formed by codominant tops.
132
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )7 50%50%FairModerate X
Comments:Has a small wound along trunk. Canopy is asymmetrical.
133
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )8 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Crowded-growing conditions has formed an asymmetrical, one-sided canopy.
134
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )20 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Has girdling roots. Trunk is outgrowing planter, and roots adjacent curb is raised. Canopy
is very sparse and beyond recovery.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
17 of 20
August 25, 2014
485
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
135
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )23 50%50%FairLow X
Comments:Declined canopy, and recovery highly unlikely for this species. Trunk is outgrowing
planter, and adjacent curb is damaged.
136
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )11 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Multiple leaders and has been excessively pruned in past.
137
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )8 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Excessively pruned in past. Canopy is asymmetrical due to crowded-growing conditions,
and there may be a girdling root.
138
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )12 50%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Has been excessively pruned. Canopy has a low-growing form.
139
evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii )7 60%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Has a wound along trunk's base.
140
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )16 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent curb is damaged. Declined canopy and beyond recovery.
141
Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata )19 50%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Declined canopy and recovery is highly unlikely for this species. Adjacent curb is damaged.
Infested by red turpentine beetle.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
18 of 20
August 25, 2014
486
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
142
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )9 30%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Canopy is very sparse.
143
cork oak
(Quercus suber )20 70%40%FairModerate X
Comments:Structure consists of multiple leaders that form a broad canopy. Poor structure.
144
cork oak
(Quercus suber )5 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Sparse canopy. Multi-leader structure.
145
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia )20 30%20%PoorLow X
Comments:Has a very broad and extremely sparse canopy that is beyond recovery. Has excessive limb
weight and a substantial level of deadwood. Should be removed immediately due to a large
crack where four main leaders originate, and above that contains weak attachments. Tree is
at severe risk of breaking.
146
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia )17 40%30%PoorLow X
Comments:Sparse canopy with excessive limb weight. Poor structure.
147
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )10 30%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Roots have formed mounds in lot and raised adjacent curb. Very sparse canopy.
148
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )8 40%50%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent curb has been damaged. Sparse canopy.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
19 of 20
August 25, 2014
487
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
SIZE CONDITION
TREE/
TAG
NO. TREE NAME Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
He
a
l
t
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
(1
0
0
%
=
B
e
s
t
,
0%
=
W
o
r
s
t
)
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
(G
o
o
d
/
F
a
i
r
/
P
o
o
r
/
D
e
a
d
)
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
(H
i
g
h
/
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
/
L
o
w
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
Re
m
o
v
a
l
149
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )9 40%40%PoorLow X
Comments:Adjacent curb has been damaged. Sparse canopy and poor structure.
150
honey locust
(Gleditsia triacanthos )9 50%60%FairLow X
Comments:Decline, as with adjacent locusts, can be expected.
Project: Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
Prepared by: David L. Babby
20 of 20
August 25, 2014
488
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
EXHIBIT B:
SITE MAP
(one sheet)
489
49
0
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 25, 2014
Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
EXHIBIT C:
PHOTOGRAPHS
(11 sheets)
Photo Index
Page C‐1: Trees #1 thru 9 Page C‐7: Trees #111 thru 122
Page C‐2: Trees #10 thru 20 Page C‐8: Trees #123 thru 130
Page C‐3: Trees #20 thru 42 Page C‐9: Trees #131‐138, 140, 141
Page C‐4: Trees #43 thru 83 Page C‐10: Trees #142 thru 146
Page C‐5: Trees #84 thru 102 Page C‐11: Trees #147 thru 150
Page C‐6: Trees #103‐110, 139
491
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
1
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#3
#1
#3
#4
#6
#2
#4
#6
#8
#9
#6
#7
#5
49
2
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
2
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
0
#1
1
#1
0
#1
1
#1
2
#1
2
#1
3
#1
4
#1
5
#1
6
#20
#1
7
#19#18
49
3
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
3
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#2
0
#2
1
#2
2
#2
2
#2
3
#2
4
#24 #25
#2
6
#2
5
#3
9
#
3
8
#37#36
#4
0
#4
1
#4
2
#3
5
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
#2
7
49
4
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
4
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#4
3
#6
3
re
d
w
o
o
d
to
p
s
al
o
n
g
west boundary
re
d
w
o
o
d
to
p
s
al
o
n
g
we
s
t
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
re
d
w
o
o
d
to
p
s
al
o
n
g
we
s
t
boundary
49
5
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
5
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
tr
e
e
s
at
so
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
#9
6
#96
#9
0
#9
8
#9
9
#1
0
2
#1
0
1
#1
0
0
49
6
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
6
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
0
3
#1
3
9
#1
0
8
#1
0
7
#1
0
4
#1
0
5
#106
#1
0
5
#1
0
6
#1
0
9
#1
1
0
49
7
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
7
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
1
1
#1
1
2
#1
1
3
#1
1
4
#1
1
5
#116
#1
1
7
#1
1
8
#1
1
9
#1
2
0
#1
2
1
#122
49
8
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
8
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
2
3
#1
2
4
#1
2
5
#126
#1
2
7
#1
2
8
#129
#1
3
0
49
9
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
9
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
3
1
#1
3
2
#1
3
3
#134
#1
3
5
#1
3
6
#1
3
7
#1
3
8
#1
4
0
#1
4
1
50
0
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
1
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
4
2
#1
4
3
#1
4
5
#1
4
5
#1
4
6
#144
50
1
Da
v
i
d
L
.
B
a
b
b
y
,
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
r
b
o
r
i
s
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
5
,
2
0
1
4
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
,
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
P
a
g
e
C
-
1
1
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#1
4
7
#1
4
8
#1
4
9
#150
50
2
1
We started our analysis of this specific project late: Wednesday, August 20th
we were notify about the August 21st Environment Review Committee meeting
regarding this project at which the first details were disclosed. With the Planning
Commission Staff Report dated August 21, 2014 at which meeting there were
additional questions about the Project. We also commented on this project during
the Oral Communications part of the agenda for the September 2nd City Council
meeting.
Hyatt House: see Hotel Analysis/Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report
for 2014 General Plan Amendment submitted by Concerned Citizens
of Cupertino on June 25, 2014, page 62
& Hotel Analysis 2/Addendum to Response to Draft Environmental
Impact Report for 2014 General Plan Amendment submitted by
Concerned Citizens of Cupertino on July 31, 2014, page 24.
Did not realize that the hotel restaurant constitutes the retail element to qualify for
a 60’ height.
Hyatt House
There is no question that this Hyatt House hotel will generate transient
hotel tax; it is questionable that it will generate sufficient sales tax, as a
public benefit, to justify a project benefit of an increase of 15 feet from a
maximum height of 45 feet to an exception to 60 feet.
503
2
Business Plan of Hyatt House hotels
Hyatt House Hyatt House Hyatt House Hyatt House
Emeryville Santa Clara San Jose San Ramon
complimentary yes yes yes
breakfasr
No sales tax
Local Restaurant referral In‐house Local
restaurant referral to restaurant serving restaurants
to nearby restaurants hotel guests
San Francisco “Steps “Many restaurants
Restaurants from dining options” within walking distance”
Complimentary evening bistro w free eats, beer and wine
Local sales tax?
H Bar Restaurant Menu (see attachment with comments submitted c/o City Clerk)
unlikely to attract non‐hotel customers
Hyatt House hotels are business service hotels with
504
3
limited amenities, an extended‐stay facilities w kitchens.
Buying groceries: food nontaxable
To representative of Hyatt House: Hyatt House concept for Cupertino @ Planning
Commission meeting: Is Hyatt House concept for Cupertino different than existing
business plan for other locations?
102,200 sf/five‐story = 20,440 sf per floor (see A‐0.0)
first floor = 21,000 sf (see A‐0.0)
fifth floor = 34 rooms = 20,300 square feet (see A‐2.4)
first floor = 12 rooms (see A‐2.0)
restaurant/bar/lounge = 2,,500 sf + 2,500? sf kitchen = 5,000 sf = approximately
25% of first floor area (see A‐2.0).
restaurant = 7 tables
outdoor dining = 4 tables
bar = 9 seats
employees = 3
We recommend that an independent fiscal impact analysis be completed
to determined whether the public benefit of the retail component, sales tax,
is sufficient to justify a project benefit of 15 feet to the maximum of 45 feet
for an exception of a 60 feet height.
505
4
506
1
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
50
7
2So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
A
F
T
(
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
)
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
1
4
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
y
:
50
8
1
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
s
a
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
r
e
t
a
i
l
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
T
h
e
a
r
e
a
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
,
T
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
,
N
i
n
e
t
e
e
n
8
0
0
(
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
R
o
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
,
co
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
o
f
fi
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
ar
e
he
l
p
i
n
g
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
n
t
o
a
m
o
r
e
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
“
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
f
o
r
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
A
s
th
e
a
r
e
a
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
e
v
o
l
v
e
,
i
t
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
h
i
l
e
a
l
s
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
c
l
e
a
r
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
i
s
a
n
a
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
d
e
n
t
i
fi
e
s
b
r
o
a
d
g
o
a
l
s
,
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
t
o
h
e
l
p
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
,
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
t
t
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
s
i
r
e
s
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
Ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sp
e
c
i
fi
c
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
n
f
u
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
,
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
.
.
.
Introd
u
c
t
ion 1
Cur
r
e
n
t
C
o
n
dit
i
o
n
s
2
Con
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y G
o
a
ls and Objectives 8
Con
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
9
Des
i
g
n
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k 17
50
9
2So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
CU
R
R
E
N
T
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
As
a
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
n
ar
r
a
y
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
s
a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
ro
a
d
w
a
y
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
,
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
(s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
)
.
E
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
p
l
a
y
a
n
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
r
o
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
ar
e
a
.
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
8
0
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
8
0
(
I
-
2
8
0
)
i
s
a
m
a
j
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
-
s
o
u
t
h
fr
e
e
w
a
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
t
o
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
an
d
S
a
n
J
o
s
e
.
T
h
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
i
s
a
n
e
i
g
h
t
-
l
a
n
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
l
a
n
e
i
n
ea
c
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
h
i
g
h
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
ve
h
i
c
l
e
(
H
O
V
)
l
a
n
e
.
A
n
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
a
t
W
o
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
I
-
2
8
0
t
o
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
.
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
o
n
-
r
a
m
p
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
me
t
e
r
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
p
e
a
k
p
e
r
i
o
d
a
n
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
o
n
-
r
a
m
p
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
t
e
r
i
n
g
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
p
e
a
k
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
i
s
a
s
i
x
-
l
a
n
e
,
e
a
s
t
-
we
s
t
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
s
p
i
n
e
fo
r
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
I
t
f
o
r
m
s
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
b
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
th
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
th
e
a
r
e
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
,
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
Fi
n
c
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
ha
s
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
b
u
f
f
e
r
w
i
t
h
g
r
a
s
s
,
m
a
t
u
r
e
t
r
e
e
s
an
d
a
n
a
r
r
o
w
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
i
s
a
f
o
u
r
t
o
s
i
x
l
a
n
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
ru
n
s
n
o
r
t
h
-
s
o
u
t
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
an
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
.
T
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
ha
s
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
m
e
d
i
a
n
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
s
o
m
e
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
.
I
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
an
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
i
n
k
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
t
o
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
I
-
2
8
0
a
n
d
S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
i
s
l
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
u
s
e
i
s
l
o
w
d
u
e
to
h
i
g
h
t
r
a
f
fi
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
n
fl
icts
wi
t
h
t
h
e
I
-
2
8
0
r
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
8
0
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
i
s
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
n
o
r
t
h
-
s
o
u
t
h
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
t
o
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
8
0
51
0
3
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Se
a
r
s
AM
C
Ma
c
y
’
s
Ic
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
JC
P
e
n
n
e
y
Bo
w
l
m
o
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Va
c
a
t
e
d
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Se
ar
s
AM
C
Mac
y
’s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
JC
P
e
n
n
ey
Bo
w
lmo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
yy
ed
VVaac
a
t
e
Ro
a
d
w
a
oa
d
w
Portal
Colby
Me
r
r
i
t
t
Denison
Wh
e
a
t
o
n
Pr
u
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
Dra
k
e
Norwich
Am
h
e
r
s
t
JudyB
Miller
Au
b
u
r
n
Cr
a
f
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Po
r
t
a
l
Pa
r
k
Co
l
l
i
n
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ni
n
e
t
e
e
n
8
0
0
Ap
p
l
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
2
Th
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Wolfe Rd
Va
l
l
c
o
P
k
y
Perimeter Rd
Perimeter Rd
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
Tantau Ave
28
0
0175350700Feet
N
Le
g
e
n
d
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
Pa
v
e
d
A
r
e
a
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
Th
r
o
u
g
h
R
o
a
d
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
(o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
or
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
)
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
/
Mi
d
-
B
l
o
c
k
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
51
1
4So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
i
s
a
f
o
u
r
l
a
n
e
,
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
s
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
t
o
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
T
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
e
l
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
,
a
m
a
t
u
r
e
tr
e
e
c
a
n
o
p
y
,
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
,
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
It
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
l
l
f
o
r
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
d
u
e
t
o
a
c
a
l
m
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
u
s
e
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
Ap
p
l
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
2
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
T
w
o
n
e
w
t
r
a
f
fi
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
wi
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Ta
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ta
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
a
n
o
r
t
h
-
s
o
u
t
h
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
fo
r
m
s
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
Th
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
o
a
d
i
n
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
t
o
B
o
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
.
W
i
t
h
i
n
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
i
s
f
o
u
r
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
h
a
s
si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
T
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
a
l
s
o
ha
s
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
i
n
k
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
a
c
r
o
s
s
I
-
2
8
0
.
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
i
s
a
t
w
o
l
a
n
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
th
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
t
o
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
.
I
t
f
o
r
m
s
t
h
e
k
e
y
in
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
an
d
h
a
s
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
u
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
t
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
,
w
h
i
c
h
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
a
f
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
.
W
h
i
l
e
a
ke
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
l
i
n
k
,
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
h
a
s
in
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
n
o
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
m
a
k
i
n
g
it
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
h
a
s
b
e
n
e
fi
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
r
e
c
e
n
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
an
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ta
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
o
ar
e
a
s
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
I
-
2
8
0
v
i
a
a
n
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
(
n
o
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
f
o
r
m
s
a
l
o
o
p
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
a
n
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
51
2
5
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
,
m
u
l
t
i
-
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
a
t
si
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
r
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
A
l
o
n
g
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
,
Ta
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
o
f
fi
c
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
e
a
s
t
of
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
)
.
A
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
e
x
i
s
t
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
T
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
.
Th
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
v
a
r
y
i
n
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
an
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
al
o
n
g
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
,
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
r
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
th
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
b
y
a
g
r
a
s
s
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
.
T
h
e
s
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
m
o
r
e
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
fo
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
O
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
l
o
n
g
V
a
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
,
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
a
r
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
n
o
b
u
f
f
e
r
an
d
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
Ma
n
y
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
h
a
v
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
th
a
t
w
e
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
s
t
o
r
e
s
Re
c
e
n
t
l
y
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
o
f
fi
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
l
a
r
g
e
r
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
A
D
A
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
So
m
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
l
o
n
g
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
la
r
g
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
s
s
Ar
e
a
s
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
o
n
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
a
r
e
is
o
l
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
51
3
6So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
b
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
s
,
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
.
B
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
1
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
a
r
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
us
e
b
y
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
.
O
f
t
e
n
,
t
h
e
s
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
a
l
s
o
a
l
l
o
w
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
B
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
2
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
ar
e
l
a
n
e
s
o
n
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
u
s
e
b
y
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
e
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
,
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
le
g
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
.
B
i
k
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
3
)
ar
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
b
u
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
s
.
R
o
u
t
e
s
a
r
e
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
s
i
g
n
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
b
i
k
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
,
V
a
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
,
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
b
i
k
e
ra
c
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
bi
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
n
e
a
r
m
a
j
o
r
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
a
n
d
a
t
m
a
j
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
,
s
u
c
h
as
t
h
e
A
p
p
l
e
o
w
n
e
d
o
f
fi
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
Va
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
s
e
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
o
t
h
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
h
e
l
p
pr
o
m
o
t
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
m
a
n
y
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
ma
l
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
s
So
m
e
u
s
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
A
p
p
l
e
o
f
fi
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
s
e
e
h
i
g
h
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
51
4
7
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Be
c
a
u
s
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
s
a
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
f
fi
c
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
h
a
s
a
l
w
a
y
s
be
e
n
a
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
of
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
a
r
e
a
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
su
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
s
t
o
r
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
T
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
al
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
d
v
i
a
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
.
N
e
w
e
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
N
i
n
e
t
e
e
n
8
0
0
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
/
p
o
d
i
u
m
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
bo
t
h
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Th
e
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
V
a
l
l
e
y
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(V
T
A
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
s
b
u
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
i
n
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
O
t
h
e
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
a
n
d
A
C
E
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
V
T
A
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
b
u
s
r
o
u
t
e
s
1
0
1
an
d
1
8
2
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
u
t
e
s
8
1
,
2
6
a
n
d
2
3
s
e
r
v
e
th
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
o
f
f
e
r
s
a
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
fr
o
m
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
ce
n
t
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
Pa
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
R
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
J
C
P
e
n
n
e
y
ga
r
a
g
e
.
Mo
s
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
l
a
r
g
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
g
a
r
a
g
e
n
e
a
r
Ma
c
y
’
s
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
h
a
s
g
o
o
d
b
u
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
b
u
t
c
o
u
l
d
be
n
e
fi
t
f
r
o
m
m
o
r
e
m
o
d
e
r
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
51
5
8So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
G
O
A
L
S
AN
D
O
B
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
y
e
a
r
s
,
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
i
s
en
v
i
s
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
v
i
b
r
a
n
t
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
“d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
f
o
r
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
w
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
fu
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
In
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
s
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
,
tr
u
c
k
,
b
i
k
e
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
n
d
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
s
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
r
e
t
h
e
k
e
y
g
o
a
l
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
A
.
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cr
e
a
t
e
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
,
i
d
e
n
t
i
fi
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
B
.
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
n
e
w
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
pa
t
h
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
r
a
i
l
al
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
En
h
a
n
c
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
so
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
t
a
i
l
u
s
e
s
,
cr
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
w
e
l
c
o
m
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
D
.
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
V
a
l
l
e
y
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(
V
T
A
)
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
b
u
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
an
d
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
n
e
w
P
a
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
R
i
d
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
E
.
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s
En
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
a
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
p
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
a
n
d
in
v
i
t
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
.
I
m
a
g
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
n
d
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
u
n
i
fi
ed theme and
br
a
n
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
e
w
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
p
a
l
e
t
t
e
,
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
G
.
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
T
r
a
f
fi
c Impacts
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
fi
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
by
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
mu
l
t
i
-
m
o
d
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
f
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
“
p
a
r
k
o
n
c
e
”
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
,
a
n
d
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
f
fi
c
i
e
n
t
fl
ow of traffi c through
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
G
o
a
l
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
n
e
f
fi
c
i
e
n
t
,
s
a
f
e
,
p
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,
we
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
m
u
l
t
i
-
mo
d
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
,
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
51
6
9
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
Th
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
a
n
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
is
h
e
a
v
i
l
y
i
n
fl
u
e
n
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
it
s
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
n
d
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
.
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ne
t
w
o
r
k
w
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
i
t
t
l
e
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
pl
a
c
e
d
o
n
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
no
w
d
e
s
i
r
e
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
i
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
,
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pa
t
h
w
a
y
s
.
To
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
t
h
i
s
g
o
a
l
,
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
m
a
k
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
n
e
w
bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
.
Tw
o
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
s
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
co
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
t
o
o
l
s
f
o
r
h
o
w
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
c
a
n
b
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
fu
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
.
O
p
t
i
o
n
A
as
s
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
.
Op
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
en
t
i
r
e
m
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
h
a
s
u
n
d
e
r
g
o
n
e
m
a
n
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
r
e
c
e
n
t
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
n
e
w
e
n
e
r
g
y
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
h
a
s
s
p
u
r
r
e
d
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
a
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
u
i
d
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
.
51
7
10
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
A
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
th
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
M
a
l
l
Th
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ma
l
l
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
a
r
r
a
y
o
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
U
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
fo
c
u
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
b
e
c
o
m
e
mo
r
e
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
p
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
in
a
m
o
r
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
s
a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
O
p
t
i
o
n
A
.
Ma
j
o
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
1.
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
b
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
h
a
t
co
n
n
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
Th
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
s
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
—
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
m
o
r
e
o
n
pa
s
s
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
fi
c
w
i
t
h
a
m
o
r
e
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
o
o
k
an
d
f
e
e
l
.
A
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
a
t
va
r
i
o
u
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
)
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
fo
r
e
a
s
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
.
2.
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
s
e
b
i
k
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pa
t
h
w
a
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
d
g
e
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
,
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
f
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
.
T
h
i
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
k
e
y
l
i
n
k
t
o
cr
e
a
t
e
n
o
r
t
h
/
s
o
u
t
h
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
.
3.
Re
c
o
n
fi
g
u
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
on the
Va
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
4.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
a
l
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
(S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
W
o
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
,
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
n
u
e
)
w
i
t
h
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
d
o
r
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
,
a
n
d
AD
A
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
5.
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
improve
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
(P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
)
wi
t
h
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
d
o
r
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
,
a
n
d
A
D
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
6.
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
V
T
A
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
identify
ne
w
o
r
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
P
a
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
R
i
d
e
an
d
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
u
s
d
r
o
p
-
o
f
f
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
s
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
d
g
e
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
w
i
l
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
51
8
11
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
M
a
l
l
Se
a
r
s
AM
C
Ma
c
y
’
s
Ic
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
JC
P
e
n
n
e
y
Bo
w
l
m
o
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ho
t
e
l
Sea
r
s
AM
C
Mac
y
’s
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
JC
P
e
n
n
e
y
Bo
w
lmo
r
Cupe
r
t
i
n
o
Portal
Colby
Me
r
r
i
t
t
Denison
Wh
e
a
t
o
n
Pru
n
e
r
id
ge
Dra
k
e
Norwich
Hd
Am
h
e
r
s
t
JudyBret
Miller
Au
b
u
r
n
Cr
a
f
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Po
r
t
a
l
Pa
r
k
Co
l
l
i
n
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ni
n
e
t
e
e
n
8
0
0
Ap
p
l
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
2
Th
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Wolfe Rd
Va
l
l
c
o
P
k
y
Perimeter Rd
Perimeter Rd
dv
l
B
k
e
e
r
C
s
n
e
v
e
t
S
Tantau Ave
28
0
0175350700Feet
N
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
i
s
f
o
r
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
n
l
y
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Le
g
e
n
d
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
Pa
v
e
d
A
r
e
a
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
(o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
or
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
/
Mi
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
B
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
w/
A
c
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
Th
r
o
u
g
h
R
o
a
d
A
B
51
9
12
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Th
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
a
s
a
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
f
o
r
a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
s
to
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
th
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
h
a
s
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
o
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
i
t
d
o
e
s
h
a
v
e
a
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
la
r
g
e
e
n
o
u
g
h
t
o
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
co
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
t
w
o
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
s
(
s
o
m
e
ar
e
a
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
h
a
v
e
f
o
u
r
l
a
n
e
s
)
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
r
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
tw
o
-
w
a
y
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
(
s
e
e
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
a
t
l
o
w
e
r
l
e
f
t
)
.
Th
e
c
y
c
l
e
t
r
a
c
k
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
f
fi
cient and
sa
f
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
o
f
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
s
t
o
r
e
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
ho
m
e
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
A
o
f
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
)
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
w
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
L
a
r
g
e
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
a
C
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
c
k
(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
A
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
)
52
0
13
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(W
e
s
t
e
r
n
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Th
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
r
o
a
d
,
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
to
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
,
w
a
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
as
a
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
f
o
r
a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
lo
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
A
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
a
t
th
e
l
o
w
e
r
r
i
g
h
t
,
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
a
r
g
e
r
,
mo
r
e
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
n
d
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
s
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
fo
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
h
a
t
f
r
o
n
t
o
n
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
w
o
u
l
d
h
e
l
p
a
d
d
e
n
e
r
g
y
a
n
d
l
i
f
e
t
o
t
h
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
B
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
)
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
w
i
t
h
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
o
n
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
L
a
r
g
e
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
a
M
u
l
t
i
-
u
s
e
P
a
t
h
(S
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
B
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
)
52
1
14
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Op
t
i
o
n
B
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
a
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
Th
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
l
o
o
k
s
a
t
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
Va
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
b
e
i
n
g
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
h
y
b
r
i
d
i
n
d
o
o
r
a
n
d
ou
t
d
o
o
r
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
mi
x
o
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
u
s
e
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
or
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
,
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
a
t
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
s
a
m
o
r
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
in
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
m
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
.
Th
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
r
e
fl
e
c
t
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
p
u
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
a
n
e
w
(
o
r
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
)
ou
t
d
o
o
r
,
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
r
e
t
a
i
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
t
t
h
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
m
a
l
l
.
W
h
i
l
e
a
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
wo
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
s
i
g
n
i
fi
c
a
n
t
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
th
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
f
s
u
c
h
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
ne
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
r
o
n
g
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
o
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Ma
j
o
r
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
No
t
e
:
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
in
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
x
i
t
e
m
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
O
p
t
i
o
n
A
.
7.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
s
m
a
l
l
b
l
o
c
k
,
g
r
i
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
on
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
M
a
l
l
s
i
t
e
t
o
cr
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
“
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
f
e
e
l
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
8.
Li
m
i
t
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
e
s
o
r
sk
y
w
a
y
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
e
v
e
l
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
a
n
d
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
.
9.
Cr
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
Va
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
that can serve as a
pr
i
m
a
r
y
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
us
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
de
s
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
,
e
v
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
a
n
d
a
t
o
w
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
.
A
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
l
l
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
,
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
c
a
l
e
“
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
52
2
15
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
a
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
Portal
Colby
Me
r
r
i
t
t
Denison
Wh
e
a
t
o
n
Pru
n
e
r
id
ge
Dra
k
e
Norwich
Hd
Am
h
e
r
s
t
JudyBret
Miller
Au
b
u
r
n
Cr
a
f
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Po
r
t
a
l
Pa
r
k
Co
l
l
i
n
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ap
p
l
e
Ni
n
e
t
e
e
n
8
0
0
Ap
p
l
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
2
Th
e
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Wolfe Rd
Va
l
l
c
o
P
k
y
Perimeter Rd
Perimeter Rd
dv
l
B
k
e
e
r
C
s
n
e
v
e
t
S
Tantau Ave
28
0
0175350700Feet
N
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
i
s
f
o
r
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
n
l
y
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
C
Le
g
e
n
d
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
Pa
v
e
d
A
r
e
a
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
To
w
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
(o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
or
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
a
n
e
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
/
Mi
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
w/
A
c
c
e
s
s
P
o
i
n
t
52
3
16
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Va
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
an
d
T
o
w
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
Th
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
s
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
ar
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
an
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
c
e
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
v
i
s
i
t
,
s
h
o
p
an
d
e
n
j
o
y
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
.
