Kitty Moore - 3-11-2018 10-49 a.m. - Stevens_Creek_Urban_VillageSTEVENS CREEK URBAN VILLAGE OVERVIEW
• As stated in the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan, the Urban Village boundary is a long commercial corridor currently
characterized by large car dealerships and medium sized commercial buildings interspersed with smaller one- and two-story
retail and service shops.
• Existing Conditions
0 1,624 dwelling units
0 1,584,519 SF commercial space
0 5,281 jobs (calculated using 1 employee per 300 SF)
• Proposed increases
0 3,860 dwelling units
0 1,350,000 SF commercial space (calculated by using proposed jobs x 300 SF/employee)
o 4,500 jobs
• Traffic EIR basis: 2010 Traffic Study for San Jose's Envision 2040 with counts from 2009
• Current SCUV Signature Projects in review:
o Garden City (460,000 SF office, up to 15,000 SF retail, 871 residential units)
■ (APNs 303-25-012, 303-25-013, 303-25-016, 303-25-022, 303-25-023, 303-25-044, and 303-25-052).
http://www.san*oseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5074
o Fortbay (AKA Stevens Creek Promenade) (233,000 SF office, 10,000 SF retail, up to 500 residential units)
■ 4300 Stevens Creek Blvd. Mixed Use Project: http://www.sanuoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5380
1. Cupertino has not reviewed pending lawsuits RE City Place Santa Clara, Santana Row Expansion, and the San Jose Envision
2040 EIR which have traffic, noise, and air quality impacts reaching Cupertino.
a. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Respondents RELATED
COMPANIES, dba RELATED SANTA CLARA, LLC, and DOES 26-50, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest:
http://media.bize.us/view/img/10102877/city-place-complaint-filed-7-29-16.pdf
b. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Petitioner and Plaintiff, CITY OF SAN JOSE, CITY OF SAN JOSE CITY COUNCIL; and DOES I
through X inclusive, Respondents and Defendants, FEDERAL REALTY AND INVESTMENT TRUST, and DOES 1
through 20 inclusive, Real Parties in Interest. http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/santana-west-lawsuit.pdf
c. CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY COMMITTEE, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation, and DOES 1-50.
inclusive,
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cleanenergy/pages/22/attachments/original/1426349313/Order Re Peti
tion for Writ of Mandate.pdf?1426349313
i. Air Quality GHG Writ of Mandate must be adhered to and found fault in the Envision 2040 EIR:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cleanenergv/pages/22/attachments/original/1426349313/0rder
Re Petition for Writ of Mandate.pdf?1426349313
ii. "CCEC has argued (and the City did not dispute the calculations) that if present emissions data is compared
to that allowed by the proposed General Plan update as required by Guidelines § 15064.4, GHG emissions
will increase by 2.7 MNT or 36 percent by 2020 (from the approximate 2008 figure of 7.6 to the estimated
10.3). This is "substantially different information" that was not provided to the public. This failure to provide
relevant information was prejudicial as the failure "deprived the public and decision makers of substantial
relevant information about the project's likely adverse impacts." Smart Rail, supra, at 463." "That said,
given that the failure to state the "present" GHG emissions affects the Project baseline and all comparisons
and determinations made using the baseline, and the City's stated intention to tier other projects off this
defective EIR, a limited order may not be possible."
iii. San Jose did not present Cupertino with the myriad lower growth alternatives presented to comply with the
above Writ of Mandate and evaluated here showing multiple alternatives with fewer jobs and housing along
the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor: http://www.sanloseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/46547
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Supplemental Program EIR - Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis
File Nos. PP15-060 and GPT15-002
The City has prepared a Draft Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Supplemental
PEIR) to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan to provide additional analysis and information on
greenhouse gas emissions to supplement the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Program EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2009072096) certified by the City of San Jose on November 1, 2011. The Draft
Supplemental PEIR is intended to inform the decision makers and the general public of the environmental
effects of greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change associated with continued implementation of
the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Discretionary approvals to implement the project consist of text
revisions to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, including, but not limited to, the update and re -
adoption of the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. http://www.sanaoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=4940
2. Stevens Creek Urban Village area consists of multiple auto dealerships, dry cleaners, and auto maintenance facilities which
have an unknown potential for soil and groundwater contamination along with impacts during demolition. Future residents
may have unknown soil contamination. Potential for exposure to current residents during construction. Area is in a
groundwater aquifer supplying the east side of Cupertino. The dry wells indicated in the below studies may have been filled
due to the 2016-2017 significant rainfall moving the contamination plumes.
a. Garden City Signature Project contamination:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report.asp?global id=SL1823R923
i. PCE is reasonably anticipated carcinogen:
https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/perchloroethylene/
ii. TPH-g 2,200 ppb benzene 59 ppb MTBE 27 ppb found:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608500255&cmd=closure review
iii. Contamination plume monitoring has been incomplete:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable documents/8483994007/07S1W16J03f.pdf
iv. 5 impediments to path to closure:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608500255&cmd=ptcpreport<cp id=10
6172
b. 3960 Stevens Creek Blvd. Texaco contamination:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608501423
i. Potential contaminants of concern: GASOLINE
ii. 5 impediments to path to closure:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608501423&cmd=ptcpreport<cp id=10
0707
c. 1704 Saratoga Avenue contamination:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=70608509697
i. Potential contaminants of concern: GASOLINE, MTBE / TBA / OTHER FUEL OXYGENATES
ii. AQUIFER USED FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
d. 404 Saratoga Avenue contamination:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608500255
i. Potential Contaminants of concern: BENZENE, GASOLINE, MTBE / TBA / OTHER FUEL OXYGENATES,
TOLUENE, XYLENE
ii. 5 impediments to path to closure:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile report?global id=T0608500255&cmd=ptcpreport&Itcp id=10
6172
M. AQUIFER USED FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
3. Fortbay Signature Project letters to San Jose: https://www.san*oseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/69230
4. Garden City Signature Project letters to San Jose: http://www.sanioseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59361
5. Projects in the Santana Row area including Volar, Santana Row West (under litigation from Santa Clara), and Santana Row
Expansion (AKA lots 9 and 17) were not included in the Traffic EIR from 2010 for Envision 2040. Pending projects at Vallco,
Cupertino and City Place Santa Clara, were not included.