A
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
,
a
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
o
cr
e
a
t
e
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Of
fi
c
e
a
n
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
re
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
d
i
n
i
n
g
u
s
e
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
r
e
ur
b
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
f
r
o
n
t
th
e
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
,
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
(
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
d
b
y
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
o
r
n
e
w
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
al
s
o
b
e
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
o
w
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
m
i
d
d
l
e
or
e
n
d
o
f
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
t
o
w
n
sq
u
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
a
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
cr
e
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pl
a
z
a
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
o
r
m
e
d
i
a
n
s
a
d
d
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
n
e
e
d
e
d
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
p
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
l
a
r
g
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
m
e
d
i
a
n
(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
t
C
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
52
4
17
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
DE
S
I
G
N
F
R
A
M
E
W
O
R
K
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s
a
n
d
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
,
wh
e
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,
w
i
l
l
p
l
a
y
a
c
r
u
c
i
a
l
ro
l
e
i
n
d
e
fi
n
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
’
s
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
n
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
s
m
a
k
i
n
g
on
g
o
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
n
d
ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
i
n
g
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
sa
f
e
t
y
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
m
a
k
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
p
a
t
h
s
an
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
Fr
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
h
o
w
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
h
a
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
we
l
l
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
sp
a
c
e
s
.
Th
e
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
w
e
l
l
de
fi
n
e
d
,
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
,
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
a
n
d
c
o
h
e
r
e
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
a
“
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
”
f
e
e
l
.
Th
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
:
•
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
•
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
•
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
,
W
a
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
r
t
Ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
p
l
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
b
r
a
n
d
i
n
g
,
w
a
y
fi
nding and
pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
,
h
e
l
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
e
n
j
o
y
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
,
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
52
5
18
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
In
t
e
n
t
:
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
o
f
o
n
-
st
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
a
r
e
a
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
1.
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
n
e
w
b
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
)
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
ea
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
to provide
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
ar
e
a
f
r
o
m
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
t
o
t
h
e
b
i
k
e
an
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
.
2.
Cr
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
)
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
3.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
h
i
g
h
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
a
i
n
t
t
o
bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
m
m
o
r
e
p
r
o
m
i
n
e
n
t
t
o
bo
t
h
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
.
4.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
i
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
,
b
i
k
e
st
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
s
h
o
w
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
de
s
i
g
n
o
f
n
e
w
o
r
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
5.
As
a
b
r
o
a
d
e
r
c
i
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
identify ways
to
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
ac
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
with
I-
2
8
0
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
e
w
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
,
b
i
k
e
b
o
x
e
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
pa
i
n
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
.
Cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
e
b
i
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
r
i
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
ca
n
b
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
a
l
m
Pa
i
n
t
e
d
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
Bi
k
e
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
m
o
d
e
s
o
f
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
52
6
19
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
In
t
e
n
t
:
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
l
l
us
e
r
s
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
th
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
.
1.
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
h
a
v
e
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
wi
t
h
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
w
i
d
t
h
of
s
i
x
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
n
d
e
n
o
u
g
h
se
t
b
a
c
k
e
x
i
s
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
st
r
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
r
o
w
o
f
s
h
a
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
r
e
e
s
.
2.
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
d
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
o
f
se
l
e
c
t
e
d
g
o
o
d
s
a
l
o
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
,
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
to
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
mo
r
e
u
r
b
a
n
f
e
e
l
n
e
x
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
en
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
s
.
3.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
m
a
r
k
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
(m
i
n
i
m
u
m
10
-
f
e
e
t
w
i
d
e
)
a
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
k
e
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
h
a
v
e
r
a
m
p
s
an
d
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
s
wi
t
h
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
A
c
t
(
A
D
A
)
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
4.
Ex
p
l
o
r
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
p
a
v
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
f
o
r
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
a
l
o
n
g
Wo
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
,
t
o
h
e
i
g
h
t
e
n
vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
l
e
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
w
h
i
l
e
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
5.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
b
u
l
b
-
o
u
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
wi
t
h
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
co
r
n
e
r
b
u
l
b
-
o
u
t
s
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
s
po
c
k
e
t
p
l
a
z
a
s
w
i
t
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
as
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
s
.
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
a
b
o
v
e
)
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
al
o
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
(
b
e
l
o
w
)
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Bu
l
b
o
u
t
s
a
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
fo
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
52
7
20
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
In
t
e
n
t
:
Cr
e
a
t
e
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
)
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
w
i
t
h
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
ke
y
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
1.
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
ow
n
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
on
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
of
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
I
-
2
8
0
,
f
r
o
m
in
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
u
s
e
s
o
r
s
a
l
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
th
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
c
a
n
b
e
f
u
l
l
y
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
2.
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
ensure future
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
t
e
s
p
e
c
i
fi
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
2
an
d
3
.
3.
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
ha
s
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
and landscaping so
it
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
a
n
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
,
r
e
l
a
x
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
u
n
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
4.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
u
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
at
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
w
i
t
h
b
e
t
t
e
r
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
a
r
t
w
o
r
k
(s
u
c
h
a
s
m
u
r
a
l
s
)
,
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
v
i
n
e
s
)
,
mo
r
e
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
p
p
e
a
l
i
n
g
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
mo
r
e
d
e
fi
n
e
d
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
bi
k
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
.
I
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
th
e
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
i
s
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
/
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
a
s
p
a
r
t
of
a
b
r
o
a
d
e
r
V
a
l
l
c
o
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
C
l
a
s
s
I
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
t
h
t
h
a
t
is
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
r
pa
t
h
w
a
y
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
co
n
fl
i
c
t
s
.
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
o
o
k
a
n
d
f
e
e
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
b
i
k
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
p
l
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
Se
p
a
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
u
t
o
,
b
i
k
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
v
e
l
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
e
f
fi
c
i
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
c
o
n
fl
i
c
t
s
(N
o
t
e
:
t
h
i
s
i
m
a
g
e
i
s
f
o
r
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
n
l
y
)
52
8
21
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
Connectivity Plan
St
r
e
e
t
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
n
t
:
En
s
u
r
e
a
w
e
l
l
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
,
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
an
d
s
a
f
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
up
g
r
a
d
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
1.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
—i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
s
h
re
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
b
u
s
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
—
a
t
k
e
y
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
W
o
l
f
e
R
o
a
d
,
S
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
c
o
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
,
a
n
d
a
t
m
a
j
o
r
en
t
r
y
p
o
i
n
t
s
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
a
l
o
n
g
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
.
2.
En
s
u
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
in
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
e
a
s
i
l
y
id
e
n
t
i
fi
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
c
e
.
3.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
at
k
e
y
re
t
a
i
l
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
—
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
n
e
a
r
ma
j
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
R
i
d
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
h
i
g
h
l
y
vi
s
i
b
l
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
i
n
s
u
f
fi
c
i
e
n
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
.
4.
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
b
u
s
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
do
n
o
t
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
s
i
x
f
o
o
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
cl
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
5.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
fi
c
i
e
n
t
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
an
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
6.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
ef
fi
c
i
e
n
t
l
i
g
h
t
b
u
l
b
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
L
E
D
s
,
i
n
a
l
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
an
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
i
g
h
t
fi
x
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
co
s
t
s
,
w
h
i
l
e
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
a
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
b
r
i
g
h
t
n
e
s
s
an
d
h
u
e
f
o
r
a
l
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
Bu
s
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
-
r
i
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
c
a
n
en
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
r
t
i
s
t
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
St
r
e
e
t
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
n
o
t
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
th
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
u
s
a
b
l
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
f
o
r
a
l
l
LE
D
a
n
d
s
o
l
a
r
-
p
o
w
e
r
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
w
a
y
to
r
e
d
u
c
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
s
t
s
w
h
i
l
e
a
l
s
o
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
52
9
22
So
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
l
a
n
Si
g
n
a
g
e
,
W
a
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
r
t
In
t
e
n
t
:
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,
w
a
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
an
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
/
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
a
r
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
l
o
o
k
a
n
d
b
r
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
ar
e
a
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
s
t
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
fi
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
w
a
y
i
n
a
n
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
ar
e
a
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
e
a
s
e
.
1.
De
v
e
l
o
p
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
r
a
n
d
e
d
wa
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
o
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
,
m
a
x
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
v
i
s
u
a
l
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
;
an
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
b
u
s
st
o
p
s
,
P
a
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
R
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
s
,
m
a
j
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
k
e
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
th
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
.
2.
Pl
a
c
e
w
a
y
fi
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
g
n
s
a
t
a
he
i
g
h
t
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
(a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
2
t
o
1
5
f
e
e
t
ab
o
v
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
a
n
d
s
c
a
l
e
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
t
o
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
bo
t
h
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
3.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
a
r
t
p
i
e
c
e
s
at
e
n
t
r
y
p
o
i
n
t
s
t
o
S
o
u
t
h
V
a
l
l
c
o
,
m
a
j
o
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
us
e
s
so
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
b
e
c
o
m
e
ic
o
n
i
c
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
4.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a
r
t
p
i
e
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
r
v
e
b
o
t
h
a
n
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
n
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
, such as
sc
u
l
p
t
u
r
a
l
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
s
,
t
r
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
,
se
a
t
i
n
g
,
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
p
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
o
x
e
s
.
Cl
e
a
r
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
a
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
e
m
e
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
b
r
a
n
d
a
n
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
p
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
53
0
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Hyatt House
Hotel at Vallco Park Project is attached as Table 1. The MMRP reflects the analy-
sis of impacts and mitigation measures included in the Initial Study.
The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures
identified as part of the environmental review for the Project. The MMRP includes
the following information:
♦A list of impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures.
♦The party responsible for implementing mitigation measures.
♦The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure.
♦The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation of mitigation
measures.
♦The procedure and frequency for monitoring the implementation of mitigation
measures.
The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it
approves the proposed Project with the mitigation measures included in the Initial
Study. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) requires an agency to adopt a
program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or
made Conditions of Project Approval.
531
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Trigger/
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Implementation
Air Quality
AQ-1: Coarse inhalable par-
ticulate matter (PM10) and
fine inhalable particulate mat-
ter (PM2.5) levels downwind
of areas disturbed during
Project construction activities
could possibly exceed State
standards. This would be a
potentially significant impact
associated with construction-
related criteria pollutant emis-
sions.
AQ-1: The Project’s construction contractor shall
comply with the following BAAQMD Best Manage-
ment Practices for reducing construction emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5:
Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily, or as often as needed to control dust emis-
sions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased wa-
tering frequency may be necessary whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Re-
claimed water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as neces-
sary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabi-
lizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required
space between the top of the load and the top of
the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed
water if possible), or as often as needed, all paved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the
construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers
using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of
the Project site, or as often as needed, to keep
streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc.).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to
15 mph.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
Construction
Contractor
During construction City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Building Division
(onsite) and City
of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
(right of way)
Review
construction
specifications
materials and
retain for
administrative
record / Conduct
site inspections
during
construction
activities
During regularly
scheduled site
inspections
Initials:
Date:
532
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
3
Impact Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Trigger/
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Implementation
possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures
to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
Biological Resources
BIO-1: The Project would
result in adverse impacts to
trees located within the Pro-
ject site.
BIO-1: The Project Applicant shall comply with Sec-
tion 6.0, General Protection Measures, of the Arbor-
ist’s Report prepared for this Project. The recommen-
dations in this section serve as general design guidelines
to help mitigate or avoid impacts to trees being re-
tained. These measures are subject to revision upon
reviewing the updated project design, and the Arborist
should be consulted in the event any cannot be feasibly
implemented.
Construction
Contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
As recommended
within the
Arborist’s Report
During regularly
scheduled site
inspections
Initials:
Date:
BIO-2: The Project would
require the removal of trees
within private property.
BIO-2: The Project Applicant shall comply with re-
placement requirements for trees removed from pri-
vate property, or an in-lieu fee if a suitable replacement
site is not available, as indicated in Municipal Code
Section 14.18.190, Tree Replacement.
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
As required by
City of Cupertino
Once
Initials:
Date:
BIO-3: The Project would
require the removal of trees
local on public property.
BIO-3: In order to remove any public street trees
within the Project site, the Project Applicant shall
comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, Trees.
The Project Applicant shall pay the required fee, prior
to the issuance of a building permit, per the New Street
Tree Cost Schedule, for the purchase, planting, and
maintenance of trees by the City. All public trees shall
be protected against damage during construction oper-
ations. There shall be no storage of materials, tool
washout, or vehicle parking near or upon public trees.
This is in accordance with Municipal Code Section
14.12.120, Condition for Development or Building
Permit. All planting costs associated with a building
permit shall be collected by the Chief Building Inspec-
tor, or his/her designee, for deposit into the City’s
general fund prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The fees for public tree removal and/or damage to
branches and roots shall be as specified in the Public
Tree Damage or Removal Fee Schedule adopted by
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permits /
During construction
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
Review
construction
specifications
materials and
retain for
administrative
record / Conduct
site inspections
during
construction
activities
Once / During
regularly
scheduled site
inspections
Initials:
Date:
533
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
4
Impact Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Trigger/
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Implementation
Council Resolution. Damage and removal fees shall be
deposited into the City’s tree fund. This is in accord-
ance with Municipal Code Section 14.12.130, New
Street Tree Costs and Public Tree Damage or Removal
Fee Schedules.
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Unknown sub-
surface resources may be
accidentally encountered
during construction activities
and excavation.
CUL-1: If historic/prehistoric artifacts or human re-
mains are discovered during ground disturbing activi-
ties, the following measures will be implemented:
In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94
of the Public Resources Code), in the event hu-
man remains are encountered during grading and
construction, all work within 50 feet of the find
will stop and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s
office will be notified. If the remains are deter-
mined to be Native American, the Coroner
would notify the Native American Heritage
Commission to identify the “Most Likely De-
scendant” (MLD). The City of Cupertino, in
consultation with the MLD, would then prepare
a plan for treatment, study, and re-internment of
the remains.
In compliance with State law (Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94
of the Public Resources Code), in the event that
historical artifacts are found, all work within 50
feet of the find will stop and a qualified archaeol-
ogist will examine the find. All significant arti-
facts and samples recovered during construction
would be cataloged and curated by a qualified ar-
chaeologist and placed in an appropriate curation
facility. The archaeologist must then submit a
plan for evaluation of the resource to the City of
Cupertino for approval. If the evaluation of the
resource concludes that the found resource is eli-
gible for the California Register of Historic Re-
Construction
Contractor
During construction City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
Review contract
documents and
retain for
administrative
record
Once Initials:
Date:
534
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
5
Impact Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Trigger/
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Implementation
sources, a mitigation plan must be submitted to
the City of Cupertino for approval. The mitiga-
tion plan must be completed before earthmoving
or construction activities can recommence within
the designated resource area.
CUL-2: Unknown subsurface
paleontological resources
could be encountered during
construction activities.
CUL-2: If paleontological remains are uncovered,
work at the place of discovery shall be halted immedi-
ately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the
finds and determine the significance of the resource.
Construction activities shall not recommence until the
expert has issued an opinion about the resource and
appropriate mitigation has been determined.
Construction
Contractor
During construction City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
Review contract
documents and
retain for
administrative
record
Once Initials:
Date:
CUL-3: Unknown human
remains could be encountered
during construction activities.
CUL-3: Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Construction
Contractor
During construction City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Planning Division
Review contract
documents and
retain for
administrative
record
Once Initials:
Date:
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Large earthquakes
could generate strong to vio-
lent ground shaking at the
Project site and could cause
damage to buildings and in-
frastructure and threaten
public safety.
GEO-1: Prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior
to the issuance of a building permit. A geotechnical
engineer shall sign the improvement plans and approve
them as conforming to their recommendations prior to
construction. The Project geotechnical engineer shall
provide geotechnical observation during the construc-
tion, which will allow the geotechnical engineer to
compare the actual with the anticipated soil conditions
and to check that the contractors’ work conforms to
the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications.
The geotechnical engineer will prepare letters and as-
built documents, to be submitted to the City, to docu-
ment their observances during construction and to
document that the work performed is in accordance
with the Project plans and specifications.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Department –
Building Division
Review contract
documents and
retain for
administrative
record
Once Initials:
Date:
Noise
NOISE-1: The Project would
result in hotel rooms that do
not meet an interior noise
NOISE-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the project applicant shall submit an acoustic study to
the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Cupertino
Community
Development
Review contract
documents and
retain for
Once Initials:
Date:
535
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL AT VALLCO PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
6
Impact Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Trigger/
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Implementation
level of 45 dBA CNEL. Director to demonstrate that all hotel rooms meet an
interior noise level due to exterior noise of 45 dBA
CNEL, consistent with State and local noise standards.
The study shall be based on precise grading and archi-
tectural plans including specific construction method
details and materials to calculate the necessary exterior
to interior noise reduction of approximately 30 dBA to
achieve 45 dBA CNEL. The precise exterior to interior
reduction would be determined in the acoustical study
when precise grading plans with building elevations,
footprints and architectural plans are available. The
applicant will be required to incorporate into the Pro-
ject design all required noise insulation features and
techniques necessary to reduce interior noise levels to
achieve the interior noise standard. To achieve the
required interior noise levels, features such as upgraded
exterior wall and roof assemblies, upgraded windows,
and exterior doors may be required. In addition, a
“windows closed” condition will be required with min-
imum supply of fresh air per UBC requirements.
Department –
Planning Division
administrative
record
536
MEMORANDUM
DATE October 7, 2014
TO George Schroeder, Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
FROM Kyle Simpson, Associate, Project Manager
SUBJECT Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project IS/MND- Responses to Public Comments
This memorandum provides response to comments received on the Public Review Draft of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Hyatt House Hotel at Vallco Park Project
IS/MND. The IS/MND was circulated for a 30-day period from August 20, 2014 to September 18, 2014.
State Clearinghouse (SCH) for the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Project
the SCH number of 2014082055 for the IS/MND.
Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety and is attached to this memorandum.
Although CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written
responses to comments received on an IS/MND (as contrasted with a Draft Environmental Impact
Report [see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088]), the City of Cupertino has elected to prepare the
following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation
of the proposed Project.
A. Comment Letters Received
The following is a list of comment letters received during the public review period. As noted above,
each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety and attached to this memorandum. The letters are
divided into four categories and listed in the order they were received. Within each comment letter,
several individual comments are identified. The number designations in this memorandum are
correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each letter.
1.State Agencies
Comment Letter SA1: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), September 18, 2014
Comment Letter SA2: State Clearinghouse, September 19, 2014
2.Regional Agencies
Comment Letter RA1: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), September 17, 2014
3.Individuals
Comment Letter IND1: Jennifer Griffin, August 20, 2014
537
October 7, 2014 | Page 2
Comment Letter IND2: Jennifer Griffin, August 20, 2014
Comment Letter IND3: Jennifer Griffin, August 26, 2014
Comment Letter IND4: Susan Hunts, September 2, 2014
4. Comments Received During Public Hearings
Comment ERC1: Comments Received during the Environmental Review Committee
Meeting on August 21, 2014
B. Response to Comments on the IS/MND
The numbered responses below directly correspond to the number comments in each letter. The
comment letters are attached to this memorandum.
1. State Agencies
Comment Letter SA1: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), September 18, 2014
Response SA1-1
This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that Caltrans has
reviewed the IS/MND. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the
IS/MND, and no response is required.
Response SA1-2
This comment provides an introduction to Comments SA1-3 through Comment SA1-6. This
comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and no response is
required.
Response SA1-3
This comments states that the Apple Campus 2 EIR forecasts that the Wolfe Road/Interstate
280 (I-280) northbound (NB) off-ramp intersection will be at capacity with mitigation in place.
The mitigation includes widening the ramp to two lanes exiting the freeway and also widening
the northbound off-ramp approach at Wolfe Road to accommodate dual left-turn lanes and
dual-right turn lanes. With these improvements, the intersection would operate at an
acceptable LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour under
background and cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 6 of the TIA, the Project would
generate 1,209 new daily vehicle trips, with 78 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour
and 89 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. As shown in Figure 8 of the TIA, the
proposed is not expected to add a significant amount of traffic to the Wolfe Road/I-280 NB
off-ramp intersection and, as shown in Table 7, this intersection would continue to operate at
acceptable LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hour durations under the Existing +
Project scenario. In addition, as shown in Tables 9 and 11, under both the Background Plus
Project scenario and the Cumulative Plus Project scenario, this intersection would operate at
an acceptable LOS B during the AM peak hour and at an acceptable LOS C during the PM peak
538
October 7, 2014 | Page 3
hour. As a shown, the proposed Hyatt House hotel is not expected to add a significant
amount of traffic to this intersection.
Response SA1-4
This comment states that the 95th percentile queue from the Wolfe Road/I-280 southbound
(SB) intersection backs up on the SB I-280 during the AM peak hour. Page 28 of the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), attached to this memorandum, has been revised to
discuss the mitigation proposed by the Apple Campus 2 EIR at the Wolfe Road/I-280 SB off-
ramp intersection. The mitigation includes widening the off-ramp to two lanes exiting the
freeway. A queuing analysis (attached to this memorandum) was conducted for the I-280 SB
off-ramp to show the 95th percentile queues during the AM and PM peak hour durations with
and without the Project assuming Apple Campus 2 EIR mitigation in place under background
conditions. The analysis determined that the Project would not increase the 95th percentile
queues. It should also be noted that the queuing for the Apple Campus 2 EIR was completed
using VISSIM traffic simulation software, which takes into consideration the effects of
downstream queueing.
Response SA1-5
This comment requests that AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queuing analysis for NB I-
280 off-ramp to Wolfe Road and the SB I-280 off-ramp to Wolfe Road be providing. As
discussed in Response SA1-4, a queuing analysis was conducted for the I-280 SB off-ramp and
the I-280 NB off-ramps to identify whether or not the Project would increase to the 95th
percentile queues, and it was determined that the Project would not increase the queues.
Response SA1-6
This comment requests that a freeway segment analysis be completed for both NB and SB I-
280. A freeway analysis was not conducted as the proposed Project would generate less than
69 peak hour trips on a typical weekday, which represents less than 1 percent of the freeway
capacity. According to VTA guidelines, for freeways that are already operating at
unacceptable levels of service, a project would create a significant impact if it adds trips equal
to or greater than 1 percent of the freeway capacity. Therefore, the Project is not expected to
cause a significant impact to the freeway. No further response is required.
Response SA1-7
This comment states that any Project-related mitigation measures that include improvements
to State highways would require fair share contributions. As such, this comment states that
the fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead
agency monitoring should be fully disclosed for all proposed mitigation measures. The Project
includes a Condition of Approval that requires the Project to contribute to the future Wolfe
Road Corridor Improvement Project that will be initiated after the current General Plan
Amendment process is complete. The improvements could encompass improvements to the
freeway interchange, which may address Caltrans’ comments. Although this condition of
approval does not include dollar amounts, it does establish a framework for which future
539
October 7, 2014 | Page 4
improvements would be identified and completed. As noted above in response SA1-6,
because the Project is not expected to result in a significant impact to freeway operations, a
fair-share contribution would not be required.
Contribution to Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Project
The property owner of the project site will be required to provide a financial contribution
to the Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement Project when the project is established by the
City. The contribution will be based on the project’s fair-share portion of the
improvements as established by the Wolfe Road Corridor Study, which will be conducted
subsequent to the adoption of the City’s 2040 General Plan. The project study area will
encompass the portion of Wolfe Road between Vallco Parkway and Homestead
Road. The scope of the improvements will be based on findings from the Wolfe Road
Corridor Study and may include widening of Wolfe Road, Wolfe Road bridge and
modifications to the Wolfe Road/Highway 280 interchange. The financial contribution
may require formation of a Wolfe Road Corridor Assessment District or other
mechanism.
Response SA1-8
This comment provides a general statement that if it is determined that traffic restrictions
and detours are needed on or affecting State highways, a TMP or construction TIS may be
required of the developer for approval by Caltrans prior to the commencement of
construction activities. Given the location of the Project site on a road primarily used as an
access road for Vallco Shopping Mall, the likelihood of traffic restrictions and/or detours on I-
280 is not probable. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the
IS/MND, and no response is required.
Response SA1-9
This comment commends the City for locating housing, jobs, and neighborhood services near
major mass transit centers and for continuing to develop Travel Demand Management
policies. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and no
response is required.
Response SA1-10
This comment states that if construction activities are proposed within State right of way
(ROW), Caltrans requires that a project’s environmental document include documentation of
a current archaeological record search from the Northwest Information Center of the
California Historical Resources Information System. The Project does not propose
construction activities within State ROW, and no further response is required.
Response SA1-11
This requests that traffic impact fees be identified for project mitigation measures. The City
does not have a traffic impact fee program, and as discussed in the TIA and shown in the
540
October 7, 2014 | Page 5
queuing analysis, the Project does not impact the freeway, and impact fees would not be
required. No further response is required.
Response SA1-12
This comment states that, along with other projects in the vicinity, the Project is likely to have
a cumulatively significant regional impact to the State Highway System. As a result, Caltrans
encourages the City to participate in VTA’s voluntary contribution program and plan for the
impact of future growth on the regional transportation system. As stated on page 40 and
page 41 of the Transportation Impact Analysis, included as Appendix F of the IS/MND, the
level of service under cumulative conditions for the City’s intersections, as well as the Santa
Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections would operate at
acceptable levels. The City will take into consideration Caltrans’ recommendation to
participate in VTA’s voluntary contribution program, and the City has advised the applicant of
the program. No further response is required.
Response SA1-13
This comment states that any work or traffic control that encroaches on the State ROW
would require an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. The Project does not propose
construction activities within State ROW, and no further response is required.
Response SA1-14
This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and provides contact information.
This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and no
response is required.
Comment Letter SA2: State Clearinghouse, September 19, 2014
Response SA2-1
This comment acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse has received the IS/MND and has
circulated copies of the documents to selected State agencies for review. The letter further
states that the City of Cupertino has complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. No further response is
necessary.
Response SA2-2
This comment is an attached scanned copy of a comment letter from Caltrans to the City of
Cupertino about the IS/MND. Caltrans’ comment letter is addressed by this memorandum as
Comment Letter SA1 above. No further response is necessary.