6. "Santa Clara has grave concerns about the impact this increased intensity of use will have on the already congested
transportation system the two cities share" — excerpt from Santa Clara City Manager Letter to San Jose
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/d56fddac-5752-453e-a62b-a5d76ed08f98
7. VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4 have not been adequately adhered to:
http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/docu ment/down load/069A0000001frgSIAQ
a. 12.2 Projects on a Jurisdiction Border: "...coordinate with the adjacent jurisdiction(s) to discuss transportation
related issues such as assessment of existing conditions, trip assignment, trip distribution, and mitigation measures
and improvements as appropriate."
b. 12.3 Multi -Agency Projects: "For projects that extend in multiple jurisdictions such as shopping centers or large
developments, the Lead Agency should facilitate early coordination with the participating agencies." Minimal
coordination and explanation of project took place.
c. 12.4: "If the new transit ridership generated by the project causes the load factor of one or more transit routes to
exceed the standard established by the applicable transit agency, the project should contribute to transit
improvements to enhance the capacity of the affected route or provide alternative facilities."
"If the additional bicycle or pedestrian volumes generated by the project would unreasonably degrade conditions
on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the project should contribute to improvements to the conditions of the
affected facility or provide alternative facilities."
d. 12.5 Transit Delay: "If increased transit vehicle delay is found in this analysis, the Lead Agency should work with
VTA to identify feasible transit priority measures near the affected facility and include contributions to any
applicable projects that improve transit speed and reliability in the TIA. Refer to Section 10.2 for more information
on improvements to address congestion effects on transit travel times."
i. The Volar, San Jose TIA indicates transit delay issues are anticipated on Stevens Creek Blvd. Excerpt: "Both
the Stevens Creek/Winchester and Stevens Creek/Monroe intersections are currently Protected Intersections,
per City policy, meaning that the City would accept offsetting transportation system improvements to
enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities as required by the development in order for the City to
approve the project. VTA supports the idea of designating Protected Intersections to encourage development
in locations conducive to walking, bicycling and transit in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and
greenhouse gas emissions. However, increased congestion at this intersection could result in delay to transit
vehicles on Stevens Creek Boulevard, including the Local 23, Limited 323 and future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
service, which could degrade schedule reliability and increase operating costs." See P. 7, no actual
mitigation measures to be implemented, 'The Improvements provided by VTA in the comment letter will
also be incorporated into the project's list for future off -setting improvements."
First Amendment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report 350 Winchester Mixed Use Project (Volar) May,
2017: http://sanooseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68773
8. Land Use has no percentage requirements in the mixed used urban villages. Density ranges are given with multiple options.
Urban Residential land use may ultimately be commercial space over a parking garage for example, further impacting
traffic. Land Use definitions and density, Chapter 3 - Land Use: http://www.sanaoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68867
9. No parkland will be purchased for the total 5,484 housing units, placing the crowding impact and maintenance cost on
surrounding parks from Santa Clara and Cupertino.
a. San Jose has a "Service Level Objective" for parkland. San Jose's objective is to provide 3.5 acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents.
b. https://www.sanloseca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/32
10. Housing unit and job increases appear to have no logical basis. 300 SF/ Employee results in a total existing plus proposed of
9,781 jobs in the SCUV area vs. 11,738 employees when 250 SF/employee is used. San Jose did not research the actual
number of employees in the area to determine trips they may currently be generating, but instead calculated the number
of employees based on square footage (300 SF/employee) which is likely too high considering the number of car
dealerships with large parking lots and show rooms along the Stevens Creek Corridor.
11. San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard is an intersection in multiple area traffic studies and is symptomatic of
the traffic degradation which will occur. Traffic studies reviewed for impacts to this intersection show excessive impacts
from various developments:
a. Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 (Expansion) resulted in LOS E AM/E PM contributing to 22% of the AM delay and 24%
of the PM delay at this intersection.
b. Volar project resulted in LOS F AM/E PM contributing 7% to the AM delay.
c. Santana Row West resulted in LOS F AM/E PM contributing 34% to the AM delay.
d. City Place Santa Clara (AKA Related Urban, under CEQA litigation) resulted in LOS F AM/F PM contributing 1.6%
and 2.0% to the AM/PM delays respectively.
e. Apple Campus 2 resulted in LOS E+AM/LOS F PM contributing 1.0% and 2.4%to the AM/PM critical delays
respectively. (Santana Row initial Expansion http://www.saneoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/45185 was
included in AC2's study, the 4 other projects listed above were not).
f. No comprehensive study has been done for the Stevens Creek Urban Village. Litigation between the cities cannot
be relied on to remove projects from cumulative.
12. Traffic Mitigation in multi -jurisdiction areas must be coordinated. Funding mechanisms require environmental review per
Santa Clara Manager's office letter to San Jose, dated May 24, 2017.
13. No comprehensive study has addressed traffic, water treatment, wastewater treatment, emergency access, and noise
impacts related to the combined developments at Santana Row with Stevens Creek Urban Village and due to these
development areas being adjacent to one another, the arbitrary exclusion of Santana Row area when the traffic studies in
that area show impacts on the Stevens Creek corridor into Cupertino, prevents a proper study. Santana Row must be
included in a comprehensive traffic study.
14. No mitigation of the proposed Rapid Transit Bus line will result in significant delays to vehicular traffic and vice versa.
15. Proposed traffic mitigation to improve alternative mobilities will cause significant impacts to alternative residential areas.
Proposed Tisch Road 1-280 NB ramp has been deemed non-viable by Caltrans.
16. San Jose is in discussion to create 20,000 jobs in the Diridon vicinity which was not evaluated in Envision 2040 EIR. San
Jose's lawsuit filed against Santa Clara's City Place highlights the proposed 24,760 jobs the City Place project anticipates, yet
proposes 20,000 near Diridon and a minimum of 9,781 in the SCUV area, exceeding Santa Clara's proposal.
17. The San Jose lawsuit against Santa Clara's City Place acknowledges that City Place was not included in their GP EIR:
"21. On November 16, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the 2010-2035
General Plan after completing a comprehensive environmental review process that began
in 2008 and culminated with an EIR, which the Council certified on November 16, 2010.
The adopted General Plan did not anticipate, or accommodate, the project on the selected site."
"In fact, the project conflicts with the General Plan in numerous respects and violates
consistency requirements imposed by the California Government Code. For example, the
project creates an imbalance in Respondent's jobs/housing ratio by creating almost
25,000 jobs while adding a minimum of 200 housing units and no more than 1,360
housing units." - http://media.bizi.us/view/img/10102877/city-place-complaint-filed-7-29-16.pdf
18. No existing baseline counts were provided for the Santana Row Expansion (Lots 9 and 17) or Santana Row West TIA. See
Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale, invalidating an environmental impact report (EIR) for a
major roadway extension project. http://www.embm.com/docs/changestocega.pdf
The EIRs used faulty baselines for their traffic and transportation analysis,
failed to identify and analyze intersections impacted by the project, failed to identify and
analyze the project impacts on transit operations, and failed to identify and analyze
enforceable measures to mitigate the traffic, transportation, noise, and transit impacts
attributable to the projects.
19. TIA studies for Volar, Santana Row West, and Santana Row Expansion (lots 9 and 17) required Caltrans TIS (Traffic Impact
Study) due to excessive trips impacting Caltrans' jurisdiction roadways. Caltrans does not allow the maximum trip
reductions used in all three of these studies. Studies maximized retail pass -by trips as well at a reduction of 25%. Santana
Row West TIA used a 43% restaurant pass by trip reduction.
20. Counts for Santana Row West conducted on Valentines' Day 2/14/2013 must be discarded. Several counts for the same
intersection for AM and PM are shown 5 months apart must be justified. (See Santana Row West Lots 9 and 17 TIA p. 17).
21. Air Quality GHG Writ of Mandate must be adhered to regarding San Jose's Envision 2040 EIR:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cleanenergV/pages/22/attachments/original/1426349313/0rder Re Petition for
Writ of Mandate. pdf?1426349313
a. "CCEC has argued (and the City did not dispute the calculations) that if present emissions data is compared to that
allowed by the proposed General Plan update as required by Guidelines § 15064.4, GHG emissions will increase by
2.7 MNT or 36 percent by 2020 (from the approximate 2008 figure of 7.6 to the estimated 10.3). This is
"substantially different information" that was not provided to the public. This failure to provide relevant
information was prejudicial as the failure "deprived the public and decision makers of substantial relevant
information about the project's likely adverse impacts." Smart Rail, supra, at 463."
"That said, given that the failure to state the "present" GHG emissions affects the Project baseline and all
comparisons and determinations made using the baseline, and the City's stated intention to tier other projects off
this defective EIR, a limited order may not be possible."
22. The Cupertino Vision 2040 GP EIR http://www.cupertinogpa.org/documents/view/211 using traffic data primarily from
2011 and 2012 indicates: that 11 of 16 intersections would operate at unacceptable level of service due to the proposed
project. 9 out of 16 intersections are outside of Cupertino jurisdiction and will impact San Jose. Cupertino's GP EIR was
certified December 4, 2014 making the traffic counts too old according to VTA TIA guidelines.
23. The San Jose Envision 2040 EIR http://www.sanooseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2198 is a broad -brush program -level
traffic study using traffic counts from 2009 showing 73% of Cupertino's lane miles are impacted by San Jose's GP and 100%
of Santa Clara's. Stevens Creek Blvd. will be deficient. San Jose indicates in their traffic study that they altered their policy
to no longer consider driver comfort and convenience, yet this is not holding up to CEQA scrutiny due to other concerns
such as greenhouse gas emissions (see CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY COMMITTEE, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation, and DOES 1-50. Inclusive, above)
24. Schools and Education services impact: multiple daycare facilities, preschools, and elementary schools will be negatively
impacted. During construction children may be exposed to excessive contaminants. Facilities will be forced to close due to
construction at their own sites and newly constructed sites may be cost prohibitive for returning centers. The project area
feeds Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District schools. Hyde Middle School (Cupertino) and
Cupertino High School are at capacity. Relocating students will increase vehicle trips.
25. Attorney correspondence dated May 24, 2017 RE Volar project, 350 S. Winchester San Jose:
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ea9d4530-bc9f-46de-b41c-73dlfc9b2641 Attorney states:
a. "The Project Conflicts with the General Plan."
b. There is no indication in the General Plan that Signature Projects can exist in a legal gray area where no land use
designation fully applies. In fact, in order to qualify as a Signature Project, the City must find that the project
conforms to the Land Use/ Transportation Diagram.11
c. The DEIR Contains an Inadequate Analysis of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions
d. Because the General Plan, and thereby the GHG Reduction Plan, did not anticipate the density and timing of this
development, additional mitigation is needed to reduce GHG impacts to a less than significant level. The City
should enforce the voluntary criteria contained in the GHG Reduction Plan as binding mitigation.
e. As demonstrated above, approving this Project would violate CEQA and be inconsistent with the General Plan.
26. Air pollution has not been studied along Stevens Creek or for the proposed Freeway Cap park. Research indicates the
Freeway Cap park would have no mitigations. Only limited mitigations exist for homes near Stevens Creek Blvd. from the
air pollution. The proposed Freeway Cap Park is an unacceptable alternative to purchasing parkland. Source:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/traff-eff/research%20status%20-
reducing%20exposure%20to%20traffic%20polIution.pdf
San Jose sues Santa Clara over City Place (AKA Related Urban): http://media.bizm.us/view/img/10102877/city-place-complaint-
filed-7-29-16.pdf
This lawsuit has moved to San Mateo County and will have a hearing in August.
Santa Clara sues San Jose over Santana Row Expansion (AKA Lots 9 and 17): http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/lantana-west-lawsuit.pdf
Progress article: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/internal-affairs-san-lose-v-santa-clara-round-one-goes-to-santa-clara/
Letter from Santa Clara to San Jose RE Stevens Creek Urban Village:
https://fi les.a crobat.com/a/p review/d 56fddac-5752-453e-a62b-a 5d 76ed08f98
Letter from Cupertino Mayor to San Jose:
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/f0935275-a2bc-4c80-9aea-d8b9c4b382c0
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 AKA Santana Row Expansion Traffic EIR: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41531
Volar Traffic EIR: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68773
Santana Row West Traffic EIR: http://www.sanuoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57720
Apple Campus 2 Traffic EIR: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Appendix-B-Transportation-Impact-AnaIVsis.pdf
City Place Santa Clara (Under CEQA Litigation):
Chapter 03-03 -Transportation, Part 1 (PDF) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15536
Chapter 03-03 - Transportation, Part 2 (PDF) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15538
Cupertino General Plan 2040 Vision Traffic EIR: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/documents/view/211
San Jose General Plan Envision 2040 Traffic EIR: http://www.sanaoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2198
SANTANA ROW LOTS 9 AND 17 AKA SANTANA ROW EXPANSION TRAFFIC EIR:
• https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41531
• Counts from 2012 and 2013
• See Lawsuit link above or here: http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/santana-west-lawsuit.pdf
• Trip Generation Table 8 Issues:
o Low movie theater Daily Trip Rate in Table 8 p. 41 does not match ITE Trip Generation Handbook rates for Movie
Theaters, and employee count was omitted
o No baseline counts made for existing Dudley Apartments, used ITE Trip Generation Rate instead
o Approved 69,491 SF Office (approved) has generated trips subtracted from 510,000 SF total which appears to be
an error if these are not existing. If existing, a traffic count should have been made.
• Project Meets the threshold requirements for a Caltrans Traffic Impact Study.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr cepa files/tisguide.pdf
o Used Maximum ITE Trip Reductions for Mixed Use BUT Caltrans TIS Guidelines p. 4 require that using the
maximum reductions be justified:
■ 3. Captured Trips7 — Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and acceptance by
Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS.