541
October 7, 2014 | Page 6
2. Regional Agencies
Comment Letter RA1: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), September 17, 2014
Response RA1-1
This states that VTA has reviewed the IS/MND and VTA commends the Project Applicant for
including improved pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the Project site. This comment
does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and no response is required.
3. Individuals
Comment Letter IND1: Jennifer Griffin, August 20, 2014
Response IND1-1
This comment expresses concern regarding the Coast Redwood trees located within the
Project site and expresses the opinion that the trees provide a beautiful buffer for the Project
site.
The Project proposes to remove 96 of the 150 trees within the Project site, plus 19 off-site
trees for construction of the proposed hotel and associated site improvements. The trees to
be removed consist of 64 Coast Redwoods, 21 Shamel Ash, 9 Honey Locust, 6 Evergreen Pear,
6 Monterey Pine, 4 Coast Live Oaks, 3 Cork Oaks, and 2 Pin Oaks. It should be noted that only
the four Coast Live Oak trees are considered specimen trees since they are on the City's
protected species list. The City's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources, reviewed the Project's
removal request and concurs with the proposed removals.
Of the 84 Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site, 52 are
found to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water or
overcrowding. Nine Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the
City's Consulting Arborist as having a high suitability for preservation since they appear
reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or defects. Three of these trees are
proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the other six will
be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since
22 are in poor health and to construct the sidewalk.
In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the Project proposes to plant 116 replacement
trees ranging from 24 inch to 26 inch box sizes (including London Plane, Coast Redwood,
Water Gum, and Chinese Pistache trees) in the parking lot, street frontage, and site perimeter
consistent with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In-lieu
replacement fees would be required for the 56 trees that cannot be physically planted on-
site. New Coast Redwood trees will replace the ones that are removed, where appropriate,
along the perimeter of the site. A condition of approval requires the applicant to retain the
City's Consulting Arborist to review the construction permit drawings to ensure impacts to
542
October 7, 2014 | Page 7
the trees to be retained are minimized. Additionally, the applicant would also be required to
retain the City's Consulting Arborist in order to confirm the health of the trees and take
corrective measures, if necessary, following construction. The City believes that the
replacement plantings would provide a buffer between the Project site and I-280.
Response IND1-2
This comment asks if the Project plans are available on the City’s website, and whether or not
the Project will go the Planning Commission. The Project plans are on the City’s website
(http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1258). The Project went before the Planning
Commission on August 26, 2014, and the Project is schedule to go before the City Council on
October 21, 2014. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the
IS/MND, and no response is required.
Comment Letter IND2: Jennifer Griffin, August 20, 2014
Response IND2-1
This comment asks whether the existing Coast Redwood trees are located on the Project site
or on Caltrans property. The Coast Redwood trees are located within the Project site. This
comment further expresses the opinion that the Coast Redwood trees should not be
removed and suggests that if replacement trees are planted, that they be of significant size.
Please refer to Response 1-1. No further response is required.
Comment Letter IND3: Jennifer Griffin, August 26, 2014
Response IND3-1
This comment expresses the opinion that the removal of the Coast Redwood trees within he
Project site would result in a significant change. Please refer to Response 1-1 regarding the
removal of the Coast Redwood trees. No further response is required.
Response IND3-2
This comment asks if the Project would be four stories instead of five stories. As stated on
page 39 of the IS/MND, maximum allowed building height on the Project site is 45 feet,
unless there is a retail component, in which case the maximum height allowed is 60 feet tall.
The proposed Project would be 60 feet tall, and 5 stories tall, with inclusion of the restaurant.
Response IND3-3
This comment requests that the Project include a reception room that can be used for
weddings, family reunions and other events. This is a comment on the merits of the Project
and does not question adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND. Although this Project includes
a meeting room, the Project the proposed hotel is targeted at extended-stay travelers and
may not have floor space that would allow for large gatherings. No further response is
required.
543
October 7, 2014 | Page 8
Comment Letter IND4: Susan Hunts, September 2, 2014
Response IND4-1
This comment expresses concerns regarding the availability of documents for the Project.
Although the Planning Commission meeting minutes are not yet available, a video recording
of the August 26th hearing is available on the City’s website
(http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=544). This comment does not question the
adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and no response is required.
Response IND4-2
This comment asks if there is a plan for the relocation of the farmers market that operates on
the Project site. If the Project is approved, the tentative plan is to relocate the farmers
market to a different location within the Vallco Mall. The farmers market operator is aware of
the potential need to relocate, and is working with property owners on the relocation. The
relocation would happen under a separate permit since the details have not yet been
finalized. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND, and
no further response is required.
Response IND4-3
This comment asks whether the hotel will be required to provide electric vehicle charging
that would be available to both guests and non-guests. The Project is subject to the City’s
municipal code requirement to support installation of future electric vehicle supply
equipment for at least 10 percent of the total parking supply. The parking supply would be
available to both guests and non-guests.
4. Comments Received During Public Hearings
Comment ERC1: Comments Received during the Environmental Review Committee Meeting on
August 21, 2014
Below is a summary of the comments received during the Environmental Review Committee
Meeting held on August 21, 2014, followed by a response.
Comment ERC-1
A committee member stated that the proposed Coast Redwood replacement trees may not
be a good species given that Coast Redwood trees have high water needs and are not native
to the region.
Response ERC-1
General Plan Policy 2-30, Strategy 8 encourages the retention of the trees along the Wolfe
Road and I-280 frontage as much as possible in new development within the Vallco Shopping
District. However, the majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-
280 perimeter of the site are found to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition
544
October 7, 2014 | Page 9
due to lack of water or overcrowding. New Coast Redwood trees would replace the existing
Coast Redwood trees that are removed, where appropriate, along the perimeter of the site.
As discussed in Response 1-1, the applicant is also required to retain the City's Consulting
Arborist to confirm the health of the trees and take corrective measures, if necessary,
following construction. This comment does not question the adequacy of the analysis in the
IS/MND, and no further response is required.
Comment ERC-2
A member of the public expressed concern with the proposed removal of Coast Redwood
trees as a result of the Project, and expressed the opinion that any trees removed should be
replaced with new Coast Redwood trees.
Response ERC-2
Please refer to Response 1-1. No further response is required.
Attachments:
- Comment Letters
- Transportation Impact Analysis
- Traffic Queuing Analysis
Wolfe Road Queuing Analysis
Freeway Segment Evaluation
545
........................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENT A:
COMMENTS LETTERS
546
........................................................................................................................
547
COMMENT LETTER # SA1
SA1-1
SA1-2
SA1-3
SA1-4
548
SA1-4
cont.
SA1-5
SA1-6
SA1-7
SA1-8
SA1-9
549
SA1-9
cont.
SA1-10
SA1-11
SA1-12
550
SA1-13
SA1-14
551
COMMENT LETTER # SA2
SA2-1
552
SA2-1
cont.
553
SA2-2
554
SA2-2
555
SA2-2
556
SA2-2
557
COMMENT LETTER # RA1
RA1-1
558
This page intentionally left blank.
559
From: grenna5000@yahoo.com [mailto:grenna5000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:07 PM
To: George Schroeder
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject: New Hotel Behind Penneys
Hi George. I see the Environmental Review Committee is meeting tomorrow about the new hotel
proposed for the back parking lot behind Penneys at Vallco which is up against Highway 280.
I will try to come to the ERC meeting tomorrow. I am hoping all efforts will be made to save the
redwood trees that border the parking lot property along 280. They are very tall, mature redwood
trees and they provide a beautiful buffer between the shopping center and its buildings and the 280
highway. They make the area very green looking and they provide a continuous redwood tree screen
along 280 as it passes through Cupertino and past Vallco. It is a wonderful hallmark of Cupertino to
have the lovely green screen.
I have not seen the other plans of the hotel, but I hope to tomorrow or are they on-line yet? When
will this go to the Planning Commission?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
COMMENT LETTER # IND1
IND1-1
IND1-2
560
This page intentionally left blank.
561
From: grenna5000@yahoo.com [mailto:grenna5000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:38 PM
To: George Schroeder
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: New Hotel Behind Penneys
Hi George. Thank you for the e-mail. I appreciate you sending the information about the redwood
trees on the 280 frontage. Are these trees on Vallco property or are they on Cal Trans frontage?
I think it is very important that the mature redwood coverage along 280 not be decimated or have
large holes appear in the canopy. The redwoods at Vallco and all the length of Cupertino’s frontage
with 280 is a consistent redwood theme and much care should be exercised when making any
changes to it. Redwoods appear in many other places along the frontage of 280, not just Vallco.
The back parking lot of Macys against 280 may be built on at some point and it also has redwoods
along its frontage with 280 and in other locations. Care will have to be taken at the time of this lot’s
construction to make sure those redwoods along its frontage with 280 are preserved.
There are also redwood trees along 280 further to the east of Cupertino by Tantau Avenue. All these
trees provide valuable green canopy and foliage along the freeway frontage.
If any redwoods are taken down along 280 in the Penneys back parking lot hotel construction, then
large size replacement redwoods should be planted to replace them.
Also, care should be taken to not have huge sections of trees taken down side by side so that the
result is large gaps in the redwood frontage along 280. This looks awful and makes the resulting new
construction stick out and not blend in gracefully with the rest of the surrounding area.
The goal should be to have a lovely new hotel constructed in the rear parking lot area of Penneys
beside 280 and have the new construction appear to have been there for many years by it fitting in
gracefully with the surrounding area and surrounding trees. The canopy of the existing redwood trees
along 280 at the back of the lot to integral to making this happen. This is the look and feel of our
Cupertino Vallco and its environs.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
COMMENT LETTER # IND2
IND2-1
562
This page intentionally left blank.
563
From: grenna5000@yahoo.com [mailto:grenna5000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:30 AM
To: PlanningCommission@Cupertino.org
Cc: George Schroeder; grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject: New Hyatt Hotel in Vallco Penneys Rear Parking Lot
The Hyatt Hotel Chain is a very upscape hotel chain and I am sure the Cupertino Hyatt will be a lovely
addition to the area. I am sure it will be very high class and elegant.
Ricky’s Hyatt House (and the Cabana) in Palo Alto on El Camino in the 1960s and 1970s was the premier
social spot of the Bay Area. I hope that Cupertino’s Hyatt House will be such a destination.
The Penneys back parking lot is surrounded on three sides by nature redwood trees that shield the
property from 280. Taking out the trees will make a big hole in the canopy. Cupertino’s frontage with
Highway 280 has redwood trees all the way down it from the Los Altos border to the Santa Clara border
which is several miles. Vallco Shopping Center has redwood trees all over the shopping center and its
boundaries with its neighbors. It also has redwood trees across is frontage with Highway 280. Taking out
these trees will make big holes in the canopies.
The back parking lot of Macys against 280 has redwoods along its frontage with 280. The owner of that
property might want to take all those redwood trees out and that would make a big hole in the canopy
along 280 also.
Please make sure any redwoods removed from the Penneys back parking lot frontage on
280 are replaced with redwood trees.
Also, could the Hyatt Hotel be four stories instead of five stories? Nothing is that tall in that area. The
most is two stories. Please try to have the height be four stories.
Please have the hotel have a nice sized reception room that the public can use for weddings, family
reunions, etc.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
COMMENT LETTER # IND3
IND3-1
IND3-2
IND3-3
564
This page intentionally left blank.
565
From: susan.zh@gmail.com [mailto:susan.zh@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Susan Hunts
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 11:02 AM
To: George Schroeder
Subject: would like info on Hyatt project
I recently became aware of the proposed Hyatt Hotel project adjacent to Vallco. I have two
concerns which I wasn’t able to find answers to in a perusal of the available documents. And
minutes for planning commission meetings seem to be months behind on the city website.
Is there a plan for relocation of the Friday Farmer’s Market? (I would have thought this would be
a common concern and easy to find an answer about but it doesn’t seem to fall into any of the
categories I saw addressed in the initial study or mitigation programs.)
Will the hotel be required to provide electric vehicle charging available to both guests and non-
guests? (Possibly for a fee to non-guests.)
Thanks for any information you can provide.
Susan Hunts
10611 Santa Lucia Road
Cupertino
COMMENT LETTER # IND4
IND4-1
IND4-2
IND4-3
566
This page intentionally left blank.
567
........................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENT C:
TRAFFIC QUEUING ANALYSIS
FREEWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION
WOLFE ROAD QUEUING ANALYSIS
568
........................................................................................................................
569
Queuing Analysis
Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)371 617 664 610 719 273 322 272
Avg. Queue (veh)5.7 9.4 10.1 9.3 11.0 4.2 4.9 4.2
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)142 236 254 233 275 104 123 104
95th %. Queue (veh)10 15 16 15 17 8 9 8
95th %. Queue (ft.)250 375 400 375 425 200 225 200
Storage (ft.)900 900 900 900 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Existing + Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)381 627 664 610 719 273 333 282
Avg. Queue (veh)5.8 9.6 10.1 9.3 11.0 4.2 5.1 4.3
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)146 239 254 233 275 104 127 108
95th %. Queue (veh)10 15 16 15 17 8 9 8
95th %. Queue (ft.)250 375 400 375 425 200 225 200
Storage (ft.)900 900 900 900 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Background
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)421 726 1059 735 1310 468 743 669
Avg. Queue (veh)6.4 11.1 16.2 11.2 20.0 7.2 11.4 10.2
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)161 277 404 281 500 179 284 256
95th %. Queue (veh)11 17 23 17 28 12 17 16
95th %. Queue (ft.)275 425 575 425 700 300 425 400
Storage (ft.)1150 1150 1150 1150 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Backgorund + Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)431 736 1059 735 1310 468 754 679
Avg. Queue (veh)6.6 11.2 16.2 11.2 20.0 7.2 11.5 10.4
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)165 281 404 281 500 179 288 259
95th %. Queue (veh)11 17 23 17 28 12 17 16
95th %. Queue (ft.)275 425 575 425 700 300 425 400
Storage (ft.)1150 1150 1150 1150 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cumulative
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 120 55 120 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)421 726 1059 735 1310 468 840 991
Avg. Queue (veh)6.4 24.2 16.2 24.5 20.0 7.2 12.8 15.1
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)161 605 404 613 500 179 321 379
95th %. Queue (veh)11 33 23 33 28 12 19 22
95th %. Queue (ft.)275 825 575 825 700 300 475 550
Storage (ft.)1150 1150 1150 1150 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cumulative + Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)55 120 55 120 55 55 55 55
Volume (vph)431 736 1059 735 1310 468 851 1001
Avg. Queue (veh)6.6 24.5 16.2 24.5 20.0 7.2 13.0 15.3
Avg. Queue2 (ft.)165 613 404 613 500 179 325 382
95th %. Queue (veh)11 33 23 33 28 12 19 22
95th %. Queue (ft.)275 825 575 825 700 300 475 550
Storage (ft.)1150 1150 1150 1150 830 830 830 830
Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Notes:
1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections, and movement delay for unsignalized intersections.
2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued
I-280 NB & Wolfe Road I-280 SB & Wolfe Road
WBL WBR EBL EBR
570
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
#
o
f
M
i
x
e
d
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
1
1%
o
f
P
e
a
k
M
i
x
e
d
F
l
o
w
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
l
o
w
L
a
n
e
s
(
v
p
h
)
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
H
o
u
r
L
a
n
e
s
AM
F
1
0
PM
D
1
0
AM
B
7
PM
F
9
AM
E
0
PM
D
0
AM
B
1
1
PM
F
1
0
No
t
e
s
:
1
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
a
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
i
d
e
a
l
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
c
i
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
20
0
0
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
M
a
n
u
a
l
.
I-
2
8
0
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
t
o
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
SB
3
6
9
0
0
6
9
I-
2
8
0
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
t
o
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
NB
3
6
9
0
0
6
9
69
0
0
69 69
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
3
69
0
0
3
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
E
x
p
y
t
o
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
I-
2
8
0
I-
2
8
0
NB SB
Wo
l
f
e
R
d
t
o
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
E
x
p
y
Hy
a
t
t
H
o
u
s
e
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
x
l
s
10/7/2014
57
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0154 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Civic Center Master Plan - Selection of Preferred Project
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Chronology of Council Direction & Comm. Input Gathering
B - Civic Center Master Plan Costs Summary
C - City Hall Option A - Costs
D - City Hall Option B - Costs
E - City Hall Option C - Costs
F - City Hall Option D1 - Costs
G - City Hall Option D2 - Costs
H - City Hall Option E - Costs
I - City Hall Alternatives Study-Structural Evaluation
J - City Hall-MEP Systems Alternatives Study
K - Civic Center Master Plan Fact Sheet
L - Council Presentation
M - Precedent Examples of Recent City Halls
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject: Civic Center Master Plan - Selection of Preferred Project
Providedirectiononthefollowing,whichwillcomprisethePreferredProjectfortheCivic
Center Master Plan:
a.City Hall, Library Program Room, and Garage Parking options; and then
b.Other site development options.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™623
- 1 -
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Civic Center Master Plan – Selection of Preferred Project.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the following, which will
comprise the Preferred Project for the Civic Center Master Plan:
a.City Hall, Library Program Room, and Garage Parking options; and then
b.Other site development options.
Background
Attached is a chronology of Council direction and community and stakeholder input
gathering for the project dating from December, 2012 until the present. Also attached
are several reports that provide additional background information that is the
foundation of the options presented.
Discussion
The initial design for the Civic Center Master Plan began with the Civic Life plan from
the Master plan Framework of late 2012, which was the alternative that Council directed
to be further developed. The community input process began with that plan and
considered various master plan elements or “programs” for the site. Based upon the
collective feedback received from the stakeholders, the community at-large and the
Council, the options presented for Council’s decision on the preferred alternative plan
have become more simplified and focused.
The following elements that were considered have been eliminated from the proposed
plan:
624
- 2 -
Sheriff – although the Sheriff’s Office supported the idea, there was not strong
community support for an alternative to include a relocation of the West Side
Station to the Civic Center;
Creek trail – while there was some desire to include more open space in the
master plan, there was not much advocacy for a trail along the creek;
Teen Center – while many felt that the current Teen Center location in the
Sports Center is not desirable, there was not a strong desire to relocate it to the
Civic Center.
At the August 19th council meeting, during the report on the community engagement
process for the Civic Center Master plan, Council requested a high-level feasibility
study of the existing City Hall prior to determining a preferred Civic Center Master
Plan. The Council directed staff to bring forward Master Plan alternatives and cost
estimates for the following elements:
City Hall options including: seismic retrofits with and without an Emergency
Operations Center (EOC), a remodel of City Hall, and a potential new City
Hall;
Parking solutions for the existing and projected parking deficit including
under Library Field, behind the Library, and under a potential new City Hall;
Library Program Room expansion options.
ALTERNATIVES
Criteria
The following criteria were used to weigh the alternatives, which were based on
discussions with the City Council at the study sessions and key themes that arose as a
result of the public outreach:
Cost-efficiency – economic amortization of the City’s investment (life of building vs.
investment);
Resiliency – ability to respond after a major seismic event;
Improved Experience – City Hall (for the public, and usability for users and staff) and
Library (programming purposes);
Sustainability – operational, maintenance and energy efficiencies yielding low life-
cycle costs;
Flexibility –maximum future site flexibility.
625
- 3 -
Key Element Alternatives
The alternatives include options for City Hall, the Parking Garage and the Library
Program Room as follows:
City Hall options:
A. Seismic retrofits only (without EOC) - code compliance upgrades for seismic (life
safety standards) and accessibility;
B. Seismic retrofits only (with EOC) - code compliance upgrades for seismic
(immediate occupancy standards) and accessibility with an EOC;
C. Remodel with EOC – Full functional remodel of existing building with code
compliance upgrades for seismic (immediate occupancy standards) and
accessibility;
D. New building with EOC (with or without subterranean parking, D1 & D2, respectively)
E. New building with EOC and Council Chambers
Parking Garage options:
P1. Parking garage under Library Field
P2. Parking garage behind Library (surface and above ground) – displaces existing
parking and replaces them with 100 additional spaces.
P3. Parking garage behind Library (surface and below ground) – displaces existing
parking and replaces them with 100 additional spaces
P4. Parking garage below City Hall- only included with new building option
Each parking option evaluated increases parking at the Civic Center by a net of 100
spaces, which includes meeting the unmet demand plus a recommended increase based
on future programming. See the Council Presentation (Attachment L) for details.
Library Program Room:
L1. Includes a 100-person dividable program room on the south side of the Library –
this is the maximum size that can be supported without encroaching into the
redwood grove and preserving the functional geometry necessary for the room.
The space is configured to be divided into two program rooms.
L2. Library to use Community Hall for programs – This assigns the primary use and
programming of Community Hall to the Library for their programming needs.
The City would require that Community Hall continue to be used as a Council
Chambers, but other uses would likely be limited.
626
- 4 -
Table 1, below, provides a quick summary of the costs for each option. See the Civic
Center Master Plan Costs Summary (Attachment B) for a table that shows the detailed
costs for each option, including building costs per square foot.
Table 1
No. City Hall option Library
Program Room
option
Parking option
(100 net spaces added)
Total Cost
A. Seismic and Life
Safety upgrades
L1 - Library
Expansion
P1 - Below Library Field $24,355,816
P2 - Behind Library
(surface and above)
$26,164,216
P3 - Behind Library
(surface and below)
$26,619,616
B. Seismic and Life
Safety with EOC
L1 - Library
Expansion
P1 - Below Library Field $28,082,527
P2 - Behind Library
(surface and above)
$29,890,927
P3 - Behind Library
(surface and below)
$30,346,327
C. Seismic and Life
Safety and Full
remodel with EOC
L1 - Library
Expansion
P1 - Below Library Field $36,910,102
P2 - Behind Library
(surface and above)
$38,718,502
P3 - Behind Library
(surface and below)
$39,173,902
D. New building with
EOC
L1 - Library
Expansion
P4 - Below City Hall $47,305,280
L2 - Community
Hall as
Program
Room
$44,222,657
E. New building with
EOC and Council
Chambers
L1 - Community
Hall as
Program
Room
P4 - Below City Hall $50,876,016
627
- 5 -
Evaluation of Options Based on Criteria
Items considered in evaluating the criteria of City Hall included the return on
investment of money spent, resulting life of the building (amortization of investment),
life-cycle costs, increase in the experience and usability of the building, and the ability
to set up the EOC after a major seismic event. The parking garage options were
calculated based on the cost per net space as well as future flexibility of the site. Library
options were based on ability to program the space per needs.
City Hall options A and B have the lowest costs at about $335 to $441 per square
foot. These options bring the building into compliance with life safety and
accessibility codes and represent the least expensive capital outlay. However, they
do not yield improved building performance for service delivery, operations and
maintenance, energy consumption, and life span. The building would have the
same capacity for increased service delivery as the existing building and the
extended useful life of the remodeled building would be limited and would require
a replacement in much less than the 50 years than would be the expected life of a
new building. In addition, for the EOC option, while the building would be
retrofitted to meet additional load requirements, the functionality of the EOC after a
major seismic event would be hard to predict due to the age of the building. Based
on the consultant’s assessment, it would allow for safe exiting at a minimum.
However, the likelihood of the building becoming fully functional as an EOC
immediately after the event would be much lower than if it were a new building.
City Hall option C costs are comparable to that of a new building ($663 per square
foot for the remodel versus $646 per square foot for a new building) due to the
extensive structural, exterior and interior work. However, it will have the same
issues related to EOC and seismic safety and useful life, although there would be
higher functionality than for alternatives A and B.
City Hall option D with parking below offers the best return on investment due to
the longer life-span, improved service, operational and maintenance savings.
City Hall option E with parking below is more expensive and would require
additional outlay for a new Council Chambers. In addition, Community Hall would
not provide the programming flexibility needed by the Library.
Library option L1 provides the desired expanded program space to serve the Library
and community programming and in a location that can be conveniently accessed
by Library staff, as well as directly by the public.
628
- 6 -
In terms of parking options, P2 and P3 result in a higher cost per net space but
would preserve Library Field for future expansion. While options P1 and P4 have
similar costs, option P4 would also maintain flexibility for future expansion at
Library Field and behind the Library.
Table 2 - Evaluation of Alternatives
No. Options
Co
s
t
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Re
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
y
Ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
A. City Hall - Seismic and Life
Safety upgrades
B. City Hall - Seismic and Life
Safety upgrades
C. City Hall - Seismic and Life
Safety and Full remodel with
EOC
D. City Hall - New building with
EOC
E. City Hall - New building with
EOC and Council Chambers
L-1 Library Expansion
L-2 Community Hall serves as
Library Program Room
P-1 Parking – Below Library Field
P-2 Parking – Behind Library
(surface and above)
P-3 Parking – Behind Library
(surface and below)
P-4 Parking – under City Hall
629
- 7 -
Recommended Master Plan Alternative
Based on the evaluation of options, a new City Hall (option D) with parking below
offers the best return on investment, based on the above criteria. The increased cost
over option A of $22 million would be the better investment due to the longer life-span,
improved service, and operational savings. In addition, subterranean parking under a
new City Hall building is the least expensive parking alternative based on the cost per
net space and provides the greatest site flexibility to add additional parking or library
expansion in the future.
Staff recommends option L1 for the Library Program Room - to expand the existing
Story Room to function as the Program Room to seat up to 100 people. The room
would be able to be divided into two smaller spaces for flexible use. This option
provides desired expanded program space to serve the Library and community
programming that is conveniently accessed to the main body of the Library.
For this reason, staff recommends Council select Options – D-L1-P4 as the preferred
Master Plan alternative to evaluate in the CEQA process.
Other Site Elements
The community input process identified the following additional site elements. Staff
requests Council direction on items to be included in the Preferred Project:
Outdoor space for gatherings and/or programmed activities – this could include
reconfiguration of the portion of the current plaza, except for the fountains, to create
a larger space for programming events;
Outdoor space for casual, self-directed use – due to elimination of the option of
landscaping the parking lot behind City Hall, staff has not identified remaining
elements that would meet this description;
Improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Civic Center – the site plan could
include bike and pedestrian paths through the site to increase bicycle and pedestrian
safety;
More options for food – based on Council direction, staff notes that this request could
be satisfied with bringing food trucks in for large City events. An example of this is
the Earth Day festival.
Site elements will be added to the site plan for the Preferred Project based on Council
direction.