• Traffic counts include intersections with up to five months separation in count dates and multiple counts were done on
2/14/2013 which is Valentine's Day, near Valley Fair Mall. Traffic patterns may have been significantly altered.
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17
'�� .. !.tY Pig+.SINi•F:
Steen
75th Way --I�. 11 `-' r
LEGEND:
�= Site Boundary 256,000 s.f- Office i rIt
Road 1� +"'� 69,491 s -f. Offca rAppmvedJ 1+
i s«
Figure 2
Project Components
r—q Pagel
u liwm finwitaw(aroulism Ir-
•
C '�
rJ
'
m
[i.5dditional
m `
Hotel
Rooms
c
Olin Ata;
• -'
Yoad
i_'t
Closure -
-
,r
-
Olsen Or
' 254 -UC U s... 04ce,
' Parrj 9 7 Additional Movie
Screens
i �,V !x
1W
75th Way --I�. 11 `-' r
LEGEND:
�= Site Boundary 256,000 s.f- Office i rIt
Road 1� +"'� 69,491 s -f. Offca rAppmvedJ 1+
i s«
Figure 2
Project Components
r—q Pagel
u liwm finwitaw(aroulism Ir-
1A_lllrl_17 IITE Trin Gpnpratinn Ftatpc - Ath Eriitinn
.....................
a c k
r��114.8-b-i �s l� lsl
THE TRAFFIC STUDY CDMPANY
Pass -by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook - 2nd Edition.
(copyrights, Insitute of Transportation Engineers)
Description/ITE Code
...... .............
Units
ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
(peak hours are for peak hour at adjacent street traffic unless highlighted)
Weekday I AM PM
Pass -By
AM In
AM Out PM In PM Out
Live Theater 441
Seats
NA NA 0.02
Parcel 9 & 17 Office la! 510,000 s f_ 1100 5,610
NA
NA 50% 50%
Movle Theater w10 matinee 443
KSF2
78.06 0.22 6.16
785
NA
NA 94% 6%
Movie Theater w10 matinee 443
Movie Screens
20. NA 24.00
Mixed -Used Reductions fbi -168
NA
NA 41% 59%
Movie Theater w10 matinee 443
Seats
0.01 0.07
53.12 0.15 4.20
-24
NA
NA
NA 75% 25%
NA NA NA
Movie Theater w10 matinee 443
Em to ees
Movie Theater w1 matinee 444
KSF'
99.28 NA 3.80
NA
NA 64% 36%
Movie Theater w1 matinee 444
Movie Screens
546.86 NA 2022.
NA
NA 40% 60%
Movie Theater w1 matinee 444
Seats
224 NA 0.07
NA
NA 39% 61%_
Multiplex Movie Theater 445
KSFT
NA NA 4.91
60% 40%
NA
NA 62% 38%
Mufti lex Movie Theater 445
Movie Screens
NA NA 13.64
12%
NAI
NAI 45% 55%
Multiplex Movie Theater 445
Seats
NA NA 0.08
12%
NAI
NAI 36% 64%
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 Development
Table S
Background Plus Project Trip Generation Estimates
November 12, 2014
Proposed Land Uses
Parcel 9 & 17 Office la! 510,000 s f_ 1100 5,610
14%
WA 12%
691
94
785
149k
17% 83%
133
652
785
Mixed -Used Reductions fbi -168
3%
-21
-3
-24
13%
-17
-85
-102
Sub -Total 5,442
670
91
761
116
567
663
Movie Theater la! 7 screens 154.00 1,078
C%
0% 0%
0
0
0
12.4%
60% 40%
60
54
134
Mixed -Used Reductions 1b! -129
12%
0
0
0
12%
-10
-6
-16
Sub -Total 949
0
0
0
70
48
118
Hotel Rooms fat 6 roams 9.00 54
8%
60% 40%
2
2
4
9%
60% 40%
3
2
5
Mixed -Used Reductions !b! -6
12%
0
0
0
12%
0
0
0
Sub -Total 48
2
2
4
3
2
5
Total Proposed Project Trips 6,458
672
93
765
189
617
806
EA.tinglApproved Land Uses
Dudley Aparlments 47 units 600 -282
10%
WA 65%
-10
-16
-28
10%
66% 35%
-18
-10
-28
Mixed -Used Reductions 16! 28
10%
1
2
3
38%
7
4
11
Sub -Total -264
-9
-16
-26
-11
-6
-17
Lot 17 Approved Office 69.491 s.f. 11.00 -764
14%
88% 12%
-94
-13
-107
14%
17% 83%
-18
-89
-107
MixedUsed Reductions AV 23
3%
3
0
3
13%
2
12
14
Sub -Total -741
-91
.13
-1114
-16
-77
-93
Total ExistinglApproved Project Trips -1,023
•100
•29
-129
•27
-83
-110
Net Project Trips 5,415
572
64
635
162
534
696
!al City of San Jose Traffic Impact Analysis Handbook: Volume 1
- Methodologies and
Requirements. 2009.
Ibl Mixed-use reductions estimated based on ITE mixed -used reduction methodology. ITE Trip Generation Hanbool
Ill IlewpTfaosaarifuoo(onsilta Inc.
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 Development
November 12, 2014
Table ES 2
Freeway Segment Level of Service Summary
BR 17 F1S111e1 n 6760
M
AIA
23,0
90 66"
8,906
77
F
_
..
..
_
_
_
66
PIA
85.0
30 8$00
5,6T7
A
❑
6800 1I0 tl s- Cr
Na
AN
1&0
30 6200
4,&18
PIA
6&5
919 MOO
51441
17
9
-
-
••
-
-
-
61
09%9--
-
LW SL -Cr n H OAu
6B
AY
2&0
SII UM
8,468
70
F
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
0.1%
-
-
PPA
6&6
9A MOO
5,�
30
❑
79
Ll%
-
-
1W MBtl Aeu lk Akr
fB
AN
960
SD B."
0966
99
E
6
0.1%
-
..
PIA
66.6
9D Bye
5,989
27
❑
79
1.1%
F2B6 L -E-, . S -.p Air
EB
AAA
61.6
SD B=
6"
38
❑
679
1.6
199
616
12
B
60
0.7%
8
0f%
PIA
926
90 MOO
5,901
W
F
809
1.0
1AM
2226
N
❑
0.2%
6
02%
L260 ganga.den Wlieneatr 9Ad
EB
AIA
599
30 69rm
61600
91
❑
679
19
199
T46
11
A
60
0.i%
8
09k
PIA
A&0
90 B."
6,091
M
E
7011
1.0
1=
2094
B
❑
0.2%
4
02%
L260 WYAe5ti 91dm F960
®
AIA
66.0
30 6.9m6,160
28
C
679
19
1139]
910
1A
B
0
0.9%
0
DA%
PIA
520
90 By00
6,560
4
❑
7011
1.0
I=
1A7D
71
C
0
09%
0
00%
62M 1600 tl1.bA Ave
E9
M
66.6
98 6900
6,919
27
❑
679
79
99
6H
f0
A
II
0.1%
1
0.1%
PIA
26.0
9D B."
5,596
74
F
700
1.0
1AM
2127
B
❑
69
09%
22
1.9%
&M 61%iM Aetl Bid Au
08
AIA
4&0
4D 02M
$686
n
E
_
_
_
_
_
_
M
0.1%
-
-
PPA
260
AD 92M
7,590
66
F
-
-
-
_
_
_
90
0.9%
-
-
1080 Bfd Ale n U.S. A.
W79
AAA
119
4D B.ZM
MM
106
F
PIA
5&0
4D 9,200
8,641
38
❑
-
-
.-
btffi0.90.9%%
%
L260 h1i55An Artl4ffi0
WH
AIA
TD
9A 7AM
X194
127
F
279
19
1�
1�
4�
1�
64
FTA
6&0
3A 7$20
5,169
29
C
700
1.0
11391
1265
A6
19
0.2%
6
09%
L260 186A 1eNHle9ef FA.E
M
AIA
1&0
90 SAW
4,&20
N
F
420
19
1=
2,100
60
E
0
0.9%
0
OLik
FTA
6&5
90 B."
5,910
27
❑
7011
1.0.
11391
1A7D
z
C
0
0106
0
OA%
L260 WYele RWb
M
AIA
120
90 69rW
3Ae3
106
FA60
19
1=
2,161
46
E
9
0.9%
1
0.1%
PIA
620
9D B."
B,,566
95
1)
700
7.0
1AM
1269
to
B
46
0976
9
OS%
1080 9raleyF*kbLdwerOe E,"
W79
AN
180
2D 6200
41473
97
F960
19
2991
67
E
9
0.0.%
1
0.1%
PIA
6&6
9A B."
5,957
27
❑
MD
7.0
1EM
896
9
A
67
07%
6
6.996
L8o0 111 M.& 16619Aem67 A!
SB
AAA
6&0
SII B.Ow
5251
28
C
_
_
_
_
_
_
84
11%
-
-
PPA
25.0
9D B."
6,607
73
F
-
-
-
_
_
_
22
0.3%
-
-
1800 MB-Aen3L-a
se
AIA
249
SD S.KM
6,414
-
-
PIA
900
9D Bye
5,782
61F
..
_
22
0.576
-
..
FM Sk--Crn FMO
M
AM
660
9D B=
6,161
29
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
17
0.2%
-
-
PIA
65.0
90 MOO
5,966
91❑
-
-
-
-
-
-
194
1916
-
-
BR 1T 4.280 tl F1e.ia1
AIA
6&0
30 SAM
4,9&T
22
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
0.1%
FTA
61.0
90 B."
6,641
98
❑
-
-
-
-
-
-
66
M Sn�x.�dClam'Jiy irxaperosvi Aulmtr Cordonlbmifnvt Rog- I.Litrig.1.420,2.
Q •❑erarsvyriimn�rlwa
t✓iitli nTrdeepuidw(orwitat,Irr
P01geIxv
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 Development
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
November 12, 2014
1
Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
02127113
35.5
D
PM
09/18112
50.7
D
2
Santana Rome and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
02113113
15.1
B
PM
02113113
29.7
C
3
Redwood Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
02113113
82
A
PM
02113113
22.0
C
4
Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
02113113
28.8
C
PM
02113113
38.6
D
5
1-880 SB off -ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
02113113
23.8
C
PM
09118112
21.8
C
6
Bascom Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
41.9
D
PM
02114113
51.3
D
7
Meridian Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
39.4
D
PM
02114113
46.4
D
8
Linoaln Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
35.3
D
PM
02114113
39.0
D
9
Bird Avenue and San Carlos Street "
San Jose
AM
04118113
33.0
C
PM
09118112
39.0
D
10
Monroe Street and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
17.4
B
PM
02114113
20.2
C
11
Monroe Street and Hedding Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
35.7
D
PM
05107113
37.3
D
12
Monroe Street and Newhall Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
26.6
C
PM
02114113
27.0
C
13
Winchester Boulevard and Hedding Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
31.0
C
PM
02114113
35.9
D
14
Winchester Boulevard and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
02114113
15.4
B
15
San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
02126113
51.1
D
PM
09111112
68.2
E
16
Saratoga Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
02126113
34.8
C
PM
09125112
38.1
D
17
Kiely Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
04116113
37.9
D
PM
09119112
37.1
D
18
Saratoga Avenue and Kiely Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
04117113
45.2
D
PM
09119112
41.0
D
19
Saratoga Avenue and 1-280 (North) "
San Jose
AM
04118113
23.4
C
PM
09119112
21.9
C
20
Saratoga Avenue and 1-280 (South) "
San Jose
AM
U4118/13
40.7
D
PM
09119112
34.5
C
21
Saratoga Avenue and Moorpark Avenue "
San Jose
AM
04118113
41.5
D
PM
09119112
44.1
D
22
San Tomas Expressway and Moorpark Avenue "
San Jose
AM
03107113
51.8
D
PM
09106112
52.8
D
23
Winchester Boulevard and Olin Avenue
San Jose
AM
02113113
17.6
B
PM
02113113
21.5
C
Nemon Tldnspoitatinn Consultdols. Inc.