630
- 8 -
Next Steps and Additional Budget Items
After receiving Council direction on the Preferred Project, the consultant will prepare
the final Master Plan document. It is anticipated that the final Master Plan, supporting
CEQA document, as well as financing options and schedules will be brought for City
Council consideration in early spring, 2015. A design contract may be brought for
Council consideration at that time as well. While all of the Preferred Project alternatives
will require identifying significantly more funding, the following budgets may be
combined to move forward design efforts with Council approval. The currently
budgeted projects are listed below:
$400,000 – Civic Center Master Plan – encumbered
$500,000 – Civic Center-Parking Structure-Conceptual Design - $237,048 is
expended/encumbered; $262,952 remaining.
$2,000,000 – Library Program Room Expansion Project (available this FY) -
$84,800 is encumbered; $1,915,200 is remaining
$2,200,000 – Initial Civic Center Project (2014-15)
$8,250,000 – Initial Civic Center Project (2015-16)
Environmental Review
An Initial Study will be prepared for the preferred plan and will be submitted at the
time of Council approval of the Civic Center Master Plan. To date, the Existing Setting
portion of the document has been drafted. The Initial Study will be completed after the
project description for the Master Plan is completed.
Sustainability Impact
This project will be designed to be consistent with City sustainability and
environmental policies and objectives.
_________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Katy Jensen, Capital Improvement Program Manager
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
List of Attachments
A – Chronology of Council Direction and Community Input Gathering
B – Civic Center Master Plan Costs Summary
C – City Hall Option A - Costs
D – City Hall Option B - Costs
E – City Hall Option C - Costs
631
- 9 -
F – City Hall Option D1 – Costs
G – City Hall Option D2 – Costs
H – City Hall Option E - Costs
I – City Hall Alternatives Study-Structural Evaluation
J – City Hall-MEP Systems Alternatives Study
K – Civic Center Master Plan Fact Sheet
L – Council Presentation
M – Precedent Examples of Recent City Halls
632
Chronology of Council Direction and Community Input Gathering
On December 18, 2012, Council received a presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan
Framework which laid out three very conceptual scenarios for a master plan for the
Civic Center. The Council provided direction to further develop the Civic Life plan of
the Framework, with a process that would include community outreach, a solution to
accommodate the demand for parking at the Civic Center, and consider financing
options for realization of the master plan. The Civic Life plan included a new
replacement City Hall and a new Community Center, with 150 space parking garage
beneath, at the north end of the civic center site.
In June 2013, Council approved the FY 2014 CIP budget which includes funding for the
Civic Center Master Plan project, conceptual design for a Civic Center parking garage,
and design for the expansion of the Library Story Room.
Following a thorough consultant selection process, on March 4, 2014, Council approved
an agreement with the architectural firm of Perkins+Will for the requisite planning and
design services.
Between March 24th and May 13th, 2014, the consultant met with Library stakeholders in
three sessions while developing options for a Library Program Room. Two options
were developed for the expansion of the Library to include a Program Room to seat up
to 100 people – 1) an expansion of the existing Story Room on the west wing, and, 2) an
extension of the east wing toward the south.
The consultant team participated in the Cupertino 2014 Earth Day festival on April 5th,
during which they conducted 140 participant surveys inquiring about sentiments about
the civic center site, including circulation at and around the site, parking, facilities, and
programs.
On April 7, 2014, a web-based community engagement site, entitled Imagine Cupertino
Civic Center, was activated to stimulate conversation about the civic center and collect
more user surveys. Notice of it was distributed during the Earth Day Festival and by
direct email notification to known interested residents and businesses. The initial
survey cycle ran through April. A second survey was posted in the last week of June
and ran through the end of July. The site engaged 89 active participants and 779 unique
visitors.
On May 14, 2014, a small group of stakeholders convened at the Senior Center for a
workshop. The participants included near neighbors of the Civic Center (resident and
business), members of the library community, teens, representatives from Commissions
ATTACHMENT A
633
(Library, Pedestrian & Bicycle, Information Technology), and the cricket players
community.
On July 7, 2014, Council conducted a Study Session, at which they were provided an
update on the status of the Civic Center Master Plan and Parking Garage project,
including an overview of the community outreach to that date. The consultant
presented three plan options for the Civic Center, including site program elements and
parking solutions. The plans were titled 1) On the Plaza, 2) Civic Garden, and 3) On the
Avenue, names expressing the emphasis or character of each plan. Council provided
staff with feedback on the presented options including that:
• option 3, On the Avenue, be dropped from further consideration, and
• the next community outreach activity, a community-wide workshop, be
advertised by direct mail to every address in the city, and
• staff report back to Council on the result of the community workshop.
Invitations to the community workshop were sent city-wide by direct mail and also by
email to city maintained lists, and were noticed by City TV and radio and by other
electronic means. On July 30, 2014, the community workshop was held with
approximately 60 attendees.
On August 19, 2014, an oral report and presentation was given to Council regarding the
comprehensive community outreach process for the Master Plan project, including the
summary of the community workshop on various elements of the Master Plan
alternatives. Council gave direction to staff to provide more information concerning the
alternatives for the City Hall, seeking more detail about functions and costs, and
consideration of renovating the existing city hall for improved functional use.
634
14
‐Oc
t
‐14
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ci
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
CC
M
P
Co
s
t
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
CI
T
Y
HA
L
L
PR
O
G
R
A
M
PR
O
J
E
C
T
CO
S
T
S
I
T
E
W
O
R
K
S
T
O
R
Y
RO
O
M
EX
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CO
S
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
OPTION STALLSPROJECT COST (Includes soft costs)
P1
‐
Be
l
o
w
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Fi
e
l
d
100 6,996,000 $24,355,816
NA
P2
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Ab
o
v
e
ground230 8,804,400 $26,164,216
P3
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Be
l
o
w
ground plus surface230 9,259,800 $26,619,616
P1
‐
Be
l
o
w
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Fi
e
l
d
100 6,996,000 $28,082,527
NA
P2
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Ab
o
v
e
ground230 8,804,400 $29,890,927
P3
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Be
l
o
w
ground plus surface230 9,259,800 $30,346,327
P1
‐
Be
l
o
w
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Fi
e
l
d
100 6,996,000 $36,910,102
NA
P2
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Ab
o
v
e
ground230 8,804,400 $38,718,502
P3
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Be
l
o
w
ground plus surface230 9,259,800 $39,173,902
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P1
‐
Be
l
o
w
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Fi
e
l
d
100 6,996,000 $48,808,001
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P2
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Ab
o
v
e
ground230 8,804,400 $50,616,401
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P3
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Be
l
o
w
ground plus surface230 9,259,800 $51,071,801
$3
3
,
8
1
8
,
0
5
7
P4
‐
Be
l
o
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
100 6,996,000 $47,305,280
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P1
‐
Be
l
o
w
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Fi
e
l
d
100 6,996,000 $45,725,378
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P2
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Ab
o
v
e
ground230 8,804,400 $47,533,778
$3
5
,
3
2
0
,
7
7
8
P3
‐
Be
h
i
n
d
Li
b
r
a
r
y
‐
Be
l
o
w
ground plus surface230 9,259,800 $47,989,178
$3
3
,
8
1
8
,
0
5
7
P4
‐
Be
l
o
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
100 6,996,000 $44,222,657
E ‐
Ne
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
wi
t
h
EO
C
+ Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
+
Un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
($
6
2
6
/
S
F
)
$4
0
,
4
7
1
,
4
1
6
$
3
,
4
0
8
,
6
0
0
L2
‐
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ha
l
l
se
r
v
e
s
as
th
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ro
o
m
NA
P
4
‐
Be
l
o
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
100 6,996,000 $50,876,016
5.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
s
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
ba
c
k
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
be
l
o
w
ne
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
in
P1
,
P2
an
d
P3
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
4.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
P2
an
d
P3
ad
d
10
0
ne
w
sp
a
c
e
s
an
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
13
0
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
23
0
sp
a
c
e
s
TOTAL CCMP COST
D ‐
Ne
w
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
wi
t
h
EO
C
($
6
4
6
/
S
F
)
CI
T
Y
HA
L
L
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
PR
O
G
R
A
M
$1
4
,
2
7
7
,
1
9
3
$1
8
,
0
0
3
,
9
0
4
$2
6
,
8
3
1
,
4
7
9
L1
‐
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
L1
‐
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
L1
‐
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
C ‐
Se
i
s
m
i
c
+ Li
f
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
+F
u
l
l
re
m
o
d
e
l
wi
t
h
EO
C
($
6
6
3
/
S
F
)
L2
‐
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ha
l
l
se
r
v
e
s
as
th
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ro
o
m
L1
‐
Li
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
STRUCTURED PARKING
$3
,
0
8
2
,
6
2
3
NO
T
E
S
2.
E
s
c
a
l
a
t
i
o
n
=
10
%
fo
r
ne
a
r
‐te
r
m
st
a
r
t
(a
p
p
r
o
x
.
st
a
r
t
in
1.
5
to
2y
r
s
)
3.
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
Co
s
t
=
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
25
%
of
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
1.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
= Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
+ Es
c
a
l
a
t
i
o
n
+ So
f
t
Co
s
t
B ‐
Se
i
s
m
i
c
+ Li
f
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
wi
t
h
EO
C
($
3
3
4
/
S
F
)
A ‐
Se
i
s
m
i
c
+ Li
f
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
($
3
3
4
/
S
F
)
$3
,
0
8
2
,
6
2
3
$3
,
0
8
2
,
6
2
3
$3
,
0
8
2
,
6
2
3
$3
,
4
0
8
,
6
0
0
NA
Th
e
ta
b
l
e
be
l
o
w
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
5 Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
.
Ea
c
h
of
th
e
s
e
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
ar
e
pa
i
r
e
d
wi
t
h
on
e
of
th
e
2 li
b
r
a
r
y
pr
o
g
r
a
m
ro
o
m
po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Bo
t
h
th
e
s
e
CC
M
P
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
ar
e
then matched with the 4 different parking structure solutions. The result is 18
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
CC
M
P
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
an
d
th
e
i
r
co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
co
s
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
.
Al
l
th
e
s
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
as
s
u
m
e
a ne
e
d
fo
r
10
0
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
at
th
e
Ci
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
.
ATTACHMENT B
63
5
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION A
October 9, 2014
Upgrade With Life Safety
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT C
636
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS OPTION A
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
Upgrade With Life Safety
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
637
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION
Architectural Report
Engineering narrative
Basis of Design
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
The project involves the renovation of an existing two story building:
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
Page 1638
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION A
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 10%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection costs- see summary for Allowance.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in estimate summary
Page 2639
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION A
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3640
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION A
AREA TABULATION
Upgrade With Life Safety
Location Enclosed Covered Height Comment
First Floor 12,500 0 17.50
Second floor 11,759 0 17.50
Third floor 0
Subtotal 24,259 SF 0 SF 35.00 LF
Covered Area @ 50%1,875 SF
TOTAL 26,134 SF
R
Page 4641
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION A
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
Upgrade With Life Safety 26,134 $335 $8,760,884
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 18 months $2,025,000
EOC Buildig Off site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $2,190,221
FFE Reuse existing NA
Construction contingency 10%$876,088
TOTAL including soft and hard
cost $14,277,193
Page 5
642
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:26,134
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 0.1%5,000 0.19
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
A SUBSTRUCTURE 0.1%5,000 0.19
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 10.1%545,851 20.89
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 4.6%247,070 9.45
30 ROOFING 12.4%673,586 25.77
B SHELL 27.1%1,466,507 56.11
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 6.7%364,905 13.96
20 STAIRS 0.5%26,134 1.00
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 10.6%573,626 21.95
C INTERIORS 17.8%964,665 36.91
10 CONVEYING 1.2%65,000 2.49
20 PLUMBING 0.4%20,000 0.77
30 HVAC 15.2%823,762 31.52
40 FIRE PROTECTION 0.3%18,294 0.70
50 ELECTRICAL 32.3%1,748,365 66.90
D SERVICES 49.4%2,675,421 102.37
10 EQUIPMENT
20 FURNISHINGS 0.1%5,000 0.19
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 0.1%5,000 0.19
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 3.3%180,209 6.90
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION 3.3%180,209 6.90
10 SITE PREPARATION 0.3%15,000 0.57
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1.8%100,000 3.83
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 2.1%115,000 4.40
DIRECT COSTS 100%5,411,802 207.08
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%162,354 6.21
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 9.0%487,062 18.64
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 6,061,218 231.93
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%151,530 5.80
FEE 7.0%424,285 16.23
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 6,637,033 253.96
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 20.0%1,327,407 50.79
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 7,964,440 304.75
ESCALATION to SEPT 2016 10.0%796,444 30.48
ESTIMATE TOTAL 8,760,884$ 335.23
Page 6643
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 Minimal work to slab on grade for plumbing 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
5
6
7 FOUNDATIONS 5,000 $0.19 / SF
8
9 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
10
11 No work
12
13
14 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
15
16 SUPERSTRUCTURE
17
18 Shear walls in upper 2,720 SF 80.00 217,600
19 Fiber Wrap cols 216 LF 200.00 43,200 INTERNAL
20 Fiber Wrap cols 416 LF 200.00 83,200 EXTENAL
21 Steel cols added on inside 18 EA 4,000.00 72,000 inside ext wall
22 Nailing to existing roof 8,200 SF 1.25 10,250
23 Col to roof, beam to shear wall connection
upgrades 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000 26 cols only
24 Steeel to wood , steelt to steel connections 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000
25
26 Misc metals 26,134 GSF 0.75 19,601
27
28
29 SUPERSTRUCTURE 545,851 $20.89 / SF
30
31 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
32
33 Exterior Walls
34
35 Above grade ext skin 6,264 SF 30.00 187,920 Allow
36 Windows 1,566 SF 25.00 39,150 Film only/repairs
37
38 Exterior Doors / Windows
39
40 Door upgrades 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000 Ext door hardware etc
41
42
43 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 247,070 $9.45 / SF
44
45 ROOFING
46
47 Metal sloped roofing 16,100 SF 30.00 483,000 Replace roof coverings
48 Parapet cladding 900 SF 45.00 40,500
49 Flat roofing 3,413 SF 22.00 75,086
50
51 Roof screens 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000
52 Skylights NA
53
54
55 ROOFING 673,586 $25.77 / SF
Page 7644
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
56
57 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
58
59 Interior Partitions
60
61 Partition repairs inconnection with seismic work 15 LOC 4,000.00 60,000 Walls
62 Partition repairs in connection with seismic work 30 LOC 4,000.00 120,000 Cols
63
64 Bracing partitions 26,134 SF 2.50 65,335 Bracing top of partitions
65
66 Repairs to drywall for new electrical outtlets outlets 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
67
68 Interior Doors
69
70 Door upgrades for ADA 1 LS 6,000.00 6,000
71
72 Misc.
73
74 Signage upgrades 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
75 Other ADA upgrades 26,134 LS 0.75 19,601
76 Bathroom specialties etc.26,134 SF 0.50 13,067
77
78
79 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 364,905 $13.96 / SF
80
81 STAIRS
82
83 Interior stairs
84
85 Stair upgrades for ADA 26,134 SF 1.00 26,134
86
87
88 STAIRS 26,134 $1 / SF
89
90 INTERIOR FINISHES
91
92 Floor finishes
93
94 Floor protection 26,134 SF 0.75 19,601
95 New flooring in repairs only 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
96
97 Wall finishes
98
99 Painting to existing walls 26,134 SF 4.00 104,536
100 Misc. repairs 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
101 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
102
103 Ceiling finishes
104
105 New AT ceiling 26,134 SF 9.00 235,206 Gyp to remain
106 Misc. touch -up / repair 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
107
108 Misc.
109 Dust Protection 26,134 SF 1.10 28,747
110 Daily cleanup 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
111
112
113 INTERIOR FINISHES 573,626 $21.95 / SF
Page 8645
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
114
115 CONVEYING
116
117 Enlarge elevator and control upgrade 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
118
119
120 CONVEYING 65,000 $2.49 / SF
121
122 PLUMBING
123
124
125 Misc plumbing upgrades for ADA 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
126
127 Seismic bracing of plumbing 26,134 NA 0.75 Not required
128
129
130 PLUMBING 20,000 $0.77 / SF
131
132 HVAC
133
134 Air cooled chiller 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
135 New boiler in basement 1 LS 30,000.00 30,000
136 New pipe and pumps for chilled and hot water 1 LS 80,000.00 80,000
137 New 2 no AHU to basement level 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
138 Clean ductwork 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
139 Seismic bracing of HVAC 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
140 Sealing leakage and reinsulation 26,134 SF 2.20 57,495
141 Other Work 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
142
143 Demolition of existing HVAC 25,792 SF 1.60 41,267
144
145
146 HVAC 823,762 $31.52 / SF
147
148 FIRE PROTECTION
149
150 Sprinkler
151
152 Modify existing sprinklers in connection with other
work 26,134 GSF 0.70 18,294
153
154
155 FIRE PROTECTION 18,294 $0.7 / SF
156
157 ELECTRICAL
158
159 Distribution,connections,lighting etc 26,134 SF 44.00 1,149,896 All new electric system
160
161 Telephone/Data 26,134 SF 8.00 209,072
162
163 CATV 26,134 SF 1.50 39,201
164
165 Security Systems 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
166
167 Audio/Visual Systems 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
168
169 Fire Alarm 26,134 SF 3.40 88,856
Page 9646
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
170
171 Misc. Electrical 26,134 SF 5.00 130,670
172 Testing
173 Seismic bracing
174 Supervision
175 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
176 Non manual labor
177 Misc general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
178
179
180 ELECTRICAL 1,748,365 $66.9 / SF
181
182 EQUIPMENT
183
184
185 EQUIPMENT $0 / SF
186
187 FURNISHINGS
188
189 Window shades
190
191 Replace shades damaged 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
192
193
194 FURNISHINGS 5,000 $0.19 / SF
195
196 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
197
198 No work in this section
199
200
201 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
202
203 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
204
205 Architectural demolition
206
207 Ceiling system 26,134 SF 1.80 47,041
208 Flooring 3,000 SF 2.00 6,000 Selected areas
209 Partitions 26,134 SF 1.25 32,668
210 Exterior skin 2,500 SF 4.00 10,000
211 Roofing 19,500 SF 1.00 19,500
212
213 Existing furnishing etc. - removal by client
214
215 Structural demolition
216
217 Misc structural demo work 1 LS 45,000.00 45,000
218 Protection 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
219 Misc demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
220
221
222 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 180,209 $6.9 / SF
223
224 SITE PREPARATION
225
226 Misc demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
227 Protect existing paving and finishes 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
228
229
230 SITE PREPARATION 15,000 $0.57 / SF
Page 10647
Cupertino City Hall Upgrade With Life Safety
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Upgrade With Life Safety OPTION A GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
231
232 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
233
234 Misc site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000 Minimal improvements
235
236
237 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $3.83 / SF
238
239 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
240
241 Allow for minimal work 1 LS 30,000.00
242
243
244 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES $0 / SF
245
246 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
247
248 Allow for minimal work 1 LS 20,000.00
249
250
251 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES $0 / SF
252
253 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
254
255 No work in this section
256
257
258 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11648
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION B
October 9, 2014
Life Safety With EOC
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT D
649
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPTION B
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
Life Safety With EOC
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
650
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION
Documents:
Architectural Report Dated Sept 16,2014
PAE one page summary
Tipping Mar Narrative and sketches
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
The project involves the renovation of an existing two story building:
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
Page 1651
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION B
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 20%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection costs, or accomodations in construction for hazardous materials.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in the estimate -- see summary
Page 2652
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION B
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3653
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION B
AREA TABULATION
Life Safety With EOC
Location Enclosed Covered Height Comment
First Floor 12,500 0 17.50
Second floor 11,759 0 17.50
Third floor 0
Subtotal 24,259 SF 0 SF 35.00 LF
Covered Area @ 50%1,875 SF
TOTAL 26,134 SF
R
Page 4654
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION B
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
Life Safety With EOC 26,134 $441 $11,521,410
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 18 months $2,025,000
EOC Buildig ON site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $2,880,353
FFE Reuse existing NA
Construction Contingency 10% of direct cost $1,152,141
TOTAL including soft and hard
cost $18,003,904
Page 5
655
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:26,134
Life Safety With EOC
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 2.5%178,750 6.84
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 3.6%255,000 9.76
A SUBSTRUCTURE 6.0%433,750 16.60
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 11.8%844,451 32.31
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 9.2%658,570 25.20
30 ROOFING 9.7%693,586 26.54
B SHELL 30.6%2,196,607 84.05
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 5.1%364,905 13.96
20 STAIRS 0.4%26,134 1.00
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 8.0%573,626 21.95
C INTERIORS 13.4%964,665 36.91
10 CONVEYING 0.9%65,000 2.49
20 PLUMBING 0.6%39,601 1.52
30 HVAC 12.0%863,762 33.05
40 FIRE PROTECTION 0.5%39,201 1.50
50 ELECTRICAL 27.8%1,998,365 76.47
D SERVICES 41.9%3,005,929 115.02
10 EQUIPMENT
20 FURNISHINGS 0.1%5,000 0.19
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 0.1%5,000 0.19
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 3.3%235,209 9.00
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION 3.3%235,209 9.00
10 SITE PREPARATION 0.3%20,000 0.77
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1.4%100,000 3.83
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 1.4%100,000 3.83
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 1.7%120,000 4.59
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 4.7%340,000 13.01
DIRECT COSTS 100%7,181,160 274.78
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%215,435 8.24
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 8.0%574,493 21.98
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 7,971,088 305.01
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%199,277 7.63
FEE 7.0%557,976 21.35
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 8,728,341 333.98
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 20.0%1,745,668 66.80
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 10,474,009 400.78
ESCALATION 2 years to mid point 10.0%1,047,401 40.08
ESTIMATE TOTAL 11,521,410$ 440.86 total add-ons 60.44%
Page 6656
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Life Safety With EOC OPTION B GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 New CIP Concrete wall to footing
5
6 Shear wall to existing foundation 35 LF 1,500.00 52,500
7
8 Special foundations
9 pile cap and piles 1 LS 85,000.00 85,000 Two locations
10
11 Slab on grade 425 SF 35.00 14,875
12 Demo existing SOG 425 SF 15.00 6,375
13 Slab replacemnet for Utility lines 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
14
15
16 FOUNDATIONS 178,750 $6.84 / SF
17
18 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
19
20 Shear walls in basement 2,550 SF 100.00 255,000
21
22
23 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 255,000 $9.76 / SF
24
25 SUPERSTRUCTURE
26
27 Shear walls in upper 2,720 SF 80.00 217,600
28
29 Upper Floor
30 Fiber Wrap cols 216 LF 200.00 43,200 INTERNAL
31 Fiber Wrap cols 416 LF 200.00 83,200 EXTENAL
32 Steel cols added on inside 18 EA 4,000.00 72,000 inside ext wall
33 Nailing to existing roof 8,200 SF 1.25 10,250
34 3/4" plywood 16,100 SF 6.00 96,600
35 Simpson Straps 1 NA 10,000.00 10,000
36 New nailing and blocking to flat roof 3,413 SF 5.00 17,065
37 Col to roof, beam to shear wall connection
upgrades 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000 26 cols only colonade to roof
38 Steel to wood , steelt to steel connections 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000 30 cols
39 Structural upgrade to roof for new mech
equipment 1 LS 90,000.00 90,000
40 Misc. metals 26,134 GSF 4.00 104,536
41
42 C2 Premium
43 Form new openings in concrete floor 1 NA 35,000.00
44 Infill beams 150 NA 200.00 Allowance
45 Opening in roof 1 NA 25,000.00
46
47 See demolition for holes shafts etc
48
49
50 SUPERSTRUCTURE 844,451 $32.31 / SF
51
52 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
53
54 Exterior Walls
55
56 Above grade ext skin 6,264 SF 75.00 469,800 Allow for all new
57 Windows 1,566 SF 95.00 148,770 New Windows
Page 7657
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Life Safety With EOC OPTION B GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
58
59 Exterior Doors
60
61 New doors 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000 Exterior
62
63
64 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 658,570 $25.2 / SF
65
66 ROOFING
67
68 Metal sloped roofing 16,100 SF 30.00 483,000
69 Parapet cladding 900 SF 45.00 40,500
70 Flat roofing 3,413 SF 22.00 75,086
71
72 New mechanical pad on roof 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
73
74 Roof screens 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000
75 Skylights 1 NA 200,000.00 C2
76
77
78 ROOFING 693,586 $26.54 / SF
79
80 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
81
82 Interior Partitions
83
84 Partition repairs inconnection with seismic work 15 LOC 4,000.00 60,000
85 Partition repairs in connection with seismic work 30 LOC 4,000.00 120,000
86
87 Bracing partitions 26,134 SF 2.50 65,335
88
89 Repairs to drywall for new electrical outtlets outlets 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
90
91 Interior Doors
92
93 Door upgrades for ADA 1 LS 6,000.00 6,000
94
95 Misc.
96
97 Signage upgrades 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
98 Other ADA upgrades 26,134 LS 0.75 19,601
99 Bathroom specialties etc.26,134 SF 0.50 13,067
100
101
102 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 364,905 $13.96 / SF
103
104 STAIRS
105
106 Interior stairs
107
108 Stair upgrades for ADA 26,134 SF 1.00 26,134
109
110
111 STAIRS 26,134 $1 / SF
Page 8658
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Life Safety With EOC OPTION B GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