Page 117
Santana Row Lots 9 and 17 Development November 12, 2014
Table 11
Cumulative Conditions Intersection Levels of Service
1 Wrndrester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard "
San Jose
AM
36.1
D
68.8
E
82.6
0.567
70°I
PM
60.1
E
191.9
F
273.9
O.fi99
10°I
2 Santana Row and Steven Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
15.0
S
14.7
S
2.3
0.183
PM
31.0
C
28.5
C
-2.3
0.137
3 Redwood Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
9.8
A
10.4
B
0.5
0.173
PM
29.7
C
29.4
C
1.9
0.169
4 Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
34.1
C
43.5
❑
14.6
0210
PM
63.5
F
1722
F
i26.9
0.304
29°1
5 1880 SB offianp and Stevens Creek Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
23.0
C
26.5
C
-6A
0.225
PM
18.7
B
21.5
C
3.2
0.148
6 Bascom Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
RM
43.0
D
45.0
D
3.3
0.052
PM
52.6
1)
54.5
0
2.0
0.051
7 Merdian Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
40.3
6
40.9
❑
0.9
0.047
PM
522
6
54.0
1)
2.9
0.032
8 Lincoln Averi a and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
372
D
37.4
b
0.6
0.041
PM
41.7
D
41.6
0
0.6
0.028
9 Bird Averm and San Carlos Street '
San Jose
AM
35.7
D
36.4
D
1.0
0.016
PM
42.4
D
43.1
D
1.1
0.016
10 Monroe Street and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
17.8
B
17.8
B
0.1
0.016
PM
21.1
C
21.3
C
0.4
0010
11 Monroe Street and Hedding Street
San Jose
AM
36.0
❑
36.4
0
0.2
0.007
PM
37.6
D
37.8
❑
-0.7
0.018
12 Monroe Street and Mem4AI Street
San Jose
AM
2$.9
G
27.1
C
-0.1
0.018
PM
27.1
G
27.5
G
0.3
0.OW2
13 Wr dN sten Boulevard and Heddirg Street
San Jose
AM
31.7
G
33.7
C
5.2
0.117
PM
33.3
D
39.6
b
3.5
0.054
14 Wrrchester Smkvard and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
eu
202
C
r
21.9
C
r
1.0
0.029
15 San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
542
6
59.9
E
8.8
0.046
2r/.
PM
74.8
E
78.0
E
S.9
0.012
241,L
PM
36.5
❑
39.5
0
2.0
0.044
17 Kiely Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
37.8
6
37.7
❑
0.0
0.004
PM
37D
6
36.8
❑
-0.1
0.005
18 Saratoga Avenue and Feely Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
45.0
D
45.0
0
0.1
0.002
PM
41.1
D
41.3
d
0.5
0.012
19 Saratoga Averm and 1.2BO (North}'
San Jose
AM
23.3
C
23.1
C
0.0
0.004
PM
21.8
C
21.6
C
-0.3
0.013
20 Saratoga Avenue and 1-2B0 (South)
San Jose
AM
422
D
422
0
0.1
0.000
PM
34.6
C
34.8
G
0.6
0.004
21 Saratoga Avenue and Moorpark Avenue "
San Jose
AM
41.8
❑
42.9
❑
1.1
0.024
PM
44.7
D
45.1
0
0.3
0 013
22 San Tapas Expressway and Moorpark Avenue'
San Jose
AM
52.9
D
53.3
D
0.7
0.005
PM
54.9
D
61.7
E
11.6
0.049
191
23 Wrnduester Boulevard and Clin Avenue
San Jose
AM
17.5
8
20.5
C
7.0
0.405
PM
7n 4
C.
58.8
E
49.4
0.540
9`: o
VOLAR
TIA, traffic study: http://www.sanuoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/65247
Comments from VTA RE Draft EIR: http://sanooseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68773
Excerpt: 'Both the Stevens Creek/Winchester and Stevens Creek/Monroe intersections are currently Protected Intersections, per City
policy, meaning that the City would accept offsetting transportation system improvements to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities as required by the development in order for the City to approve the project. VTA supports the idea of designating Protected
Intersections to encourage development in locations conducive to walking, bicycling and transit in order to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. However, increased congestion at this intersection could result in delay to transit vehicles on
Stevens Creek Boulevard, including the Local 23, Limited 323 and future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, which could degrade
schedule reliability and increase operating costs."
• Project Meets the threshold requirements for a Caltrans Traffic Impact Study.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr cepa files/tisguide.pdf
o Used Maximum ITE Trip Reductions for Mixed Use BUT Caltrans TIS Guidelines p. 4 require that using the
maximum reductions be justified:
■ 3. Captured Trips7 — Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and acceptance by
Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS.
• Counts from 2014 & 2015
Volar Mixed -Use Development
Table 3
Trip Generation Estimates
4 230 -Cm Wrw*—
0.44 17% 83%
and relaa rrl-d-use rel h.'
15%
and errpoprw v M.6d ee redrdm'
3%
near a f.,. h a $tDp rederLore'
2%
820 - MOppig Ceri f
and retail ni de use reduebw15%
ud and alployec-w v Q relay nised-lae redrsd-e
3%
,educh.rf
25%
710- Gated Olrira R.Idlrg
and a rpbylren -.1-Ire rrdL fi.,i
3%
..V and .L.1,M,
3%
enl rMX d nleln' h18 6trp redLY110n5
296
rn 931 - OuBey Re6ldl M
096 fi2% 36%
led till"$ arta eedurtroeu
2016
October 10, 2016
307 atlas 5,81 1.781
0.44 17% 83%
23 112 196
052 57% 33%
107 53 150
.173
-2 -2 ♦
-a -7 .15
-5
0 -1 -1
-1 6 -1
-32
0 -2 -2
-2 -1 -3
26 Mg s1.
42.70 1-151
096 fi2% 36%
1B 1n 26
371 48% 52%
48 52 100
-173
-2 -2 J
-7 -8 -15
-5
0.1 -1
.1 0 -1
-21
0 0 0
-10 -11 .21
18.516 s 1.
11.03 182
156 88% 12%
23 3 28
1A9 17% 83%
4 21 25
-5
-1 0 -1
0 -1 -1
-5
-1 0 -1
0 -1 -1
3
0 0 0
0 0 0
8.652 s.1.
89.95 778
0.81 5016 50%
4 3 7
7.49 67% 33%
44 21 fi5
3,475
00 120 180
174 118 292
28,774 df 1953. 523 0.45 83% 17% 10 2 12 19 42% 58% 14 19 33
Sref Prolace TIPS (Propa4od-E Mhy I-ark!UB ) 7951 50 118 168 164 104 288
Sourw: ITE Trp Generation. 981 Edition. 2012,
The average trip ger—Wn rale 1wn MITE Trip Gawawn Matelot ysa used.
'As preswbed by he VrA T,"pw1a1 Irrpad Analyses Goddires (Odobe 2014), the nmvrw trip eedfmm for a nved-ere deedlprwv proles
will h—V old Nisil mYpofP Ys 6 equal to 15% off Ilte .Healer tnp [TPfwabr (MON 0] 0 Y ge� IesS bVS Cwt the ndBrt1 m PXrerg)-
W prescribed by the VrA Trarpwat- Irtpad Analysis G Oat— (Oddha 2014), the rtaanm hip railed. Por a ntoefl-- h5dlprttat pmt d
w1h employmera ad empbyee- iwq retail owporerls is equal l0 3% 08 to enp Wnerlt oo0paeM
'As prescribed by fie NA Traeporlatm Impasl AmNeas Gliddines (Odoba 2014) the nwir n trip redudim for a rrved-lira darehprlenl pralad
wCt housng artd mplof—rd wrlpm a is equal Io 3% off the smaller trip geir.WW (arro alert omponort gerrrdles Iran Nps hon he hmaing wrlpaerlq,
'As presmbed by Ute VrA T,aWonU m Impact A-y.s Guddl- (Odoba 2(1141, Ule rrmvnm hip redudim for a1pYYyrtet and hots;Fg boated near a mala bla stop
rs equal b 2% Of M enVhVTie 1I3ld h—KI mmpu—tt.
A 25% PIM pass -by reJL dW s typaaly applied for relal derelapnerf wine Sala Clara Carty.
lq Page 117
u WeaaaonTwspwationC9nsoams.Inc.
Volar Mixed -Use Development October 10, 2016
Table 9
Cumulative Conditions Intersection Levels of Service
1 Wnchester Bouleuara and Swvens Creek Bauevard '
2 Santana Raw and Stevens Creek Boulevard
3 Remmod Avenue and Sievens Creek Boulevard
4 Monroe Street and Slevans Creek BaWevard
5 1-880 SB Ramps and .Snevans Creek Ex&LL-vard
5 IA80 NB Ramps ono Soevens Creek BwJevard
7 Wnchester Bculeuard aro Olin Avenue
8 Wnahester Boulevard and Olsen Drive
9 4Mnahester Boulevard and l-280 WB ontarnWTtsch may
10 V91nchester Bollevam and Moorpark Avenle
11 I-280 EB off -ramp and Moorpark Avenue'
12 San Tarter E>pressuayand Sievers Creek Boulevard
` Denotes CMP Intersection
Bdd indicates unacmptaWe le'oel of service.
Md and caked indicate signrkanl impact.
AM
39-7
D
40.5
❑
1.0
0-021
PM
78-1
E
F80.6
F
35.1
Q.QK
671/.
AM
12-9
B
12.9
B
0.2
01120
PM
29-3
C
28.8
C
-0.3
0.023
AM
1&S
a
19.2
B
0.0
0-019
PM
49-4
D
52.2
❑
6.7
0-938
AM
40-2
D
42.3
D
2.0
0.024
PM
14&3
F
157-3
F
13.3
0-031
:2' -
AM
27-1
C
25.2
C
1.5
0-032
PM
26-4
C
27.2
C
1.9
0-944
AM
219
C
24.1
C
0.2
0-011
PM
25-5
C
26.0
C
O.a
0-915
AM
19-2
B
19.2
B
-0.1
0-006
PM
33-0
C
34.3
C
3.2
0-452
AM
2r.8
C
26.6
C
-0.1
0-006
PM
46-9
D
47.4
❑
2
0-009
AM
52.6
D
95.6
E
8-1
0-427
sa
PM
64-1
E
75.3
E
10.0
0-029
59 h
AM
4&2
D
49.5
D
2.1
0-013
PM
43-8
D
43.5
D
0.3
0-007
AM
12-2
B
12.3
B
4.0
0.007
PM
13-8
B
13.7
B
0.1
0-011
AM
94A
F
Fs9.3
F
12.8
0-041
T%
PM
65-5
E
71.5
E
23
0-416
proposed project's contribution to traff c growth at this intersection would be 25 percent or
more during the PM peak hour.
MitigationMeasure. The intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard has been
identified as a City of San Jose Protected Intersection. Thus, in lieu of physical mitigations at the
Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection- the project will construct offsetting
improvements to other parts of the citywide transportation system to improve systerrrwlde roadway
capacity or to enhance dour -auto travel modes in furtherance of the General Plan goals and policies.
(4) Monroe Sfreet and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Impact: This intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under background
conditions- and the added trips as a result of the proposed and pending projects would
cause the intersection's critical -movement delay to increase by two or more seconds and
the demand -to -capacity ratio NIC) to increase by 0.005 or mare during the PM peak
hour- Based on City of San Jose level of service impact criteria. this constitutes a
significant impact. The proposed project's contribution to traffic growth at this intersection
would be 25 percent or more during the PM peak #lour.
Mitigation Measure. The intersection of Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard has been identifed
as a City of San Jose Protected Intersection. Thus, in lieu of physical mitigations at the Manroe Street
and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection, the project will construct offsetting improvements to other
u� fldaon Tralsputation (msultants. Im Page 4
Santana West:
• TIA, traffic study: http://www.sanooseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57720
• Counts from 2014 & 2015
• Project Meets the threshold requirements for a Caltrans Traffic Impact Study.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr cega files/tisguide.pdf
o Used Maximum ITE Trip Reductions for Mixed Use BUT Caltrans TIS Guidelines p. 4 require that using the
maximum reductions be justified:
■ 3. Captured Trips7 — Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and acceptance by
Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS.
Santana Row West Development
Table 7
Project Trip Generation Estimates
710
*mart near a mW bus stop reduction'
2 -funded dedicated d fille reduction'
820
pass-hy mdu6-,
Project hips after red—tions
eTFpak.s (Century 22 and 23)' 444
e Cottee Shop & Bakery 932
iurart pi .di
t project hips after redrrbmts
Project Trips (Proposed - Eoramrp Land Uses)
June 14, 2016
1.49 17% 83% 246 1,199 1,444
-5 -24 -29
7 -35 -43
3.71 48% 52% 52 56 106
-13 -14 -27-
272 1,181 1,453
2022 40% 60% 40 fit 101
9.85 6C% 40% 40 27 67
-17 -12 -29
63 76 139
269 1,105 1,314
Source. ITE Tnp Generation, 91h Edition. 2012.
r1E Lard Use 710 - General Oltice Building
ITE Lad Ilse 820 - Si Center
ITE Lad Ilse 444- Movs ter Thea & Matinee
ITE Lad Ilse 932 - High-T—ar (Si[ -Down) Rest -rad
'The —age top generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used.
'A 25% PM pass -by reduction is typiraly appiied for retail development Whin Santa Clara County_
'rTE data sftavteL high-tumover(sti-dovn) mstaumrds have average passty tip reduction of 43% in the PM peak horn.
'As preswbed by the VTA Traapodation Impact Analysis Guldeli— (October 2014), the mmdnrm top mduction for employ—t and housng kicated w cin 2,000 -foot wok
of a major bra slop is equal to 2% of the employment components. (The project is located close to the Valley Fair Transit Center on Forest Avernoe).
'As presmhed by the VfA Tmrapodation Impact Analysis Guidelines (012014), the mmdrnm trip reduction for emplcyrnem w& project -funded deda-med shuttle
is equal to 3% at the empl yme" mrrpara t (Roe pmp3 is proposing a P jed-furled dadirasd sW& to save pmject traffic).
%Veekday daily rate vas derived mng Friday daily rate and mi ill iog by tie ratio of daily traffic variation between Tuesday and Friday.