112
113 INTERIOR FINISHES
114
115 Floor finishes
116
117 Floor protection 26,134 SF 0.75 19,601
118 New flooring in repairs only 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
119
120 Wall finishes
121
122 Painting to existing walls 26,134 SF 4.00 104,536
123 Misc. repairs 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
124 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
125
126 Ceiling finishes
127
128 New AT ceiling 26,134 SF 9.00 235,206
129 Misc. touch -up / repair 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
130
131 Misc.
132 Dust Protection 26,134 SF 1.10 28,747
133 Daily cleanup 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
134
135
136 INTERIOR FINISHES 573,626 $21.95 / SF
137
138 CONVEYING
139
140 Enlarge elevator and control upgrade 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
141
142
143 CONVEYING 65,000 $2.49 / SF
144
145 PLUMBING
146
147 Misc plumbing upgrades for ADA 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
148
149 Seismic bracing of plumbing 26,134 SF 0.75 19,601
150
151
152 PLUMBING 39,601 $1.52 / SF
153
154 HVAC
155
156 Air cooled chiller 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
157 New boiler in basement 1 LS 30,000.00 30,000
158 New pipe and pumps for chilled and hot water 1 LS 80,000.00 80,000
159 New 2 no AHU to basement level 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
160 Clean ductwork 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
161 Sealing leakage and reinsulation 26,134 SF 2.20 57,495
162 Seismic bracing of HVAC 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
163 Other Work 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
164 Added cost for EOC reliability 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000
165 Demolition of existing HVAC 25,792 SF 1.60 41,267
166 Added cost of seismic and flex connectios
related to EOC 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000
167
168
169 HVAC 863,762 $33.05 / SF
Page 9659
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Life Safety With EOC OPTION B GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
170
171 FIRE PROTECTION
172
173 Sprinkler
174
175 Sprinkler system adjustmnet of heads and seismic
bracig 26,134 GSF 1.50 39,201
176
177
178 FIRE PROTECTION 39,201 $1.5 / SF
179
180 ELECTRICAL
181
182 Distribution ,connections, lighting etc 26,134 SF 44.00 1,149,896 All new electrical system
183
184 Telephone/Data 26,134 SF 8.00 209,072
185
186 CATV 26,134 SF 1.50 39,201
187
188 Security Systems 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
189
190
191 Audio/Visual Systems 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
192
193 Fire Alarm 26,134 SF 3.40 88,856
194
195 Misc. Electrical 26,134 SF 5.00 130,670
196 Testing
197 Seismic bracing
198 Supervision
199 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
200 Non manual labor
201 Misc general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
202 New Emergency generator 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
203
204
205 ELECTRICAL 1,998,365 $76.47 / SF
206
207 EQUIPMENT
208
209 Eqipment allowance 1 NA 75,000.00 Kitchen
210
211
212 EQUIPMENT $0 / SF
213
214 FURNISHINGS
215
216 Replace shades damaged 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
217
218
219 FURNISHINGS 5,000 $0.19 / SF
220
221 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
222
223 No work in this section
224
225
226 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 10660
Cupertino City Hall Life Safety With EOC
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Life Safety With EOC OPTION B GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
227
228 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
229
230 Ceiling system 26,134 SF 1.80 47,041
231 Flooring 3,000 SF 2.00 6,000
232 Partitions 26,134 SF 1.25 32,668
233 Exterior skin 2,500 SF 4.00 10,000
234 Roofing 19,500 SF 1.00 19,500
235
236 Existing furnishing etc. - removal by client
237
238 Structural demolition Hioles and openings
239
240 Misc structural demo work 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
241
242 Protection 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
243 Misc demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
244
245
246 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 235,209 $9 / SF
247
248 SITE PREPARATION
249
250 Misc. demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
251 Protect existing paving and finishes 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
252
253
254 SITE PREPARATION 20,000 $0.77 / SF
255
256 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
257
258 Misc. site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
259
260
261 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $3.83 / SF
262
263 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
264
265 Allowance for revisions and hook ups 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
266
267
268 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 100,000 $3.83 / SF
269
270 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
271
272 Allow for electrical utilities and site lighting 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000
273
274
275 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 120,000 $4.59 / SF
276
277 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
278
279 No work in this section
280
281
282 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11661
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION C
October 9, 2014
Gut and Remodel
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT E
662
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPTION C
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
Gut and Remodel
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
663
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION C
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION
Documents:
Architectural Report Dated Sept 16,2014
PAE one page summary
Tipping Mar Narrative and sketches
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
The project involves the renovation of an existing two story building:
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
Page 1664
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION C
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 15%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection cost- see sumary for allowance.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in the estimate -- see summary
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
Page 2665
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION C
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3666
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION C
AREA TABULATION
Gut and Remodel
Location Enclosed Covered Height Comment
First Floor 12,500 0 17.50
Second floor 11,759 0 17.50
Third floor 0
Subtotal 24,259 SF 0 SF 35.00 LF
Covered Area @ 50%1,875 SF
TOTAL 26,134 SF
R
Page 4667
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION C
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
Gut and Remodel 26,134 $663 $17,333,180
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 24 months $2,700,000
EOC Buildig ON site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $4,333,295
FFE All New $25/SF $653,350
Construction Contingency 8% of direct cost $1,386,654
TOTAL including soft and hard
cost $26,831,479
Page 5
668
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:26,134
Gut and Remodel
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 1.7%178,750 6.84
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 2.4%255,000 9.76
A SUBSTRUCTURE 4.0%433,750 16.60
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 8.7%934,451 35.76
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 6.1%658,570 25.20
30 ROOFING 893,586 34.19
B SHELL 23.1%2,486,607 95.15
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 17.1%1,848,203 70.72
20 STAIRS 1.1%120,000 4.59
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 8.1%872,768 33.40
C INTERIORS 26.3%2,840,971 108.71
10 CONVEYING 1.4%150,000 5.74
20 PLUMBING 2.9%313,608 12.00
30 HVAC 11.6%1,254,432 48.00
40 FIRE PROTECTION 1.3%143,737 5.50
50 ELECTRICAL 18.5%1,998,365 76.47
D SERVICES 35.8%3,860,142 147.71
10 EQUIPMENT 0.7%75,000 2.87
20 FURNISHINGS 2.3%250,000 9.57
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 3.0%325,000 12.44
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 4.6%496,676 19.00
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION 4.6%496,676 19.00
10 SITE PREPARATION 0.2%20,000 0.77
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0.9%100,000 3.83
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 0.9%100,000 3.83
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 1.1%120,000 4.59
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 3.2%340,000 13.01
DIRECT COSTS 100%10,783,146 412.61
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%323,494 12.38
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 8.0%862,652 33.01
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 11,969,292 458.00
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%299,232 11.45
FEE 7.0%837,850 32.06
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 13,106,374 501.51
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15.0%1,965,956 75.23
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 15,072,330 576.73
ESCALATION 3 years to mid point 15.0%2,260,850 86.51
ESTIMATE TOTAL 17,333,180$ 663.24 total add-ons 60.74%
Page 6669
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Gut and Remodel OPTION C GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 New CIP Concrete wall to footing
5
6 Shear wall to existing foundation 35 LF 1,500.00 52,500
7
8 Special foundations
9 pile cap and piles 1 LS 85,000.00 85,000 Two locations
10
11 Slab on grade 425 SF 35.00 14,875
12 Demo existing SOG 425 SF 15.00 6,375
13 Slab replacemnet for Utility lines 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
14
15
16 FOUNDATIONS 178,750 $6.84 / SF
17
18 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
19
20 Shear walls in basement 2,550 SF 100.00 255,000
21
22
23 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 255,000 $9.76 / SF
24
25 SUPERSTRUCTURE
26
27 Shear walls in upper 2,720 SF 80.00 217,600
28
29 Upper Floor
30 Fiber Wrap cols 216 LF 200.00 43,200 INTERANL
31 Fiber Wrap cols 416 LF 200.00 83,200 EXTENAL
32 Steel cols added on inside 18 EA 4,000.00 72,000 inside ext wall
33 Nailing to existing roof 8,200 SF 1.25 10,250
34
35 3/4" plywood 16,100 SF 6.00 96,600
36 Simpson Straps 1 NA 10,000.00 10,000
37 New nailing and blocking to flat roof 3,413 SF 5.00 17,065
38 Col to roof, beam to shear wall connection
upgrades 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000 26 cols only colonade to roof
39 Steeel to wood , steelt to steel connections 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000 30 cols
40 Structural upgrade to roof for new mech
equipment 1 LS 90,000.00 90,000
41 Misc. metals 26,134 GSF 4.00 104,536
42
43 C2 Premium
44 Form new openings in concrete floor 1 Loc 35,000.00 35,000 90,000
45 Infill beams 150 LF 200.00 30,000 Allowance
46 Opening in roof 1 Loc 25,000.00 25,000
47
48 See demolition for holes shafts etc
49
50
51 SUPERSTRUCTURE 934,451 $35.76 / SF
52
53 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
54
55 Exterior Walls
56
57 Above grade ext skin 6,264 SF 75.00 469,800 Allow for all new
58 Windows 1,566 SF 95.00 148,770 New Windows
Page 7670
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Gut and Remodel OPTION C GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
59
60 Exterior Doors
61
62 New doors 1 LS 40,000.00 40,000 Exterior
63
64
65 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 658,570 $25.2 / SF
66
67 ROOFING
68
69 Metal sloped roofing 16,100 SF 30.00 483,000
70 Parapet cladding 900 SF 45.00 40,500
71 Flat roofing 3,413 SF 22.00 75,086
72
73 New mechanical pad on roof 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
74
75 Roof screens 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000
76 Skylights 1 Loc 200,000.00 200,000 C2
77
78
79 ROOFING 893,586 $34.19 / SF
80
81 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
82
83 Interior Partitions
84 New interior partitions and doors and specialties 26,134 SF 50.00 1,306,700
106
107 C2 Premium
108 Inerior lightwell
109 Walling 3,000 SF 85.00 255,000 Glass and drywall
110
111
112 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 1,848,203 $70.72 / SF
113
114 STAIRS
115
116 Interior stairs
117
118 New staiirs main entry 1 FLT 60,000.00 60,000
119 New staiirs others 2 FLT 30,000.00 60,000
120
121
122 STAIRS 120,000 $4.59 / SF
123
124 INTERIOR FINISHES
125
126 Floor finishes
127 Floor protection 26,134 SF 1.00 26,134
128 Patching flooring 26,134 SF 0.40 10,454
129
130 New Flooring 21,634 SF 7.00 151,438 Carpet
131 Special flooring 4,500 SF 24.00 108,000 CT etc
132
133 Wall finishes
134
135 Painting to existing walls 26,134 SF 4.00 104,536
136 Misc. repairs 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
137 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
138 Special wall finishes 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
Page 8671
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Gut and Remodel OPTION C GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
139
140 Ceiling finishes
141
142 New AT ceiling 23,134 SF 9.00 208,206
143 Drywall ceiliing 3,000 SF 16.00 48,000
144 Bulkheads 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
145
146 Misc.
147 Finishes not defined 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
148
149
150 INTERIOR FINISHES 872,768 $33.4 / SF
151
152 CONVEYING
153
154 New elevator and control Two stops 1 LS 150,000.00 150,000
155
156
157 CONVEYING 150,000 $5.74 / SF
158
159 PLUMBING
160
161 New plumbing system complete 26,134 SF 12.00 313,608
162
163
164 PLUMBING 313,608 $12 / SF
165
166 HVAC
167
168 All New Mechanicl system VAV air based plus
reheat 26,134 SF 45.00 1,176,030
169
170 Demolition of existing HVAC 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
171
172
173 HVAC 1,254,432 $48 / SF
174
175 FIRE PROTECTION
176
177 Sprinkler
178
179 New sprinkler system 26,134 GSF 5.50 143,737
180
181
182 FIRE PROTECTION 143,737 $5.5 / SF
183
184 ELECTRICAL
185
186 Distribution ,connections, lighting etc 26,134 SF 44.00 1,149,896 All new electrical system
187
188 Telephone/Data 26,134 SF 8.00 209,072
189
190 CATV 26,134 SF 1.50 39,201
191
192 Security Systems 26,134 SF 2.00 52,268
193
194 Audio/Visual Systems 26,134 SF 3.00 78,402
195
196 Fire Alarm 26,134 SF 3.40 88,856
Page 9672
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Gut and Remodel OPTION C GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
197
198 Misc. Electrical 26,134 SF 5.00 130,670
199 Testing
200 Seismic bracing
201 Supervision
202 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
203 Non manual labor
204 Misc general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
205 New Emergency generator 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
206
207
208 ELECTRICAL 1,998,365 $76.47 / SF
209
210 EQUIPMENT
211
212 Eqipment allowance 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000 Kitchen
213
214
215 EQUIPMENT 75,000 $2.87 / SF
216
217 FURNISHINGS
218
219 Casework 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000 Reception desk built in furniture
220
221
222 FURNISHINGS 250,000 $9.57 / SF
223
224 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
225
226 No work in this section
227
228
229 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
230
231 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
232
233 Demo of floor wall and ceiing finishes 26,134 SF 8.00 209,072
234 Demo roofing 19,513 SF 1.00 19,513
235 Demo ext skin and windows 7,830 SF 3.00 23,490
236 Misc Demo 26,134 SF 0.75 19,601
237
238 Structural demolition
239
240 Misc. structural work 1 LS 200,000.00 200,000 Hioles and openings
241
242 Misc
243 Protection 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000
244 Misc. demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
245
246
247 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION 496,676 $19 / SF
248
249 SITE PREPARATION
250
251 Misc. demolition 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
252 Protect existing paving and finishes 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
253
254
255 SITE PREPARATION 20,000 $0.77 / SF
Page 10673
Cupertino City Hall Gut and Remodel
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
Gut and Remodel OPTION C GSF :26,134
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
256
257 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
258
259 Misc. site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
260
261
262 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $3.83 / SF
263
264 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
265
266 Allowance for revisions and hook ups 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
267
268
269 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 100,000 $3.83 / SF
270
271 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
272
273 Allow for electrical utilities and site lighting 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000
274
275
276 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 120,000 $4.59 / SF
277
278 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
279
280 No work in this section
281
282
283 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11674
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION D
October 9, 2014
New Construction
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT F
675
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPTION D
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
New Construction
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
676
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION
Documents:
Architectural Report Dated Sept 16,2014
PAE one page summary
Tipping Mar Narrative and sketches
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
The project involves the new construction of a two story building sitting on top of a one level parking structure
podium
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
( parking structure costs taken with the parking costs)
Page 1677
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 15%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-All Owner soft costs
-All professional fees and insurance
-Construction Manager Agency Costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection costs, or accomodations in construction for hazardous materials.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in the estimate -- see summary
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
Page 2678
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3679
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION D
AREA TABULATION
New Construction
Location Enclosed Perimeter Height Area Comment
SF SF
First Floor 17,500 700 16.00 11,200
Second floor 17,500 700 15.00 10,500
Third floor 0
Subtotal 35,000 SF 1,400 SF 31.00 LF 10,500.00
Covered Area @ 50%500 SF Allow
TOTAL 35,500 SF
R
Page 4680
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION D
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
New Construction 35,500 $646 $22,927,351
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 24 months $2,700,000
EOC Buildig ON site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $5,731,838
FFE All new $25/SF $887,500
Construction Contingency 5% or direct cost $1,146,368
TOTAL including soft and hard $33,818,057
Page 5
681
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:35,500
New Construction OPTION D
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 3.1%455,000 12.82
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 1.2%175,000 4.93
A SUBSTRUCTURE 4.3%630,000 17.75
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 12.2%1,771,800 49.91
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 12.1%1,753,700 49.40
30 ROOFING 6.0%866,750 24.42
B SHELL 30.2%4,392,250 123.73
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 12.2%1,775,000 50.00
20 STAIRS 0.8%120,000 3.38
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 9.0%1,314,750 37.04
C INTERIORS 22.1%3,209,750 90.42
10 CONVEYING 1.3%190,000 5.35
20 PLUMBING 2.9%426,000 12.00
30 HVAC 14.9%2,165,500 61.00
40 FIRE PROTECTION 1.3%195,250 5.50
50 ELECTRICAL 18.1%2,624,950 73.94
D SERVICES 38.6%5,601,700 157.79
10 EQUIPMENT 0.5%75,000 2.11
20 FURNISHINGS 1.7%250,000 7.04
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 2.2%325,000 9.15
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION
10 SITE PREPARATION
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0.7%100,000 2.82
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 1.0%150,000 4.23
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 0.8%120,000 3.38
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 2.5%370,000 10.42
DIRECT COSTS 100%14,528,700 409.26
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%435,861 12.28
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 8.0%1,162,296 32.74
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 16,126,857 454.28
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%403,171 11.36
FEE 5.0%806,343 22.71
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 17,336,371 488.35
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15.0%2,600,456 73.25
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 19,936,827 561.60
ESCALATION 3 years to mid point 15.0%2,990,524 84.24
ESTIMATE TOTAL 22,927,351$ 645.84 total add-ons 57.81%
Page 6682
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 Foundation allocation 17,500 SF 16.00 280,000
5 ( allocation of foundation costs and misc. items)
6
7 Special foundations NA
8
9 Slab on grade -- topping slab 17,500 SF 10.00 175,000 Including curbs etc.
10
11
12 FOUNDATIONS 455,000 $12.82 / SF
13
14 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
15
16 Shear walls for elevators etc.17,500 SF 10.00 175,000 Storage?
17
18
19 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 175,000 $4.93 / SF
20
21 SUPERSTRUCTURE
22
23 Floor & Roof Construction
24
25 Steel construction
26
27 Steel frame
28 Structural steel moment frame 310 T 4,000.00 1,240,000
29 Fireproofing NA
30 Metal deck
31 Floor 17,500 SF 4.15 72,625
32 Roof 17,500 SF 3.85 67,375
33 Concrete fill to metal deck, reinforced 35,000 SF 6.15 215,250
34 Slab edge closure NA incl above
35 Form openings in deck 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
36
37 Spray fireproofing to u/side of decks NA
38 Curbs at plumbing walls etc 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000
39
40 Miscellaneous
41
42 Allow for miscellaneous structural supports 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000 Pads etc
43 Structural supports to parapet 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
44 Allow for miscellaneous metals 35,500 SF 2.50 88,750
45 Fire stopping 1,600 LF 18.00 28,800
46
47
48 SUPERSTRUCTURE 1,771,800 $49.91 / SF
49
50 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
51
52 Exterior Walls
53
54 Above grade ext skin 12,920 SF 80.00 1,033,600
55 Windows 3,230 SF 95.00 306,850
56
57 Soffits 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
58 Fins and louvers 1 LS 200,000.00 200,000
59
60 Misc
61 Caulking joints etc 35,500 SF 1.50 53,250
Page 7683
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
62
63 Exterior Doors
64
65 New doors 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000
66
67
68 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 1,753,700 $49.4 / SF
69
70 ROOFING
71
72 Metal sloped roofing 16,125 SF 30.00 483,750
73
74 Flat roofing 4,000 SF 22.00 88,000
75
76 New mechanical pads on roof 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
77
78
79 Roof screens 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000
80 Skylights 1 Loc 200,000.00 200,000
81
82
83 ROOFING 866,750 $24.42 / SF
84
85 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
86
87 Interior Partitions
88 New interior partitions and doors and specialties 35,500 SF 50.00 1,775,000
89
90
91 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 1,775,000 $50 / SF
92
93 STAIRS
94
95 Interior stairs
96
97 New stairs main entry 1 FLT 60,000.00 60,000
98 New stairs others 2 FLT 30,000.00 60,000
99
100
101 STAIRS 120,000 $3.38 / SF
102
103 INTERIOR FINISHES
104
105 Floor finishes
106 Floor protection 35,500 SF 1.00 35,500 528,750
107 Vapor retarder 35,500 SF 4.50 159,750
108 New Flooring 30,500 SF 7.00 213,500 Carpet
109 Special flooring 5,000 SF 24.00 120,000 CT etc
110
111 Wall finishes
112
113 Painting to walls 35,500 SF 4.00 142,000 263,000
114 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
115 Special wall finishes 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
116
117 Ceiling finishes
118 405,500
119 New AT ceiling 32,500 SF 9.00 292,500
120 Drywall ceiling 3,000 SF 16.00 48,000
121 Bulkheads 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
122 Special ceilings 3,250 SF 30.00 97,500
Page 8684
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
123
124 Misc.
125 Finishes not defined 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
126
127
128 INTERIOR FINISHES 1,314,750 $37.04 / SF
129
130 CONVEYING
131
132 New elevator and control three stops 1 LS 190,000.00 190,000
133
134
135 CONVEYING 190,000 $5.35 / SF
136
137 PLUMBING
138
139 New plumbing system complete 35,500 SF 12.00 426,000
140
141
142 PLUMBING 426,000 $12 / SF
143
144 HVAC
145
146 All New Mechanical system VAV air based plus
reheat 35,500 SF 45.00 1,597,500
147
148 Premium f or geothermal system 35,500 SF 16.00 568,000
149
150
151 HVAC 2,165,500 $61 / SF
152
153 FIRE PROTECTION
154
155 Sprinkler
156
157 New sprinkler system 35,500 GSF 5.50 195,250
158
159
160 FIRE PROTECTION 195,250 $5.5 / SF
161
162 ELECTRICAL
163
164 Distribution ,connections, lighting etc.35,500 SF 44.00 1,562,000 All new electrical system
165
166 Telephone/Data 35,500 SF 8.00 284,000
167
168 CATV 35,500 SF 1.50 53,250
169
170 Security Systems 35,500 SF 2.00 71,000
171
172 Audio/Visual Systems 35,500 SF 3.00 106,500
173
174 Fire Alarm 35,500 SF 3.40 120,700
Page 9685
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
175
176 Misc. Electrical 35,500 SF 5.00 177,500
177 Testing
178 Seismic bracing
179 Supervision
180 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
181 Non manual labor
182 Misc. general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
183 New emergency generator 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
184
185
186 ELECTRICAL 2,624,950 $73.94 / SF
187
188 EQUIPMENT
189
190 Equipment allowance 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000 Kitchen
191
192
193 EQUIPMENT 75,000 $2.11 / SF
194
195 FURNISHINGS
196
197 Casework 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
198
199
200 FURNISHINGS 250,000 $7.04 / SF
201
202 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
203
204 No work in this section
205
206
207 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
208
209 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
210
211 Demolition included within sitework costs see sitework costs
212
213
214 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 / SF
215
216 SITE PREPARATION
217
218 Site preparation included within sitework costs see sitework costs
219
220
221 SITE PREPARATION $0 / SF
222
223 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
224
225 Misc. site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000 SITEWORK WITH BLDG
226
227
228 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $2.82 / SF
229
230 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
231
232 Allowance for revisions and hook ups 1 LS 150,000.00 150,000
233
234
235 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 150,000 $4.23 / SF
Page 10686
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
236
237 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
238
239 Allow for electrical utilities and site lighting 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000
240
241
242 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 120,000 $3.38 / SF
243
244 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
245
246 No work in this section
247
248
249 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11687
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION D
October 9, 2014
New Construction
No Underground Parking
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT G
688
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPTION D
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
New Construction
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
689
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Documents:
Architectural Report Dated Sept 16,2014
PAE one page summary
Tipping Mar Narative and sketches
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
The project involves the new construction of a two story building assuming parking is elsewhere on the site
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
(parking structure costs taken with the parking costs)
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Page 1690
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 15%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-All Owner soft costs
-All professional fees and insurance
-Construction Manager Agency Costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection costs, or accomodations in construction for hazardous materials.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in the estimate -- see summary
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
Page 2691
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION D
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3692
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION D NO PARKING
AREA TABULATION
New Construction
Location Enclosed Perimeter Height Area Comment
SF SF
First Floor 17,500 700 16.00 11,200
Second floor 17,500 700 15.00 10,500
Third floor 0
Subtotal 35,000 SF 1,400 SF 31.00 LF 10,500.00
Covered Area @ 50%500 SF Allow
TOTAL 35,500 SF
R
Page 4693
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION D NO PARKING
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
New Construction 35,500 $678 $24,083,290
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 24 months $2,700,000
EOC Buildig ON site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $6,020,823
FFE $887,500
Construction Contingency 5% or direct cost $1,204,165
TOTAL including soft and hard $35,320,778
Page 5
694
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:35,500
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 5.2%787,500 22.18
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 1.1%175,000 4.93
A SUBSTRUCTURE 6.3%962,500 27.11
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 11.6%1,771,800 49.91
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 11.5%1,753,700 49.40
30 ROOFING 5.7%866,750 24.42
SHELL 28.8%4,392,250 123.73
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 11.6%1,775,000 50.00
20 STAIRS 0.8%120,000 3.38
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 8.6%1,314,750 37.04
C INTERIORS 21.0%3,209,750 90.42
10 CONVEYING 1.2%190,000 5.35
20 PLUMBING 2.8%426,000 12.00
30 HVAC 14.2%2,165,500 61.00
40 FIRE PROTECTION 1.3%195,250 5.50
50 ELECTRICAL 17.2%2,624,950 73.94
D SERVICES 36.7%5,601,700 157.79
10 EQUIPMENT 0.5%75,000 2.11
20 FURNISHINGS 1.6%250,000 7.04
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 2.1%325,000 9.15
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION
10 SITE PREPARATION 2.6%400,000 11.27
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0.7%100,000 2.82
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 1.0%150,000 4.23
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 0.8%120,000 3.38
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 5.0%770,000 21.69
DIRECT COSTS 100%15,261,200 429.89
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%457,836 12.90
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 8.0%1,220,896 34.39
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 16,939,932 477.18
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%423,498 11.93
FEE 5.0%846,997 23.86
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 18,210,427 512.97
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15.0%2,731,564 76.95
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 20,941,991 589.92
ESCALATION 3 years to mid point 15.0%3,141,299 88.49
ESTIMATE TOTAL 24,083,290$ 678.40 total add-ons 57.81%
Page 6695
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 Foundation allocation 17,500 SF 35.00 612,500 no shared costs with parking
5 ( allocation of foundation costs and misc. items)
6
7 Special foundations NA
8
9
10 Slab on grade -- topping slab 17,500 SF 10.00 175,000 Including curbs etc.
11
12
13 FOUNDATIONS 787,500 $22.18 / SF
14
15 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
16
17 Shear walls for elevators etc.17,500 SF 10.00 175,000 Storage?
18
19
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 175,000 $4.93 / SF
21
22 SUPERSTRUCTURE
23
24 Floor & Roof Construction
25
26 Steel construction
27
28 Steel frame
29 Structural steel moment frame 310 T 4,000.00 1,240,000
30 Fireproofing NA
31 Metal deck
32 Floor 17,500 SF 4.15 72,625
33 Roof 17,500 SF 3.85 67,375
34 Concrete fill to metal deck, reinforced 35,000 SF 6.15 215,250
35 Slab edge closure NA incl above
36 Form openings in deck 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
37
38 Spray fireproofing to u/side of decks NA
39 Curbs at plumbing walls etc 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000
40
41 Miscellaneous
42
43 Allow for miscellaneous structural supports 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000 Pads etc
44 Structural supports to parapet 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
45 Allow for miscellaneous metals 35,500 SF 2.50 88,750
46 Fire stopping 1,600 LF 18.00 28,800
47
48
49 SUPERSTRUCTURE 1,771,800 $49.91 / SF
50
51 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
52
53 Exterior Walls
54
55 Above grade ext skin 12,920 SF 80.00 1,033,600
56 Windows 3,230 SF 95.00 306,850
57
58 Soffits 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
59 Fins and louvers 1 LS 200,000.00 200,000
60
61 Misc
62 Caulking joints etc 35,500 SF 1.50 53,250
Page 7696
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
63
64 Exterior Doors
65
66 New doors 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000
67
68
69 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 1,753,700 $49.4 / SF
70
71 ROOFING
72
73 Metal sloped roofing 16,125 SF 30.00 483,750
74
75 Flat roofing 4,000 SF 22.00 88,000
76
77 New mechanical pads on roof 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
78
79 Roof screens 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000
80
81 Skylights 1 Loc 200,000.00 200,000
82
83 ROOFING 866,750 $24.42 / SF
84
85 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
86
87 Interior Partitions
88 New interior partitions and doors and specialties 35,500 SF 50.00 1,775,000
89
90
91 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 1,775,000 $50 / SF
92
93 STAIRS
94
95 Interior stairs
96 New stairs main entry 1 FLT 60,000.00 60,000
97 New stairs others 2 FLT 30,000.00 60,000
98
99
100 STAIRS 120,000 $3.38 / SF
101
102 INTERIOR FINISHES
103
104 Floor finishes
105 Floor protection 35,500 SF 1.00 35,500 528,750
106 Vapor retarder 35,500 SF 4.50 159,750
107 New Flooring 30,500 SF 7.00 213,500 Carpet
108 Special flooring 5,000 SF 24.00 120,000 CT etc
109
110 Wall finishes
111 Painting to walls 35,500 SF 4.00 142,000 263,000
112 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
113 Special wall finishes 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
114
115 Ceiling finishes 405,500
116 New AT ceiling 32,500 SF 9.00 292,500
117 Drywall ceiling 3,000 SF 16.00 48,000
118 Bulkheads 1 LS 65,000.00 65,000
119 Special ceilings 3,250 SF 30.00 97,500
120
121 Misc.
122 Finishes not defined 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
123
124
125 INTERIOR FINISHES 1,314,750 $37.04 / SF
Page 8697
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
126
127 CONVEYING
128
129 New elevator and control three stops 1 LS 190,000.00 190,000
130
131
132 CONVEYING 190,000 $5.35 / SF
133
134 PLUMBING
135
136 New plumbing system complete 35,500 SF 12.00 426,000
137
138
139 PLUMBING 426,000 $12 / SF
140
141 HVAC
142
143 All New Mechanical system VAV air based plus
reheat 35,500 SF 45.00 1,597,500
144
145 Premium for geothermal system 35,500 SF 16.00 568,000
146
147
148 HVAC 2,165,500 $61 / SF
149
150 FIRE PROTECTION
151
152 Sprinkler
153
154 New sprinkler system 35,500 GSF 5.50 195,250
155
156
157 FIRE PROTECTION 195,250 $5.5 / SF
158
159 ELECTRICAL
160
161 Distribution ,connections, lighting etc.35,500 SF 44.00 1,562,000 All new electrical system
162
163 Telephone/Data 35,500 SF 8.00 284,000
164
165 CATV 35,500 SF 1.50 53,250
166
167 Security Systems 35,500 SF 2.00 71,000
168
169 Audio/Visual Systems 35,500 SF 3.00 106,500
170
171 Fire Alarm 35,500 SF 3.40 120,700
172
173 Misc. Electrical 35,500 SF 5.00 177,500
174 Testing
175 Seismic bracing
176 Supervision
177 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
178 Non manual labor
179 Misc. general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
180 New emergency generator 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
181
182 ELECTRICAL 2,624,950 $73.94 / SF
Page 9698
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
183
184 EQUIPMENT
185
186 Equipment allowance 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000 Kitchen
187
188
189 EQUIPMENT 75,000 $2.11 / SF
190
191 FURNISHINGS
192
193 Casework 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
194
195
196 FURNISHINGS 250,000 $7.04 / SF
197
198 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
199
200 No work in this section
201
202
203 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
204
205 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
206
207 Demolish existing building included in sitework costs
208
209
210 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 / SF
211
212 SITE PREPARATION
213
214 Infill basement 1 LS 400,000.00 400,000 no underground parking
215
216
217 SITE PREPARATION 400,000 $11.27 / SF
218
219 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
220
221 Misc. site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000 SITEWORK WITH BLDG
222
223
224 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $2.82 / SF
225
226 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
227
228 Allowance for revisions and hook ups 1 LS 150,000.00 150,000
229
230
231 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 150,000 $4.23 / SF
232
233 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
234
235 Allow for electrical utilities and site lighting 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000
236
237
238 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 120,000 $3.38 / SF
Page 10699
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION D NO PARKING GSF :35,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
239
240 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
241
242 No work in this section
243
244
245 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11700
Cupertino City Hall
Cupertino ,CA
OPTION E
October 9, 2014
New Construction
Prepared for:
111 Pine Street, Suite 1315 Perkins Will
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.981.9430 phone (main)
415.981.9434 facsmile San Francisco, CA
www.tbdconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT H
701
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPTION E
CONTENTS PAGE No.
Basis of Estimate 1
Key Criteria - Areas 4
Overall Summary 5
New Construction
Cost Summary 6
Detailed Estimate 7
702
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION E
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION
Documents:
Architectural Report Dated Sept 16,2014
PAE one page summary
Tipping Mar Narrative and sketches
MEETINGS
Meeting / ongoing discussions with Architect / design team
BASIS FOR PRICING
The project involves the new construction of a two story building sitting on top of a one level parking structure
podium
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's overhead and fees are based on a percentage of the total direct
costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor’s bond, insurance, site office overheads and profit.
This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low
bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared. Pricing
assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, which is to
mean a minimum of 3 bids for all subcontractors and materials/equipment suppliers. If fewer bids are solicited or
received, prices can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field
overhead, home office overhead and subcontractor’s profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 15% to
25% of the unit price depending on market conditions.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Site Requirement costs are calculated on a percentage basis.
General Contractor’s/Construction Manager's Jobsite Management costs are also calculated on a percentage
( parking structure costs taken with the parking costs)
Page 1703
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION E
CONTINGENCY
Design Contingency 15%
Construction Contingency N/A to be carried elsewhere in Owner's Budget
ESCALATION
EXCLUSIONS
-Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
-All Owner soft costs
-All professional fees and insurance
-Construction Manager Agency Costs
-
-Hazardous materials inspection costs, or accomodations in construction for hazardous materials.
-Overtime, 2nd shift and lost productivity premiums - except where specifically identified
-Construction or occupancy phasing (current assumption is a single construction phase in a vacated building)
-Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes and market conditions at time of bid
-Permits
The Design Contingency is carried to cover scope that lacks definition and scope that is anticipated to be added to
the Design. As the Design becomes more complete the Design Contingency will reduce.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as overtime, shift premiums and construction phasing are not
included in the line item unit price.
A Market Conditions Factor has not been included to reflect the current bidding climate where we should expect
multiple bids for each trade. An owners contingency has not been included in this construction cost estimate, but it
is advised that the owner carry additional contingency to cover scope change, claims and delays.
Site or existing condition survey investigation costs, including determination of subsoil conditions
This cost estimate is based on standard industry practice, professional experience and knowledge of the local
construction market costs. TBD Consultants have no control over the material and labor costs, contractors
methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore TBD Consultants
do not guarantee that the bids received will not vary from this cost estimate.
The Construction Contingency is carried to cover the unforeseen during construction execution and Risks that do
not currently have mitigation plans. As Risks are mitigated, Construction Contingency can be reduce, but should
not be eliminated.
Escalation has been included in the estimate -- see summary
Page 2704
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
BASIS OF ESTIMATE OPTION E
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate
Unforeseen existing conditions
Compression of planned construction schedule (current assumption is approx. 6 months+ duration)
Special requirements for site access, off-hour work or phasing activities
Sole source specifications for materials, products or equipment
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non-competitive bid conditions
Page 3705
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
KEY CRITERIA OPTION E
AREA TABULATION
New Construction
Location Enclosed Perimeter Height Area Comment
SF SF
First Floor 22,000 700 16.00 11,200
Second floor 22,000 700 15.00 10,500
Third floor 0
Subtotal 44,000 SF 1,400 SF 31.00 LF 10,500.00
Covered Area @ 50%500 SF Allow
TOTAL 44,500 SF
R
Page 4706
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
OVERALL SUMMARY OPTION E
GROSS FLOOR
AREA COST ($/SF)COST ($'s)
New Construction 44,500 $626 $27,872,243
Moving cost $200,000
Rental of interim space for 18
months
22,500 SF at $5/SF per month 24 months $2,700,000
EOC Buildig ON site NA
Hazmat abatement Allowance $225,000
Soft costs 25% of direct cost $6,968,061
FFE All new $25/SF $1,112,500
Construction Contingency 5% of direct cost $1,393,612
TOTAL including soft and hard $40,471,416
Page 5
707
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA Concept Development Phase
UNIFORMAT II SUMMARY Gross Square Feet:44,500
New Construction OPTION E
SECTION %$$ / SF COMMENTS
10 FOUNDATIONS 3.2%572,000 12.85
20 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 1.2%220,000 4.94
A SUBSTRUCTURE 4.5%792,000 17.80
10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 12.2%2,153,650 48.40
20 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 11.4%2,013,000 45.24
30 ROOFING 5.8%1,027,000 23.08
B SHELL 29.4%5,193,650 116.71
10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 12.6%2,225,000 50.00
20 STAIRS 0.7%120,000 2.70
30 INTERIOR FINISHES 9.3%1,636,250 36.77
C INTERIORS 22.5%3,981,250 89.47
10 CONVEYING 1.1%190,000 4.27
20 PLUMBING 3.0%534,000 12.00
30 HVAC 15.4%2,714,500 61.00
40 FIRE PROTECTION 1.4%244,750 5.50
50 ELECTRICAL 18.3%3,227,050 72.52
D SERVICES 39.1%6,910,300 155.29
10 EQUIPMENT 0.5%90,000 2.02
20 FURNISHINGS 1.8%325,000 7.30
E EQUIPMENT + FURNISHINGS 2.3%415,000 9.33
10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
20 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION
10 SITE PREPARATION
20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 0.6%100,000 2.25
30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 0.8%150,000 3.37
40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 0.7%120,000 2.70
50 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
G BUILDING SITEWORK 2.1%370,000 8.31
DIRECT COSTS 100%17,662,200 396.90
SITE REQUIREMENTS 3.0%529,866 11.91
JOBSITE MANAGEMENT 8.0%1,412,976 31.75
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 19,605,042 440.56
INSURANCE + BONDING 2.5%490,126 11.01
FEE 5.0%980,252 22.03
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 21,075,420 473.60
DESIGN CONTINGENCY 15.0%3,161,313 71.04
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY N/A Owner to carry
ESTIMATE SUB-TOTAL 24,236,733 544.65
ESCALATION 3 years to mid point 15.0%3,635,510 81.70
ESTIMATE TOTAL 27,872,243$ 626.34 total add-ons 57.81%
Page 6708
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION E GSF :44,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
1
2 FOUNDATIONS
3
4 Foundation allocation 22,000 SF 16.00 352,000
5 ( allocation of foundation costs and misc. items)
6
7 Special foundations NA
8
9 Slab on grade -- topping slab 22,000 SF 10.00 220,000 Including curbs etc.
10
11
12 FOUNDATIONS 572,000 $12.85 / SF
13
14 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION
15
16 Shear walls for elevators etc.22,000 SF 10.00 220,000 Storage?
17
18
19 BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION 220,000 $4.94 / SF
20
21 SUPERSTRUCTURE
22
23 Floor & Roof Construction
24
25 Steel construction
26
27 Steel frame
28 Structural steel moment frame 376 T 4,000.00 1,504,000
29 Fireproofing NA
30 Metal deck
31 Floor 22,000 SF 4.15 91,300
32 Roof 22,000 SF 3.85 84,700
33 Concrete fill to metal deck, reinforced 44,000 SF 6.15 270,600
34 Slab edge closure NA incl above
35 Form openings in deck 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
36
37 Spray fireproofing to u/side of decks NA
38 Curbs at plumbing walls etc 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000
39
40 Miscellaneous
41 Allow for miscellaneous structural supports 1 LS 27,000.00 27,000 Pads etc
42 Structural supports to parapet 1 LS 22,000.00 22,000
43 Allow for miscellaneous metals 44,500 SF 2.50 111,250
44 Fire stopping 1,600 LF 18.00 28,800
45
46
47 SUPERSTRUCTURE 2,153,650 $48.4 / SF
48
49 EXTERIOR CLOSURE
50
51 Exterior Walls
52
53 Above grade ext skin 15,000 SF 80.00 1,200,000
54 Windows 3,750 SF 95.00 356,250
55 Soffits 1 LS 110,000.00 110,000
56 Fins and louvers 1 LS 220,000.00 220,000
57
58 Caulking joints etc 44,500 SF 1.50 66,750
Page 7709
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION E GSF :44,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
59
60 Exterior Doors
61
62 New doors 1 LS 60,000.00 60,000
63
64
65 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 2,013,000 $45.24 / SF
66
67 ROOFING
68
69 Metal sloped roofing 21,300 SF 30.00 639,000
70
71 Flat roofing 4,000 SF 22.00 88,000
72
73 New mechanical pads on roof 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000
74
75 Roof screens 1 LS 80,000.00 80,000
76
77 Skylights 1 Loc 200,000.00 200,000
78
79
80 ROOFING 1,027,000 $23.08 / SF
81
82 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION
83
84 Interior Partitions
85 New interior partitions and doors and specialties 44,500 SF 50.00 2,225,000
86
87
88 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 2,225,000 $50 / SF
89
90 STAIRS
91
92 Interior stairs
93
94 New stairs main entry 1 FLT 60,000.00 60,000
95 New stairs others 2 FLT 30,000.00 60,000
96
97
98 STAIRS 120,000 $2.7 / SF
99
100 INTERIOR FINISHES
101
102 Floor finishes
103 Floor protection 44,500 SF 1.00 44,500 641,250
104 Vapor retarder 44,500 SF 4.50 200,250
105 New Flooring 39,500 SF 7.00 276,500 Carpet
106 Special flooring 5,000 SF 24.00 120,000 CT etc
107
108 Wall finishes
109
110 Painting to walls 44,500 SF 4.00 178,000 324,000
111 Finishes to columns 56 EA 1,000.00 56,000
112 Special wall finishes 1 LS 90,000.00 90,000
113
114 Ceiling finishes
115 511,500
116 New AT ceiling 41,500 SF 9.00 373,500
117 Drywall ceiling 3,000 SF 16.00 48,000
118 Bulkheads 1 LS 90,000.00 90,000
119 Special ceilings 4,150 SF 30.00 124,500
Page 8710
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION E GSF :44,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
120
121 Misc.
122 Finishes not defined 1 LS 35,000.00 35,000
123
124
125 INTERIOR FINISHES 1,636,250 $36.77 / SF
126
127 CONVEYING
128
129 New elevator and control three stops 1 LS 190,000.00 190,000
130
131
132 CONVEYING 190,000 $4.27 / SF
133
134 PLUMBING
135
136 New plumbing system complete 44,500 SF 12.00 534,000
137
138
139 PLUMBING 534,000 $12 / SF
140
141 HVAC
142
143 All New Mechanical system VAV air based plus
reheat 44,500 SF 45.00 2,002,500
144
145 Premium f or geothermal system 44,500 SF 16.00 712,000
146
147
148 HVAC 2,714,500 $61 / SF
149
150 FIRE PROTECTION
151
152 Sprinkler
153
154 New sprinkler system 44,500 GSF 5.50 244,750
155
156
157 FIRE PROTECTION 244,750 $5.5 / SF
158
159 ELECTRICAL
160
161 Distribution ,connections, lighting etc.44,500 SF 44.00 1,958,000 All new electrical system
162
163 Telephone/Data 44,500 SF 8.00 356,000
164
165 CATV 44,500 SF 1.50 66,750
166
167 Security Systems 44,500 SF 2.00 89,000
168
169 Audio/Visual Systems 44,500 SF 3.00 133,500
170
171 Fire Alarm 44,500 SF 3.40 151,300
Page 9711
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION E GSF :44,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
172
173 Misc. Electrical 44,500 SF 5.00 222,500
174 Testing
175 Seismic bracing
176 Supervision
177 Demolition - safe-off for demolition by others
178 Non manual labor
179 Misc. general requirements, trucks, safety etc.
180 New emergency generator 1 LS 250,000.00 250,000
181
182
183 ELECTRICAL 3,227,050 $72.52 / SF
184
185 EQUIPMENT
186
187 Equipment allowance 1 LS 90,000.00 90,000 Kitchen
188
189
190 EQUIPMENT 90,000 $2.02 / SF
191
192 FURNISHINGS
193
194 Casework 1 LS 325,000.00 325,000
195
196
197 FURNISHINGS 325,000 $7.3 / SF
198
199 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
200
201 No work in this section
202
203
204 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
205
206 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION
207
208 Demolition included within sitework costs
209
210
211 SELECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 / SF
212
213 SITE PREPARATION
214
215 Site preparation included within sitework costs
216
217
218 SITE PREPARATION $0 / SF
219
220 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
221
222 Misc. site improvements 1 LS 100,000.00 100,000
223
224
225 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 $2.25 / SF
226
227 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES
228
229 Allowance for revisions and hook ups 1 LS 150,000.00 150,000
230
231
232 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 150,000 $3.37 / SF
Page 10712
Cupertino City Hall New Construction
Cupertino ,CA NEW CONSTRUCTION Concept Development Phase
New Construction OPTION E GSF :44,500
REF DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UoM UNIT RATE TOTAL COMMENTS
233
234 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
235
236 Allow for electrical utilities and site lighting 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000
237
238
239 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 120,000 $2.7 / SF
240
241 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION
242
243 No work in this section
244
245
246 OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION $0 / SF
Page 11713
Cupertino City Hall Alternates Study
Structural Evaluation:
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Prepared By:Prepared For:
Tipping Mar Perkins + Will
1906 Shattuck Avenue 2 Bryant Street, #300
Berkeley, CA 94704 San Francisco, CA 94105
510.549.1906 tel | 510.549.1912 fax c/o City of Cupertino
TM Job No. 2014,094.00
September 29, 2014
ATTACHMENT I
714
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 2 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary
Five alternative options have been discussed for the future of the City Hall, with various degrees of
improvement, from performing the minimum amount of architectural remodel and structural
strengthening to a brand new replacement building with additional underground parking. The first
three options involve the seismic strengthening of the existing structure. This report will focus
primarily on those three options, evaluated under the reference standard ASCE41-13 “Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”.
The proposed strengthening scheme for Option A involves structural strengthening of the
building’s seismic force resisting system to satisfy a life safety performance objective and includes
minimal architectural remodeling. The limited level of seismic strengthening associated with this
option will require the emergency operations center (EOC) to be relocated to another location. As
part of this retrofit option, we have confirmed that the strengthening recommendations contained
in the “Cupertino City Hall Essential Services Facility Analysis”, dated March 27, 2012, could be
implemented. The only exception would be the concrete column strengthening could be less
intrusively achieved with the addition of new adjacent steel columns in lieu of fiber wrap. The new
steel columns would act as secondary support members in the event of seismic related damage to
the existing concrete columns. Seismic improvements would also include non-structural elements
such as suspended ceilings, partition walls, and glazing systems. These elements would require
bracing to seismically strengthen their connections and the replacement of any non-tempered
glazing.
The proposed strengthening scheme for Options B and C both involve retrofitting the existing city
hall to an immediate occupancy performance objective. This performance objective would allow
the EOC to be retained within the existing city hall building. Option B would involve less
architectural remodeling, whereas Option C would entail a complete architectural remodel. Option
C would allow for a new, large light court in the center of the building, thus requiring additional
structural modifications to both the roof and floor level gravity framing systems. Seismically, the
structural deficiencies for both of these options are the same as those for Option A above. All
options require strengthening the existing roof diaphragm, roof girder collector splice connections,
roof girder to shear wall connections, adding additional length of concrete shear wall from the first
floor level to the roof, strengthening the exterior colonnade connection to the roof framing, and
strengthening the existing concrete columns to withstand anticipated seismic displacements.
Options B and C will require a more extensive strengthening of these elements than Option A,
given the more stringent performance objective. As with Option A, non-structural elements will
also require strengthening. To achieve immediate occupancy, these element would have to be
designed to have only minimal, limited damage after a seismic event. This may be difficult to
achieve with the existing building materials to be retained in Option B. In Option C, these elements
will be constructed anew, and can be explicitly designed for an immediate occupancy performance
objective. Finally, it should be noted that any retrofit intended to achieve an immediate occupancy
performance objective will be met using prescriptive code methods that merely increased the force
level demands on seismic resisting elements. This prescriptive code based approach does not
necessarily assure that the performance goals of uninterrupted operation and immediate
occupancy will be met.
715
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 3 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
The construction of a new City Hall building, Options D and E, will offer the opportunity to design
both the building’s gravity and seismic force resisting systems for the specific performance
objective of immediate occupancy. Options A, B, or C, aim to strengthen the old building by
limiting damage to a structure that, even after a costly retrofit is undertaken, is still largely
constructed in an antiquated manner. A new City Hall can be constructed with the latest state of
the art seismic force resistance technologies, such as base isolation systems or passive energy
dissipation devices which will result in a facility that is more earthquake resilient than a
traditionally seismically retrofitted structure. Using state of the art, site specific, seismic modeling
techniques and ductile detailing practices a greater degree of certainty regarding seismic
performance can be intentionally built into the structure to assure that the city’s critical service
functions do not become interrupted after a large seismic event.
Existing City Hall ConstructionExisting City Hall ConstructionExisting City Hall ConstructionExisting City Hall Construction
The City Hall was originally built in the late 1960’s as a one-story building with a full basement.
The main roof is consisted of plywood sheathing over 3” tongue and groove decking over 6 and 8
inch timber beams. The timber roof beam are then supported by either steel or concrete girders.
The roof framing for the central mechanical well is consisted of plywood sheathing over 2 in timber
joists supported by steel beams. The central mechanical well is surrounded by 5’ tall wood framed
parapet. The main roof and the parapet are covered with clay roof tiles which represent a
significant portion of the current roof’s self weight and seismic mass. The structure was renovated
as part of the Civic Center Improvements project in the mid 1980’s. During the renovation, the
north side of the basement was excavated to create a concrete terrace, approximately 20 wide,
parallel to the building. Portions of the original north basement walls were removed to create new
storefronts. An additional 6 inches of shotcrete was added to the remaining north basement wall.
The current lateral force resisting system of the structure is 6 inch concrete shear walls above
grade and 12 and 18 inch concrete shear walls in the basement. Concrete slab, joists, and girders
make up the ground floor framing. Interior concrete columns extend from shallow pad footing
foundations to the roof level. Perimeter concrete columns are supported by the basement walls.
There is also a perimeter exterior colonnade framed with concrete columns and beams.
Structural Evaluation MethodologyStructural Evaluation MethodologyStructural Evaluation MethodologyStructural Evaluation Methodology
The materials reviewed were the 1965 Cupertino City Hall structural drawings, 1986 Cupertino City
Center Improvement architectural drawings, and the Cupertino City Hall Essential Services Facility
Analysis Report dated March 27, 2012.
The methodology used to evaluate the existing City Hall structure and the associated reftrofit
schemes were based on American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 41-13 “Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings” (ASCE 41-13). ASCE 41-13 is a nationally recognized Standard
that can be used as a tool to evaluate existing buildings and develop corresponding retrofit
schemes. Although the seismic evaluation and retrofit of the existing City Hall is voluntary and the
application of ASCE 41-13 is not mandatory, the use of this Standard is more appropriate than
design code CBC 2013 that is intended primarily for new building designs. ASCE 41-13 takes into
716
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 4 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
consideration of existing building’s material properties, construction details, expected structural
component and systems performance, and evaluates them against a selected Performance
Objective. The main focus of this study was to evaluate Options B and C at a Performance
Objective of Immediate Occupancy under a 20% probability of exceedance in 50 years seismic
hazard (Basic Safety Earthquake-1E). Options B and C are classified as a Risk Category IV Essential
Facility. A Linear Static Procedure was used for the evaluation and retrofit design. Soil Site Class D
was assumed as a geotechnical report was not available at this time.
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit RecommendationsSeismic Evaluation and Retrofit RecommendationsSeismic Evaluation and Retrofit RecommendationsSeismic Evaluation and Retrofit Recommendations
Retrofit Option ARetrofit Option ARetrofit Option ARetrofit Option A
The objective of Option A is to relocate the EOC to another facility and upgrade the City Hall to a
Life Safety Performance Objective under Basic Safety Earthquake-1E. Based on our findings from
the existing structure’s evaluations at the Immediate Occupancy Performance Objective level and
a review of the performance requirements at the Life Safety level, the recommended structural
retrofit would be one that is similar to the scheme proposed by AKH Structural Engineers in the
“Cupertino City Hall Essential Services Facility Analysis dated March 27, 2012.
As discussed earlier in the report, the existing concrete columns are susceptible to seismic damage
due to the limited amount and size of the confinement ties around the longitudinal reinforcement.
The lack of confinement ties can limit the column’s ductility, or ability to sway and remain
undamaged during a seismic event. This limited ductility could cause the column to lose its gravity
loading carrying capabilities and ability to provide continued support of the roof framing members.
The existing concrete columns should be either paired with secondary steel columns to provide
redundant gravity support capabilities or strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer to address
this deficiency. The exterior colonnade columns can be fiber wrapped with minimal interruptions
to other architectural elements. Where the wrapping activity may not be feasible, such as in areas
adjacent to exterior facades, supplemental steel 6x6 columns at the perimeter and steel 8x8
columns at the interior may be placed adjacent to the existing un-wrapped columns to serve as the
back-up gravity system.
To satisfy the Life Safety Performance Objective for non-structural components and systems, it is
likely a seismic safety film (designed to hold shattered glass in place) will need to be applied to any
existing non-safety, non-laminated annealed glass or the glazing panes themselves should be
replaced. Additional tie wires for suspended ceiling grids and additional bracing and anchorage for
interior partitions should be added to prevent extensive falling of ceiling tiles and wide spread
collapse of partition walls during an earthquake. Mechanical systems should also be provided with
a minimum level of seismic bracing, if not already in place, to prevent duct work and piping from
posing a falling hazard to occupants. Finally, new or existing roof mounted equipment should be
properly anchored to roof framing. This may, in some instances of heavy equipment, require
additional localized strengthening of the roof framing members themselves.
717
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 5 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Retrofit Options B and CRetrofit Options B and CRetrofit Options B and CRetrofit Options B and C
Evaluation of Structural ComponentsEvaluation of Structural ComponentsEvaluation of Structural ComponentsEvaluation of Structural Components
The main structural deficiencies for the existing City Hall are discussed below. These deficiencies
are common for both Options.
•Roof diaphragm shear capacity
•Roof collector splice capacity
•Collector to shear wall connection capacity
•Shear wall flexural capacity and seismic detailing
•Concrete column ductility
•Porch colonnade to roof connection
Recommendations for Structural StrengtheningRecommendations for Structural StrengtheningRecommendations for Structural StrengtheningRecommendations for Structural Strengthening
Roof Diaphragm Strengthening MeasuresRoof Diaphragm Strengthening MeasuresRoof Diaphragm Strengthening MeasuresRoof Diaphragm Strengthening Measures
The existing heavy clay roof tiles make up a significant portion of the existing roof’s self weight. As
the building’s seismic force demand is directly proportional to the self weight, it is recommended
that the existing clay roof tiles be removed and replaced with a lighter roofing material. Even with
the mass of the roof significantly reduced, the force demand on the roof diaphragm is near the
capacity limit state for a plywood diaphragm given the shear forces associated with an immediate
occupancy performance criteria.
As such, a new High Load Diaphragm will be required for the roof area outboard of the central
mechanical well. New 3/4” plywood will be provided over the existing 1/2” plywood and 3x tongue
and groove blocking with two rows of 10d nails @ 2 1/2” o.c. along diaphragm boundaries and
continuous panel edges, 4” o.c. at other panel edges, and 12” o.c. in field. The existing diaphragm at
the central mechanical well will be strengthened with 1 row of 10d nails @ 2” o.c. along diaphragm
boundaries and continuous panel edges, 3” o.c. at other panel edge, and 12” o.c. in field. New 4x6
blocking will be added at continuous panel edges perpendicular to joist framing direction.
Roof Level Collector Strengthening MeasuresRoof Level Collector Strengthening MeasuresRoof Level Collector Strengthening MeasuresRoof Level Collector Strengthening Measures
There are several types of collector connections at the roof level, all of which require strengthening
to increase their load carrying capacity. Where the existing roof diaphragm collectors are wide
flange steel roof beams, they are currently spliced to each other with machine bolts. Theses
splices will need to be strengthened with additional new splice plates and new welding as shown in
on Sheet S3, Detail 2, of the attached building retrofit drawings. Where existing roof collectors
occur at steel wide flange to wood girder locations, additional horizontal Simpson Holdowns or
CMST straps are required to strengthen the existing steel beam to timber girder connections, as
shown in Detail 1 of Sheet S3. The porch colonnade on the exterior perimeter of the building is
constructed of concrete beams and columns. The anchorage connections between these
718
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 6 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
beams/columns and the wood roof framing and diaphragm currently lacks a clear load path and
does not have adequate capacity. New connecting members should be installed to provide proper
anchorage between the colonnade and the roof diaphragm, as shown in Detail 4 of Sheet S3.
Finally, the collector connections anchoring the steel beams to the tops of the existing concrete
shear walls need to be strengthened. Additional anchor bolts will be added between existing shear
walls and collectors. New shear walls will also be connected to the existing steel roof beam
collectors with new anchor bolts.
Additional Concrete Shear WallsAdditional Concrete Shear WallsAdditional Concrete Shear WallsAdditional Concrete Shear Walls
Additional shear walls extending from foundations to roof should be added to provide
new/strengthened vertical seismic force resisting elements for the existing structure. The new
shear walls will typically be 12” thick concrete walls from the top of existing basement walls to the
underside of the roof and 6” thick concrete walls that are overlapped and connected to the face of
the existing basement walls with reinforcement dowels, as shown in Detail 3 of Sheet S3. Where
the wall length is limited at the north elevation within the basement level, two new new pile caps,
with two micro-piles at each cap, should be provided to increase the shear wall overturning
resistance along this line and protect the existing very lightly reinforced foundation from associate
seismic damage.
Strengthening the Existing Concrete ColumnsStrengthening the Existing Concrete ColumnsStrengthening the Existing Concrete ColumnsStrengthening the Existing Concrete Columns
The concrete columns are connected to all floor levels and to the roof. As such, they will deform as
they drift with the rest of the building during an earthquake. Bending moments and shear forces
will be induced in these columns as they sway with the building during a seismic event. The long
span and inherent flexibility of the wood roof diaphragm will also contribute to the anticipated
seismic roof drift making these under-reinforced columns very susceptible to seismic damage. The
existing concrete columns have limited confinement reinforcement ties around the longitudinal
reinforcements, as noted earlier in this report. Sufficient lateral ties are required in modern
building codes to properly confine the longitudinal bars and the concrete core in order for the
columns to continue carrying gravity loads when the columns are displaced. The lack of
confinement ties is likely to result in limited displacement ductility for the concrete column. The
existing columns are to be wrapped and strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer. Wrapping the
existing columns will increase the displacement ductility for gravity load carrying capacity.
Structural Alterations for Option CStructural Alterations for Option CStructural Alterations for Option CStructural Alterations for Option C
Additional gravity framing modifications also required for the installation of a large new light court
and for the relocation of the building’s elevator and stairs. Roof framing modifications such as new
wood headers, blocking, and strapping are required around the new roof opening. Modifications to
existing ground floor concrete framing will also be required to accommodate the new light court
and various relocated stairs and elevators. These modification will include new concrete beams to
support existing concrete joist framing that have had their existing support framing removed or
modified. Retrofit support of gravity framing members often requires precision chipping of existing
concrete surfaces, rebar coupling for reinforcment extensions, and welding of anchorage plates to
properly anchor the ends of existing concrete members to new concrete supports.
719
Cupertino City Hall Seismic Alternates Study September 29, 2014
Structural Evaluation Page 7 of 7
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Non-Structural Components and Systems for Options B and C Non-Structural Components and Systems for Options B and C Non-Structural Components and Systems for Options B and C Non-Structural Components and Systems for Options B and C
Existing anchorage and support details for the majority of the architectural, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing components are unknown. Additional as-built documents or site survey may be
required to assess the building’s non-structural components and systems conformance to the
Performance Objective. The Nonstructural Performance Level for an Essential Facility should
satisfy the ASCE 41-13 “Operational” Objective, where the nonstructural components and systems
are able to perform the same functions they provided before the earthquake. Per ASCE 41-13,
Tables C2-5 and C2-6, non-structural components, such as architectural, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing systems should have only negligible damage after a seismic event. There should be
no loss of function to exterior cladding panels and they should remain weather-tight. There should
not be any cracked or broken panes in the exterior glazing. There should only be negligible damage
to interior partitions and ceilings with no impact on occupancy and functionality. Elevators will
remain in operation. HVAC equipments, electrical distribution, and plumbing system remain
operational if emergency power and other utilities are provided. Fire alarm systems and
emergency lighting should remain operational. Ducts, fire suppression piping, and light fixtures
should have only negligible damage.
It is likely the exterior cladding and glazing system needs to be replaced with a new system that
can satisfy the Essential Facility performance objective. Anchorage and bracing for the existing
suspended ceiling and interior partitions will also need to be strengthened and upgraded. Similarly,
the same will apply to all of the existing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and emergency systems
if they remain. It may difficult to meet the operational performance objective for Option B where
the existing building systems where not intentionally designed to remain in operation with only
negligible damage after a major seismic event. Option C would allow these systems to be
explicitly designed to satisfy the operational performance objective. Finally, new or existing roof
mounted equipment should be properly anchored to roof framing. For moderate to heavy pieces of
equipment, additional localized strengthening of the roof framing members should be anticipated.
720
72
1
72
2
72
3
72
4
72
5
72
6
72
7
72
8
Cupertino City Hall:
MEP Systems
Alternatives Study
October 7, 2014
ATTACHMENT J
729
This page intentionally left blank.
730
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00 Cupertino City Hall Study i
Contents
1.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 OPTION A - UPGRADE CITY HALL WITH LIFE SAFETY .......................................................................... 1
2.1 Electrical ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Mechanical ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2.4 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.5 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 OPTION B - UPGRADE CITY HALL WITH LIFE SAFETY + EOC ............................................................... 2
3.1 Electrical ......................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Mechanical ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3.4 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 3
3.5 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 3
3.6 Floodplain Considerations.................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 OPTION C - GUT AND REMODEL CITY HALL ......................................................................................... 3
4.1 Electrical ......................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Mechanical ...................................................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................................ 4
4.4 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.5 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 4
4.6 Floodplain Considerations.................................................................................................................. 5
5.0 OPTION D - NEW CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT PARKING .......................................................... 5
5.1 Electrical ......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Mechanical ...................................................................................................................................... 5
5.3 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................................ 5
5.4 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 6
5.5 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 6
5.6 Floodplain Considerations.................................................................................................................. 6
6.0 OPTION E - NEW CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT PARKING + COUNCIL CHAMBERS ..................... 6
6.1 Electrical ......................................................................................................................................... 6
6.2 Mechanical ...................................................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................................ 6
6.4 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................. 6
6.5 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 6
6.6 Floodplain Considerations.................................................................................................................. 6
7.0 ENERGY BENCHMARKING .................................................................................................................... 6
731
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00 Cupertino City Hall Study ii
Project Directory
Owner City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-777-3200
Architect Project Architect
2 Bryant Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-856-3000
Karen Alschuler
Principal-in-Charge
Karen.Alschuler@perkinswill.com
Geeti Silwal, LEED AP BD+C
Associate Principal, Senior Project Manager
Geeti.Silwal@perkinswill.com
Mechanical PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc.
& Electrical 425 California Street, Suite 1200
Engineer San Francisco, CA 94104
415-544-7500
Mike Lucas, PE, LEED AP
Principal-in-Charge
michael.lucas@pae-engineers.com
Marco Alves, PE, LEED AP
Project Manager
marco.alves@pae-engineers.com
Harj Sidhu, PE, LEED AP
Electrical
harjot.sidhu@pae-engineers.com
Stuart Gregson, PE, LEED AP
Mechanical
stuart.gregson@pae-engineers.com
732
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 1
1.0 Project Description
This report is a follow up to the “Cupertino City Hall Essential Services Facility
Analysis” report produced on 3/27/2012 by Perkins + Will, AKH Structural Engineers,
and PAE. Refer to the 2012 report for details information on existing systems.
At this time the design team is considering 5 options for the city hall building:
1. Option A – Upgrade city hall with life safety
2. Option B – Upgrade city hall with life safety + EOC
3. Option C – Gut and remodel city hall
4. Option D – New city hall building with basement parking
5. Option E – New city hall building with basement parking + council chambers
The following sections outline the Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing implications
of each of the above options. TBD Consultants has been engaged to provide cost
estimates of each of these options.
2.0 OPTION A - UPGRADE CITY HALL WITH LIFE SAFETY
2.1 Electrical
Existing Electrical equipment including Main Switchboard, panelboards, etc. are all
well past their useful life. Replace all Electrical distribution equipment.
Existing wiring to be removed and new wiring to be pulled through new conduit.
Upgrade Fire Alarm to meet the latest Life Safety requirements.
Provide new lighting fixtures to meet the latest T24 requirements. Emergency
power for egress fixtures, via local battery packs.
2.2 Mechanical
Demo existing 70-ton, 1986 vintage water cooled chiller in lower level mechanical
room.
Demo existing 70-ton, closed circuit, 1986 vintage rooftop cooling tower.
Demo 1965 vintage gas fired non-condensing boiler in lower level mechanical room.
Demo lower level 1986 vintage VAV+ reheat air handling unit.
Add new 70 ton air-cooled chiller at roof/attic level.
Add (2) 400,000 Btu (input capacity) condensing boilers at basement level.
Add new pipe and pumps for chilled and hot water systems.
Add (2) new AHUs to basement level (15,000 cfm each).
733
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 2
Clean and reuse existing ductwork as much as possible.
Increase ventilation rate to today's standards, re-route ventilation air intake.
Demolish existing pneumatic VAV boxes.
Provide new VAV boxes with direct digital controls.
Provide new BMS with DDC controls for all equipment and terminal units with front
end for basic control and monitoring functions.
2.3 Plumbing
Miscellaneous upgrades for ADA compliance per September 2014 ADA report,
including repositioning toilet heights and correcting lavatory/drinking fountain
access.
2.4 Fire Protection
Modify sprinklers for code updates.
2.5 Indirect Costs
Cost of building/locating the EOC elsewhere on campus. Council Chambers remains
at the Community Hall. The operations of the facility is not included in the costing.
3.0 OPTION B - UPGRADE CITY HALL WITH LIFE SAFETY + EOC
3.1 Electrical
Existing Electrical equipment including Main Switchboard, panelboards, transformers
etc. are all well past their useful life. Replace all Electrical distribution equipment.
Existing wiring to be removed and new wiring to be pulled through new conduit.
Existing Generator is well past it’s useful life. Replace with new generator.
Evaluate Generator capacity versus the latest EOC requirements. Minimum
generator size to be 125kW to match existing size.
Upgrade Fire Alarm to meet the latest Life Safety requirements.
Provide new lighting and lighting controls to meet the latest T24 requirements.
Emergency power for egress fixtures, via local battery packs.
3.2 Mechanical
Same points as Option A, also including the following:
Upgrade all duct, pipe, and equipment anchorage and seismic attachments to
building structure. Replace duct and pipe connections with flexible joints throughout.
All large equipment shall be spring isolated.
AHU to be placed in attic level or roof. Preliminary selection indicates (2) AHU's at
7'W x 28'L x 5'H (10,000 lbs each).
734
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 3
Boiler to be placed at roof level.
Add HVAC heating to generator load (AHU, Boiler, Pumps, will be on emergency
power, connected to the generator).
3.3 Plumbing
Miscellaneous upgrades for ADA compliance per September 2014 ADA report,
including repositioning toilet heights and correcting lavatory/drinking fountain
access.
Upgrade all plumbing equipment and pipe anchorage and seismic attachments to
building structure.
3.4 Fire Protection
Modify sprinklers for code updates.
Upgrade fire sprinkler pipe anchorage and seismic attachments.
3.5 Indirect Costs
Cost of operating the Council Chambers at the Community Hall is separate.
3.6 Floodplain Considerations
We understand that FEMA stipulations require that emergency equipment shall not
be located within Special Flood Hazard Areas Zones A, AE, and AO (which are areas
within the 100 year floodplain). The attached FEMA map shows flood plain areas in
the City of Cupertino and near the project location indicating that the project
location is not within the 100 year floodplain zones.
FEMA’s 2007 Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and
High Winds, publication 543 (located here: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/20130726-1557-20490-1542/fema543_complete.pdf) advises that emergency
equipment should be located above the 500 year flood elevation. While this is a
design guideline and not necessarily a FEMA requirement, PAE recommends that the
project design should attempt to comply with this guideline. Consideration should
be given to relocating the emergency generator to a level above grade to mitigate
the risk of flooding due to storm conditions or piping malfunctions within the
building.
The attached map indicates that the project is within the 500 year floodplain;
however it does not designate the specific elevation of the 500 year flood. PAE
recommends that a qualified firm/organization should be engaged to consult on
specific floodplain elevations and recommendations for FEMA compliant locations for
the emergency generator.
4.0 OPTION C - GUT AND REMODEL CITY HALL
4.1 Electrical
Existing Electrical equipment including Main Switchboard, panelboards, transformers
etc. are all well past their useful life. Replace all Electrical distribution equipment.
735
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 4
Provide new Electrical Distribution throughout the building. This includes new Main
Switchboards, panelboards, and transformers.
Provide new conduits to distribute power.
New wiring
Existing Generator is well past it’s useful life. Replace with new generator.
Evaluate Generator capacity versus the latest EOC requirements. Minimum generator
size to be 125kW to match existing size.
Upgrade Fire Alarm to meet the latest Life Safety requirements.
Provide new lighting and lighting controls to meet the latest T24 requirements.
Emergency power for egress fixtures, via local battery packs.
4.2 Mechanical
Same points as Option B, also including the following:
New thermal zoning layout.
New distribution ductwork.
New distribution piping.
Design for mixed mode natural + mechanical ventilation, possibly engaging light
wells or light court for transfer air.
All new mechanical system is likely to remain an air based VAV + reheat system.
4.3 Plumbing
Provide new high efficiency, condensing gas water heater.
Provide all new piping for the following systems:
a) Domestic Cold and Hot water piping
b) Vent piping
c) Gas piping
d) Storm piping
e) Waste piping
Provide new (water conserving) plumbing fixtures, ADA compliant.
4.4 Fire Protection
New sprinkler system.
4.5 Indirect Costs
Cost of operating the Council Chambers at the Community Hall is separate.
736
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 5
4.6 Floodplain Considerations
Same as Option B.
5.0 OPTION D - NEW CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT PARKING
5.1 Electrical
New incoming service
New distribution
New Lighting
New Generator
New Fire Alarm
5.2 Mechanical
New central hydronic equipment: geothermal slinky field (60,000 sf area) below
basement parking, served by water to water heat pump. Although the basement
parking footprint area is planned to be 45,000 sf a 60,000 sf excavation area may be
available due to shoring requirements. If needed the slinky field can extend further
into (below) the site, or can be located in another location that may already be
planned for excavation for other campus reasons. If desired, the slinky field can be
piped so as to accommodate potential future expansion should the slinky field ever
be desired for use as a campus system serving multiple buildings.
- Take advantage of federal tax savings for geothermal systems: 10% Tax Credit
year 1, and 100% depreciation over 5 years.
- City of Cupertino to determine tax liability and eligibility for tax savings
programs. One option may be a Thermal Purchase Agreement (TPA) in which a
tax-liable 3rd party procures the geothermal system and secures the tax
savings, and the City of Cupertino purchases the thermal energy from the 3rd
party.
New indoor services, including radiant heating/cooling with dedicated outdoor air
system.
Garage ventilation with CO sensor control.
5.3 Plumbing
New incoming/outgoing services for Fire, Gas, Domestic Cold Water, Storm Drain,
and Waste.
New high efficiency condensing gas water heater and associated components
(recirculating pump, storage tank, expansion tank, etc.)
New water conserving plumbing fixtures, ADA compliant.
New plumbing piping systems.
737
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 6
5.4 Fire Protection
New sprinkler system.
5.5 Indirect Costs
Cost of operating the Council Chambers at the Community Hall is separate.
5.6 Floodplain Considerations
Same as Option B.
6.0 OPTION E - NEW CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT PARKING +
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6.1 Electrical
Same as Option D
6.2 Mechanical
Same as Option D, with higher ventilation rates and equipment capacities and
geothermal slinky field (70,000 sf area to account for additional area of council
chambers).
6.3 Plumbing
Same as Option D
6.4 Fire Protection
Same as Option D
6.5 Indirect Costs
Assume EOC included.
6.6 Floodplain Considerations
Same as Option B.
7.0 ENERGY BENCHMARKING
Based on 2013 utility bills, the existing facility operates inefficiently at an energy cost rate
of $3.65/sf-year and an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 92 kBTU/sf-year (based on a
September 2014 study provided by the City). A modern, energy efficient new
construction office building in this climate would operate at approximately $1.20/sf-year
and 35 kBtu/sf-year.
Based on PAE’s project experience, Figures 1 and 2 on the next page illustrate potential
reductions in energy use and energy cost associated with each of the options described in
this report.
738
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 7
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate preliminary life cycle cost analysis and total cost of ownership
for the mechanical systems described in Options A-E. In this case, the first cost of
Options D and E was normalized on an area basis for equal comparison to Option A, B,
and C. The Option D and E costs shown here are as if these options had the same project
area as Option A, B, and C.
Figures 3 and 4 show that even though Options C, D, and E have higher first costs, the
total cost of ownership over time is significantly less compared to Options A and B. The
simple paybacks on Options D and E are less than 10 years, and the 30 year total cost of
ownership for Options D and E are millions of dollars less than any other option. This is
something to consider for the life of a project that is expected to last 30 years or more.
739
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 8
Figure 1. Energy Use Intensity (EUI) comparisons
Figure 2. Energy Cost Density comparisons
106
92
7070
40
2525
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
EXISTING
BUILDING
2009
EXISTING
BUILDING
2013
OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E
EU
I
(
k
B
t
u
/
s
f
/
y
r
)
Energy Use Intensity
$4.21
$3.65
$2.78 $2.78
$1.59
$0.99 $0.99
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
EXISTING
BUILDING
2009
EXISTING
BUILDING
2013
OPTION AOPTION BOPTION COPTION DOPTION E
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
p
e
r
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
Energy Cost Density
740
October 7, 2014
14-1593.00
Cupertino City Hall Study 9
Figure 3. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results
Figure 4. Total Cost of Ownership over 30 years
LIFECYCLE COST ANALYSIS
BASED ON 30 YEAR ANALYSIS - 2014 to 2043
Op
t
i
o
n
s
Capital Costs
($)2014
Avg.
Annual
Maint.
Costs
($)
Avg.
Annual
Repla.
Costs
($)
Year 1
Utility
Costs
($)2014
Simple
Payback
Option A
Base
(Years)
15 Year Cost
of Ownership
($)2028
30 Year Cost
of Ownership
($)2043
Energy Use
Index
(kBtu/sf-yr)
A $2,725,421$79,292$40,003$63,940-$5,268,795$10,309,194 70
B $3,065,022$79,292$40,003$63,940N/A$5,608,396$10,648,79570
C $3,710,142$47,575$40,003$36,57016.7$5,290,933$8,523,97640
D $3,750,927$23,788$26,884$22,7709.3$4,754,949$6,651,191 25
E $3,705,176$23,788$26,884$22,7708.9$4,709,199$6,605,441 25
Notes / Assumptions:
1.
OPTIONS
Option A -UPGRADE CITY HALL
WITH LIFE SAFETY
Option B - UPGRADE CITY HALL
WITH LIFE SAFETY + EOC
Option C - 4.0 OPTION C - GUT
AND REMODEL CITY HALL
Option D - 5.0 OPTION D - NEW
CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT
PARKING
Option E - 6.0 OPTION E - NEW
CITY HALL BUILDING + BASEMENT
PARKING + COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Capital Costs are based on reports from TBD consultants, dated 10/5/14 and 10/6/14, plus PAE estimates of controls costs. Capital costs of
Options D and E are normalized by project area to create an even comparison with Options A, B, C. These are the costs if a new building
was built with the same area as the existing building.
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Co
s
t
o
f
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
30 Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis
(2014 to 2043)
Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E
741
74
2
City of Cupertino ~ Civic Center Master Plan
Fact Sheet - By the Numbers
CITY HALL
City Hall - Existing
Ground floor 11,760 sq. ft.
Basement floor 12,500 sq. ft.
Building area 24,260 sq. ft.
Staff count 92
City Hall Staff – Current Staff at City Hall
City Manager Office (Admin/Clerk)40 people (43% )
Community Development 28 people (20%)
Public Works 17 people (18%)
City Channel 7 people (9%)
City Hall - Proposed New
Footprint 17,500 sq. ft.
Floor space 35,000 sq. ft.
Staff count 102
Proposed Building – 35,000 sq. ft
Staff work area = 50% 50%ave. 180 SF per staff; includes cubicles,
enclosed offices, circulation, teaming areas
Gross service area = 30%30%major circulation, restrooms, mechanical, kitchens
City business & public meeting 20%enclosed meeting rooms for staff business
and community use
No. of enclosed offices 9 each for Mayor, City Manager and Dept. Directors
City Hall - Precedents
Population City Hall Size
North Vancouver City Hall, BC 48,000 38,000 sq. ft.
Sammamish City Hall, WA 50,000 45,000 sq. ft.
Milpitas City Hall, CA 69,000 62,000 sq. ft.
Kenmore City Hall, WA 22,000 25,000 sq. ft.
Orinda City Hall, CA 20,000 18,000 sq. ft.
COMMUNITY HALL - Existing
Floor space 6,700 sq. ft.
Occupancy seated 170
FY 2013/14 Annual Revenue $11,595
ATTACHMENT K
743
City of Cupertino ~ Civic Center Master Plan
Fact Sheet - By the Numbers
LIBRARY
Library-Existing Story Room
Floor space 540 sq. ft.
Seated occupancy 30
Library-Program Room
Seated occupancy: 100 2,500 sq. ft.
Seated occupancy: 125 3,000 sq. ft.
PARKING
Parking - Existing
Total on-site 230
Total curb-side 39
Parking - Proposed
Total on-site 330
Total curb-side 39
744
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF CUPERTINO
OCTOBER. 21, 2014
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANCITY COUNCIL MEETING
ATTACHMENT L
745
October 21, 2014 2
WHY WE ARE HERECIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
Site-wide
Elements
City Hall
Options Parking
Options
Library
Expansion
Options}Determine
CCMP Preferred
Master Plan
746
October 21, 2014 3
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP JULY 30CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
747
October 21, 2014 4
WHAT YOU ASKED OF US...
CONSIDER REUSING THE EXISTING CITY HALL
PROVIDE A COST & BENEFIT COMPARISON FOR CITY HALL SCENARIOS
PROVIDE COMPARABLE PRECEDENTS FOR CITY HALL
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
748
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+immediate occupancy *,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy*,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 46.3
$ 48.1
$ 48.6
$ 46.3
$ 43.2
$ 45.0
$ 43.2
$ 49.9
$ 45.5
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
EOC ($18M)
5749
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+immediate occupancy *,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy*,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 46.3
$ 48.1
$ 48.6
$ 46.3
$ 43.2
$ 45.0
$ 43.2
$ 49.9
$ 45.5
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
EOC ($18M)
6750
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+immediate occupancy *,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy*,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 46.3
$ 48.1
$ 48.6
$ 46.3
$ 43.2
$ 45.0
$ 43.2
$ 49.9
$ 45.5
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
EOC ($18M)
7751
October 21, 2014 8
CITY HALL SCENARIOS
752
October 21, 2014 9
STRUCTURAL TERMS EXPLAINED
Seismic/ Life Safety
• Life safety criteria implies significant damage to structure and non structural systems
• Facility relocation and downtime is anticipated
• Repairs may be costly or infeasible
Immediate Occupancy
• Prescriptive code criteria for Immediate Occupancy implies stronger structure
• Does not explicitly assure performance goals, relies on structural damage to absorb seismic energy
• May require costly repairs and facility downtime following major earthquake
Performance Based (Immediate Occupancy/ Fully Operational)
• Performance based to provide tailored structure to meet resiliency goals
• Explicit and quantified performance metrics for risk and life-cycle cost assessment
• Effective use of currently available technology (seismic isolation, viscous damping) to meet long term goals
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
753
October 21, 2014 10
EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSMENT
MECHANICAL
• All Mechanical Systems are 30+ years old, inefficient and need to be replaced
• Current codes require systems to be relocated elsewhere as they are not allowed to be in the same space
• Systems maintenance costs can be greatly reduced *
ELECTRICAL
• All Electrical Systems are past 30+ years old, innefficient and need to be replaced
• Light Fixtures are not energy efficient and require replacement to meet current codes
• Systems maintenance costs can be greatly reduced *
PLUMBING
• Existing plumbing fixtures are water inefficient
• ADA issues with current restroom layout
• Old piping infrastructure
* Current building is operating inefficiently at $3.63/SF-yr & 106 kBTU/SF-yr (vs $1.00 / SF-yr & 25 kBTU/SF-yr
for new buildings)
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
754
October 21, 2014 11
EXISTING BUILDING ASSESSMENT
ARCHITECTURAL IMPLICATIONS
• Clay roofing tiles need to be removed and replaced with a lightweight material
• Accessibility upgrades are needed throughout
• Elevator and shaft needs to be replaced / enlarged
• Main stair needs upgrading to accommodate exiting
• Current facility does not meet requirements to house an EOC
ARCHITECTURAL CHALLENGES
• Majority of public interface are accessed through dark corridors or are in the basement
• Lack of daylight in basement workspaces / meeting spaces
• Current layout does not accommodate for projected 10% growth of city staff
• Workstations are inefficient and inflexible
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
755
October 21, 2014 12
CITY HALL COMPONENTS
A
B
C
D
E
CITY HALL
10% EXPANSION
MEP
SYSTEMS
UPGRADES
EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS
CENTER
INTEGRATED
UNDERGROUND
PARKING
COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
SEISMIC
UPGRADES
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
W/ EOC
EXISTING CITY HALL
COMPLETE REMODEL
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING
NEW CITY HALL
+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OPTIMALABOVE GROUND PARKING SOLUTIONS POSSIBLE LIMITED
*
*
SEISMIC
UPGRADES
(IMMEDIATE
OCCUPANCY)
OTHER STRUCTURE PARKING SOLUTIONS POSSIBLE
756
October 21, 2014 13
A: LIFE SAFETY UPGRADE • Roof Reinforcement
• Concrete Column Reinforcement (Fiber Wrap or
secondary steel columns)
• Additional shear walls at ground level (at all 4
corners of building
• Seismic Bracing of MEP equipment
• Mechanical Equipment Relocation / Replacement
• Electrical Equipment Replacement
• Lighting Upgrades for T24 compliance
• $2.78 / sf / year (vs $3.65)
• 70kBtu / sf / year (vs 92kBtu)
STRUCTURAL (LIFE SAFETY)
MEP SYSTEMS
• New Metal Roof
• Stair Upgrade
• Elevator replacement
• Accessibility Upgrades
ARCHITECTURAL
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
757
October 21, 2014 14
B: IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY + EOC • Additional shear walls at ground level
• Seismic Bracing of MEP equipment
• Extensive Roof Reinforcement
• Concrete Column Reinforcement (Fiber Wrap required)
• Thickening of shear walls at basement
• Mechanical Equipment Relocation / Replacement
• Electrical Panels / Equipment Replacement
• Lighting Upgrades for T24 compliance
• $2.78 / sf / year (vs $3.65)
• 70kBtu / sf / year (vs 92kBtu)
• Generator Replacement
• Pipe Anchorage and Seismic Attachments
STRUCTURAL (IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
MEP SYSTEMS
• New Roof Material
• Stair Upgrade
• Upgrade construction / finishes for fire rating
• Accessibility Upgrades
• Possible EOC Redesign
• Glazing replacement may be required if non tempered
ARCHITECTURAL
EOC
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
758
October 21, 2014 15
C: COMPLETE REMODEL
EOC
CITY HALL
CITY HALL LIGHT
COURT
CITY HALL
• Complete MEP Equipment Relocation & Replacement
• Generator Replacement
• New Ductwork and conduit throughout
• New High Efficiency Lighting Layout / Fixtures
• $1.59 / sf /year (vs $3.65)
• 40kBtu / sf / year (vs 92kBtu)
STRUCTURAL (IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
MEP SYSTEMS
• New Roof Material and Opening
• Accommodates City Hall 10% Expansion
• New layout to reflect future workspace trends
• Improved Public Experience
• Improved Daylighting
ARCHITECTURAL
• Additional shear walls at ground level
• Seismic Bracing of MEP equipment
• Extensive Roof Reinforcement
• Concrete Column Reinforcement (Fiber Wrap required)
• Thickening of shear walls at basement
• Additional slab reinforcement at lightwell openings
759
October 21, 2014 16
CONFERENCEROOM
SERVICE
MECHANICAL
LIGHT COURT
PUBLIC
COUNTERS EMPLOYEELOUNGE
OPENOFFICES
IT / CITY
CHANNEL
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OF
F
I
C
E
S
ST
O
R
A
G
E
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OF
F
I
C
E
S
OPENOFFICES
CATVME
E
T
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
S
ME
E
T
I
N
G
RO
O
M
S
N
E
W
S
T
A
I
R
BASEMENT PLAN
OPEN OFFICES
EOC
LOBBY/
LOUNGE
OPEN
OFFICES
SERVICE
OPEN
OFFICE
SERVICE
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OF
F
I
C
E
S
PR
I
V
A
T
E
OF
F
I
C
E
S
ME
E
T
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
S
LIGHT
COURT
SERVICELARGE
CONFERENCE
N
E
W
S
T
A
I
R
PRIVATEOFFICE
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
C: COMPLETE REMODEL
760
October 21, 2014 17
D: NEW BUILDING • New Structure that will be designed to explicitly
handle the seismic requirements for immediate
occupancy
• 50 Year Building
• New Energy Efficient Systems that can be integrated in
the building to minimize building maintenance costs.
• LEED Platinum
• Systems optimized for comfort (thermal, lighting,
acoustics, user control, biophilia) and productivity
• $.99 / sf / year (vs $3.65)
• 25kBtu / sf / year (vs 92kBtu)
STRUCTURAL
MEP SYSTEMS
• Enhanced Civic Identity
• Accommodates City Hall 10% Expansion
• New layout to reflect future workspace trends
• Improved Public Experience / Amenities
• Maximize Daylighting
• Integrated Underground parking
• Flexibility and Expandability
ARCHITECTURAL
* Alternative structured parking solutions possible
PARKING
EOC
CITY HALL
*
761
October 21, 2014 18
E: NEW BUILDING+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
• New Structure that will be designed to explicitly handle the
seismic requirements for immediate occupancy
• 50 year life span
• New Energy Efficient Systems that can be integrated in
the building to minimize building maintenance costs.
• LEED Platinum
• Systems optimized for comfort (thermal, lighting,
acoustics, user control, biophilia) and productivity
• $.99 / sf / year (vs $3.65)
• 25kBtu / sf / year (vs 92kBtu)
STRUCTURAL
MEP SYSTEMS
• Enhanced Civic Identity
• Accommodates City Hall 10% Expansion
• New layout to reflect future workspace trends
• Improved Public Experience / Amenities
• Maximizes Daylighting
• Integrated Underground parking
• Flexibility and Expandability
• Integrated Program enhances efficiency & maintenance
ARCHITECTURAL
COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
PARKING
EOC
CITY HALL
762
October 21, 2014 19
EVALUATION CRITERIA
A
B
C
D
E
ADAPTABILITY
+
FLEXIBILITY
IMMEDIATE
OCCUPANCY
POST EVENT
OPERATIONS
MAINTENANCE
SAVINGS
LIFE CYCLE
COSTS
REDUCTION
IMPROVED
DAYLIGHTING
+ WORKPLACE
SEISMIC
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
W/ EOC
EXISTING CITY HALL
COMPLETE REMODEL
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING
NEW CITY HALL
+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COST PER
SQUARE FT.
SEISMIC
RESILIENCY
$333.00
$441.00
$663.00
$646.00
$626.00
CIVIC
IDENTITY
+ USER
EXPERIENCE
OPTIMAL LIMITED
A
B
C
D
E
ADAPTABILITY
+
FLEXIBILITY
IMMEDIATE
OCCUPANCY
POST EVENT
OPERATIONS
MAINTENANCE
SAVINGS
LIFE CYCLE
COSTS
REDUCTION
IMPROVED
DAYLIGHTING
+ WORKPLACE
SEISMIC
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
W/ EOC
EXISTING CITY HALL
COMPLETE REMODEL
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING
NEW CITY HALL
+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COST PER
SQUARE FT.
SEISMIC
RESILIENCY
$333.00
$441.00
$663.00
$646.00
$626.00
CIVIC
IDENTITY
+ USER
EXPERIENCE
OPTIMAL LIMITED
763
October 21, 2014 20
LIBRARY PROGRAM EXPANSION
764
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+ immediate occupancy,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 46.3
$ 48.1
$ 48.6
$ 46.3
$ 43.2
$ 45.0
$ 43.2
$ 49.9
$ 45.5
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($18M)
765
October 21, 2014 22
L1: LIBRARY EXPANSION
OPTION 1: PROGRAM ROOM EXPANSION
EXPANDED 100
PERSON PROGRAM
ROOM
COURTYARD
• Expands the current story room (540 sf) into a
100 person program / meeting room (2,500 sf)
• Will have its own restrooms and can function even
when the rest of the library is closed
• Includes a new south entrance from parking lot
• Careful planning avoids the Memorial Grove
however a survey is necessary to assess any impact
to the redwood trees root system
summary
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
766
October 21, 2014 23
• Library takes control of Community Hall
• City reserves it for City Council meetings
summary
L2: COMMUNITY HALL
OPTION 2: REPURPOSE COMMUNITY HALL
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
767
October 21, 2014 24
PARKING ALTERNATIVES
768
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+immediate occupancy *,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy*,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 46.3
$ 48.1
$ 48.6
$ 46.3
$ 43.2
$ 45.0
$ 43.2
$ 49.9
$ 45.5
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
EOC ($18M)
25769
October 21, 2014 26
• Parking structure is entirely underground
• Accounts for an additional 100 spaces
• Field remains fully functional after construction
• Mechanically ventilated and artificially lit
• Accessible from Torre Avenue (with option to add
secondary entrance/exit)
• Minimal visual obstruction above grade
P1: UNDER LIBRARY FIELD
$53K/space X 100 Underground Parking
Library Field
summary
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
770
October 21, 2014 27
Parking garage with 1 deck level (estimated at 15’ high) located
behind library on existing surface lot. Accounts for 100
additional spaces and replacement of 130 existing spaces.
• Convenient and centrally located to Library Plaza
• Can be phased independent of City Hall
• Requires removal and replacement of existing parking lot (130 spaces)
• Site-wide circulation is constrained
• Hinders future open and built expansion possibilities
P2: BEHIND LIBRARY- ABOVE GROUND
Ground level Parking
Deck Parking
$29K/space X 230
summary
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
771
October 21, 2014 28
P3: BEHIND LIBRARY- BELOW GROUND
Surface Parking
Underground Parking
Parking garage with 1 level below ground located behind
library on the existing surface lot. Accounts for 100 additonal
spaces and replacement of 130 existing spaces.
• Convenient and centrally located to Library Plaza
• Can be phased independent of City Hall
• Requires removal and replacement of existing parking lot (130 spaces)
• Site-wide circulation is constrained
• Garage circulation within structure is constrained
• Hinders future open and built expansion possibilities
• Requires additional walls/fencing around underground opening
$30.5K/space X 230
summary
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
772
October 21, 2014 29
P4: BELOW NEW CITY HALL
City Hall
Underground Parking
Underground parking below a new City Hall.
Accounts for an additional 100 spaces.
• Utilizes the already excavated basement level
• Convenient and centrally located to Library Plaza
• Integrated with existing site circulation
• Does not impact existing surface parking lots$53K/space X 100
summary
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
773
October 21, 2014 30
STRUCTURED PARKING SOLUTIONS
P2: BEHIND LIBRARY- ABOVE GRADEP1: UNDER LIBRARY FIELD P3: BEHIND LIBRARY- BELOW GRADE
• Construction Cost: $6.7M (230 spaces = $29k/space)
• 230 spaces=130 spaces demolished & replaced
+ 100 new spaces
• Construction Cost: $5.3M (100 spaces = $53k/space)
• 100 new spaces
• Construction Cost: $7M (230 spaces = $30.5k/space)
• 230 spaces=130 spaces demolished & replaced
+ 100 new spaces
Net Const. Cost of 100 new spaces: $67K/spaceNet Const. Cost of 100 new spaces: $53K/space Net Const. Cost of 100 new spaces: $70K/space
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
774
October 21, 2014 31
PREFERRED CCMP DECISION
775
October 21, 2014 32
EVALUATION CRITERIA
A
B
C
D
E
ADAPTABILITY
+
FLEXIBILITY
IMMEDIATE
OCCUPANCY
POST EVENT
OPERATIONS
MAINTENANCE
SAVINGS
LIFE CYCLE
COSTS
REDUCTION
IMPROVED
DAYLIGHTING
+ WORKPLACE
SEISMIC
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
W/ EOC
EXISTING CITY HALL
COMPLETE REMODEL
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING
NEW CITY HALL
+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COST PER
SQUARE FT.
SEISMIC
RESILIENCY
$333.00
$441.00
$663.00
$646.00
$626.00
CIVIC
IDENTITY
+ USER
EXPERIENCE
OPTIMAL LIMITED
A
B
C
D
E
ADAPTABILITY
+
FLEXIBILITY
IMMEDIATE
OCCUPANCY
POST EVENT
OPERATIONS
MAINTENANCE
SAVINGS
LIFE CYCLE
COSTS
REDUCTION
IMPROVED
DAYLIGHTING
+ WORKPLACE
SEISMIC
(LIFE SAFETY)
SEISMIC
(IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY)
W/ EOC
EXISTING CITY HALL
COMPLETE REMODEL
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING
NEW CITY HALL
+ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COST PER
SQUARE FT.
SEISMIC
RESILIENCY
$333.00
$441.00
$663.00
$646.00
$626.00
CIVIC
IDENTITY
+ USER
EXPERIENCE
OPTIMAL LIMITED
776
33+ Site Work ($3.4M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Under Library Field ($7M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Expand Library ($3.1M)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Ex. Community Hall ($0)
Existing City Hall
+life safety ($14.3M)
E xisting City Hall
+immediate occupancy *,
Existing City Hall
Complete Remodel
+ immediate occupancy*,
New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
New City Hall
+ Council Chambers ($40.5M)
EOC ($26.8M)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
+ Site Work (not applicable)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- above ($8.8M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
Behind Library- below ($9.3M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
New Building Basement ($7M)
$ 26.2
$ 26.6
$ 28.1
$ 29.9
$ 30.3
$ 36.9
$ 38.7
$ 39.2
$ 48.8 **
$ 50.6 **
$ 51.1 **
$ 47.3
$ 45.7 **
$ 47.5 **
$ 44.2
$ 50.9
$ 48.0 **
L1
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
A
B
C
D
E
$ 24.4
P1
P1
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
CITY HALL SCENARIOS LIBRARY PROGRAM STRUCTURED PKG SOLUTION COST(in millions)
EOC ($18M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)** + New City Hall basement fill
($1.5M) in P1, P2 and P3
777
October 21, 2014 34
RECOMMENDED CCMP OPTIONL1
Expand Library ($3.1M)New City Hall
+ EOC ($33.8M)
+ Site Work ($3.4M)
New Building Basement ($7M)$ 47.3ML1DP4
NEW CITY HALL BUILDING:
with EOC
PARKING:
BELOW CITY HALL
100 Spaces
LIBRARY EXPANSION:
Expanded for 100 person
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
778
October 21, 2014 35
SITE WIDE ELEMENTS CONSIDERATIONS
779
October 21, 2014 36
SITE WIDE CONSIDERATIONS
UNSTRUCTURED OPEN SPACE
PEDESTRIAN / BIKE CONNECTION
PLAZA ENHANCEMENTS
FOOD OPTIONS
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
780
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF CUPERTINO
OCT. 21, 2014
CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANCITY COUNCIL MEETING
781
October 21, 2014 1
CITY HALL PRECEDENTS
ATTACHMENT M
782
October 21, 2014 2
EXISTING CITY HALL
Cupertino City Hall
Building Area - 24,250 SF
City Population - 60,000
783
October 21, 2014 3
Sammamish City Hall, WA
• 45,000 SF
• 50,000 Population
• LEED Silver
• Materiality of wood contributes to
identity
• Council Chambers
• Underground Parking
• EOC
• Police Department
CIVIC IDENTITY
784
October 21, 2014 4
CIVIC IDENTITY + USER EXPERIENCE
North Vancouver City Hall
• 38,000 SF
• LEED Certified
• 48,000 Population
• Atrium Provides Daylight
• Wood Interiors
• Civic functions are seen / transparent
785
October 21, 2014 5
DAYLIGHTING + FLEXIBILITY
Kenmore City Hall, WA
• 25,000 SF
• 22,000 Population
• LEED Gold
• Council Chambers
• Underground Parking
• EOC
786
October 21, 2014 6
USER EXPERIENCE
Miliptas City Hall
• 62,000 SF
• 69,000 Population
• Council Chambers
• Underground Parking
787
October 21, 2014 7
SUSTAINABLE
Orinda City Hall
• 18,000 SF
• 20,000 Population
• LEED Gold
• Surpasses California standards by 72%
• Daylight and Natural Ventilation
788
October 21, 2014 8
TIMELESSNESS + LONGEVITY
Alajarvi Townhall, Finland Seinajoki Townhall, Finland
Aarhus Townhall, Denmark Aarhus Townhall, Denmark
789
October 21, 2014 9
EFFICIENT WORKPLACE / SERVICES
• Efficient Workstations
• Collaboration / Meeting Areas
• Natural Light and Ventilation
• Flexible Layout
790
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0471 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/7/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: Designate voting delegate and alternates for National League of Cities Annual Business
Meeting November 22 in Austin, TX
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Conference Information
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject :DesignatevotingdelegateandalternatesforNationalLeagueofCitiesAnnual
Business Meeting November 22 in Austin, TX
Designate voting delegate and up to two alternatives
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™791
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Designate voting delegate and alternates for National League of Cities’ Annual Business
Meeting November 22 in Austin, TX.
Recommended Action
Designate voting delegate and up to two alternates.
Discussion
The National League of Cities’ 2014 Annual Business Meeting is scheduled for
Saturday, November 22 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Austin, TX. Based on population,
Cupertino is allowed two (2) votes through the designated voting delegate.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Conference Information
792
793
79
4
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0472 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/8/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:10/21/2014
Title:Subject: First reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing Councilmember call for review (continued from
October 7)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - Chart of Procedures for Review of Decisions of a Lower Body
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council10/21/20141
Subject :FirstreadingofanordinanceamendingChapter2.08ofTitle2oftheCupertino
MunicipalCodetoaddsection2.08.145tocodifytheexistingCouncilmembercallforreview
(continued from October 7)
Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2123: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 of Title
2 to include Section 2.08.145 relating to call for Council review"
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/15/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™795
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
AMENDED
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code to add section 2.08.145 to codify the existing call for council review.
Recommended Action
Introduce and conduct the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title
2 to add section 2.08.145 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to codify Call for Council
review.
Description
City decisions, including those of City Commissions or the City Manager, often involve
broad policy and community interest. Councilmembers, as the ultimate decision
makers for the City, have the opportunity to review these matters. Over the last
several years, various Councilmembers have exercised a call for council review.
Councilmembers have typically done so when a City decision involves a land use
decision, but this right is not limited. The proposed Ordinance codifies the existing
practice and provides clarity for the Council and members of the public on the
procedure for a call for council review.
Discussion
Impartial decisions and decision makers are needed to ensure fundamental fairness.
Each decision must be made after carefully considering both sides of an issue. Case law
concludes that a decision maker that has taken a position on a matter in advance of a
hearing would be subject to a claim that they have a Common Law Conflict of Interest
and can neither participate in nor vote on that matter.
Councilmembers, as the highest level of decision makers, may choose to hear a matter
which was held before a lower body, such as the Planning Commission. Previously,
Cupertino had followed the appeal procedure in which a single Councilmember could
796
file an appeal and state the specific reason. However, this appeal process implies that
the councilmember has an advance position and creates the appearance of an
adversarial role. Recently, the Council followed a call for review, which did not require
a specific reason for appeal.
A call for review is not adversarial. A council member may choose to review a matter
that has important policy implications, not necessarily because he or she disagrees with
the outcome. The proposed Ordinance makes it clear that the grounds for call for
council review is presumed to be that the subject matter has significant or material
effects on the quality of life in Cupertino. The Councilmember is not in an adversarial
role and no reason is required to be stated.
Many other jurisdictions have various procedures for a review of a decision of a lower
body. A chart is attached.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance sets forth the basic requirements for the call for council
review, and parallels the language in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.12.170
regarding appeals of decisions and matters under the zoning code.
Similar to an appeal by a person aggrieved or affected by a decision, a call for review
must:
be filed in the same timeframe as an appeal of the matter; and
be on form provided by the City.
However, a call for review differs from an appeal in that:
no fee is required;
the grounds for review is presumed to be that the subject matter has significant
or material effects on the quality of life within Cupertino; and
there is no inference of bias on the part of the Councilmember who called for
review, such that it is clear that the Councilmember may participate in the
matter.
As with any decision before them, Councilmembers should remain mindful of potential
conflicts of interest, including those of common law.
Sustainability Impact
The proposed Ordinance codifies existing procedure and is a matter of policy. It does
not involve any potential changes to the environment.
797
Fiscal Impact
The proposed Ordinance will not have any fiscal impact, as Councilmembers are
already exempt from the payment of fees.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Colleen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment
A - Draft ordinance amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 adding Section 2.08.145 relating to
call for Council review
B – Chart of Procedures for Review of Decisions of a Lower Body
798
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.08 OF TITLE 2 TO
INCLUDE SECTION 2.08.145 RELATING TO CALL FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was determined to be not a project under provisions and
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related
State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), in that the amendments do not involve
changes in the physical environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the “not a project”
determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding Section 2.08.145 to be numbered and entitled and to read as
follows:
2.08.145 Call for Council Review.
A. Any Councilmember may initiate a call for council review of any decision or
matter that may be appealed to the City Council under this Code.
B. Filing:
1.A call for council review shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the City
and shall be filed during regular office hours. A call for council review is
subject to the same time limitations as required for an appeal of a decision.
A call for council review not filed within such time shall be barred.
2.A call for council review is not subject to a fee.
799
C. Noticing: Notice of hearing shall be given in the same manner as would be
required in an appeal of the matter.
D. Grounds: If a call for council review is made by a Councilmember, there is a
presumption that the reason for the review is that the action has significant or
material effects on the quality of life within Cupertino. No inference of bias shall
be made or implied due to a call for council review by a Councilmember, and the
Councilmember who filed the call for council review may participate in the
hearing on the matter.
E. Hearing Body: The City Council shall decide the matter on review in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
F. Decision of the City Council: The decision or determination of the City Council
shall be final and effective immediately.
G. Notice of Decision: Notice of the City Council’s decision shall be mailed to the
original applicant and to any other person who has filed a written request with
the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section
36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication
and posting of the entire text.
* * * * * * * *
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ___
day of ____ and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the ____ of _______ 2014, by the following vote:
PASSED:
Vote: Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
800
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________ ______________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor
801
CHART: PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF A LOWER BODY
CITY PROCEDURE FOR COUNCIL
INITIATIATED ACTION
TYPES OF DECISIONS
Alameda City Council or Councilmember may
call for review
State reasons or justification for review
Decisions of Planning
Commission
Fremont Public Official may file an appeal as an
“interested party”
State facts and basis for appeal
Decisions of zoning
administrator, community
development director,
planning commission,
architectural review board, or
any other official board or
commission
Gilroy City Council, upon motion, may appeal Decision of Planning Director
or Planning Commission
Half Moon
Bay
Any Councilmember may file an appeal
Processed in the same way as an
“appeal”, in writing, stating grounds
Any administrative decision
La Habra
Heights
Two Councilmembers may initiate call
for review
Shall not state that there has been error
or that they have predetermined matter
to be heard
Decisions of Planning
Commission or Community
Development Director
Livermore City Council, by motion, may initiate a
review
Decisions of Planning
Commission
Los Altos Two Councilmembers may initiate
proceedings for review
Any appealable matter
Los Gatos No specified procedure.
Los Angeles City Council by 2/3 vote veto any board
action or bring Planning Commission
decision before it
Any action by a board or
commission (Veto, remand
back)
Decisions of Planning
Commission (not limited to
veto, may modify, condition,
uphold or reverse.)
802
CHART: PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF A LOWER BODY
Menlo Park City Council, by motion, may take an
appeal
Or
Any Councilmember without payment
of fee, but if Council does not vote to
take appeal, Councilmember has two
days to deposit fee. If appeal is
successful, Councilmember is refunded
fee.
Final Action of Planning
Commission
Milpitas City Council or any member of the City
Council may appeal
Appeal deemed to be on the grounds
that it should be reviewed and decided
by the Council in the interests of the
City
Filing of an appeal does not preclude a
Councilmember from voting, not
adversarial.
Any decision of any officer,
board, commission or
department of the City of
Milpitas within the time
limits allowed by law and
without fee.
Morgan Hill Councilmember may appeal Decisions of Planning
Commission
Mountain
View
No specified procedure for Council or
Councilmember, would apply
procedure for “Appeal”
Pleasant Hill Councilmember may call up for review
State reasons for review
Decisions of zoning
administrator, Architectural
Review Commission, or
Planning Commission.
Redwood
City
Two Councilmembers may request
council review
Presumption that reason for review is
that the action has significant and
material effects on the quality of life.
No inference of bias.
Final Determinations of
Planning Commission, City
Manager, Community
Development Director or
other discretionary decision
by City staff
Rolling Hills City Council, on its own initiative may
review
All actions of the Planning
Commission taken by
resolution approving or
803
CHART: PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF A LOWER BODY
denying a development
project.
San Jose No specified procedure.
Santa Clara City Council, on its own motion, may
consider action as if appealed.
Actions or Decisions of
Planning Commission
South San
Francisco
City Council (majority) may call for
review
Processed same as an “appeal”
Decisions of Chief Planner or
Planning Commission
St. Helena City Council, by majority vote, may
initiate an appeal
No grounds for appeal need be stated.
Decisions of Planning
Director or Planning
Commission
Sunnyvale Any person “aggrieved” including a
member of City Council, may file an
appeal
Appeal must state grounds
Decisions of director of
Community Development,
Heritage Preservation
Commission or Planning
Commission
Union City Councilmember may appeal a decision
Presumption that the reason for the
appeal is that the decision may have
significant and material effects on the
quality of life in the City,
No reason must be stated
No inference of bias
Decisions of Planning
Commission
804