Page150
t.A Iiwo Tidrim titin (ara.multami, I
969,051 s.f.
51.03 10,689
1.56 88% 12%
1,331 181 1,512
2%
-214
-27 -4 -31
3%
321
30 -5 45
2900 s1
42.70 1,238
0.% 62% 38%
17 11 28
25%
-27
0 0 0
11,361
1,281 183 IA"
5sQeers
21436 1072
0.00 0% 0%
0 0 0
6,800 s.f.
127.16 865
10.81 65% 45%
41 33 74
43%
-29
0 0 0
1,908
41 33 74
9,467
1,240 150 1,390
June 14, 2016
1.49 17% 83% 246 1,199 1,444
-5 -24 -29
7 -35 -43
3.71 48% 52% 52 56 106
-13 -14 -27-
272 1,181 1,453
2022 40% 60% 40 fit 101
9.85 6C% 40% 40 27 67
-17 -12 -29
63 76 139
269 1,105 1,314
Source. ITE Tnp Generation, 91h Edition. 2012.
r1E Lard Use 710 - General Oltice Building
ITE Lad Ilse 820 - Si Center
ITE Lad Ilse 444- Movs ter Thea & Matinee
ITE Lad Ilse 932 - High-T—ar (Si[ -Down) Rest -rad
'The —age top generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used.
'A 25% PM pass -by reduction is typiraly appiied for retail development Whin Santa Clara County_
'rTE data sftavteL high-tumover(sti-dovn) mstaumrds have average passty tip reduction of 43% in the PM peak horn.
'As preswbed by the VTA Traapodation Impact Analysis Guldeli— (October 2014), the mmdnrm top mduction for employ—t and housng kicated w cin 2,000 -foot wok
of a major bra slop is equal to 2% of the employment components. (The project is located close to the Valley Fair Transit Center on Forest Avernoe).
'As presmhed by the VfA Tmrapodation Impact Analysis Guidelines (012014), the mmdrnm trip reduction for emplcyrnem w& project -funded deda-med shuttle
is equal to 3% at the empl yme" mrrpara t (Roe pmp3 is proposing a P jed-furled dadirasd sW& to save pmject traffic).
%Veekday daily rate vas derived mng Friday daily rate and mi ill iog by tie ratio of daily traffic variation between Tuesday and Friday.
Page150
t.A Iiwo Tidrim titin (ara.multami, I
Santana Row West Development June
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
1
Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
10/21115
35.2
❑
PM
10/21115
46.6
❑
2
Santana Row and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
10/21115
13.7
B
PM
10121115
30.8
C
3
Redwood Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
10/21115
7-5
A
PM
10/21115
23.0
C
4
Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
10/21115
29.8
C
PM
10121115
35.4
❑
5
1-880 SB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard
San Jose
AM
10/21115
24.7
C
PM
10/20115
23.7
C
6
Bascom Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
10121115
41.1
❑
PM
10/21115
48.7
❑
7
Meridian Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
03/12115
37.8
❑
PM
031T2115
48.2
❑
8
Lincoln Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
05112115
34.2
C
PM
05/12115
34.1
C
9
Bird Avenue and San Carlos Street'
San Jose
AM
10114114
32.9
C
PM
09/18114
39.6
❑
10
Monroe Street and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
10121115
16.4
B
PM
10/20115
20.0
B
11
Monroe Street and Hedding Street
San Jose
AM
10/20115
32.0
C
PM
10/20115
32.8
C
12
Monroe Street and Newhall Street
San Jose
AM
10/20115
27.2
C
PM
10/20115
29.1
C
13
Winchester Boulevard and Hedding Street/Pruneridge Avenue
San Jose
AM
10/20115
29.6
C
PM
10/20115
35.6
❑
14
Winchester Boulevard and Forest StreetANorthington Circle
San Jose
AM
10/20115
24.2
C
15
San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard'
San Jose
AM
05/27115
81.8
F
P M
09/24114
64.1
E
16
Saratoga Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard'
San Jose
AM
10121114
35.5
❑
PM
09/17114
38.8
❑
17
Kiely Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard '
San Jose
AM
10/21114
37.5
❑
PM
09/17114
37.7
❑
18
Saratoga Avenue and Kiely Boulevard `
San Jose
AM
10121114
35.6
❑
PM
09118114
41.0
❑
19
Saratoga Avenue and 1-280 (North) '
San Jose
AM
10121115
29.7
C
PM
09124114
23.9
C
20
Saratoga Avenue and 1-280 (South) `
San Jose
AM
10121114
34.1
C
PM
09124114
33.2
C
21
Saratoga Avenue and Moorpark Avenue'
San Jose
AM
10121114
45.9
❑
PM
09118114
45.3
❑
22
San Tomas Expressway and Moorpark Avenue'
San Jose
AM
10120115
85.3
F
P M
09124114
46.9
❑
23
Winchester Boulevard and Olin Avenue
San Jose
AM
10120115
18.6
B
PM
10120115
20.4
C
24
Winchester Boulevard and Olsen Drive
San Jose
AM
10120115
14.0
B
PM
10120115
19.6
B
25
Winchester Boulevard and 1-280 WS on-ramplTisch Way
San Jose
AM
10120115
25.6
C
PM
10120115
34.6
C
26
Winchester Boulevard and Moorpark Avenue
San Jose
AM
10120115
38.6
❑
uNeza9nn Tratnporla�iu� Cunsuna�ts. i1►G. ` �: E I
Jantana how West ueveiopment June 14, 1Ulb
Table 11
Cumulative Conditions Intersection Levels of Service
1
Wr hesler Balward and Stevens Creek Borievard "
San Jose
AM
36.4
❑ 37.3
D 40.7
D 142
0232
PM
52.7
❑ 99.1
E 1 90.0
F 99.3
0.334
08%
2
Sarna Raward Stevens Creek Bakvard
San Jose
AM
12.9
B 12.7
B 12.9
B 0.8
0-96
PM
30.8
C 30.0
C 28.8
C -1.9
0.089
3
PAdNaod Avenue and Steven Creek Boulevarrl
San Jose
AM
19.6
B 19.9
B 19.2
B -0.4
0 W4
PM
48.0
❑ 49.1
D 52.2
❑ 11.9
0.104
4
Morena Street and Sten Creek Soievard
San Jam
AM
36 0
❑ 367
D 42.3
❑ 69
0.121
PM
88.3
F 96.1
F 157.0
-P99.6
0.200
70%
5
I -AN SB Ramis and Sk'rrem Creek Beulzvarrl "
San Jose
AM
25.5
C 26.4
C 282
C 44
n_1&i
PM
25.4
C 27.3
C 27.4
C 2.0
0.111
6
Bascom Averm and Sal Carlos Street
Sar Jose
AM
42.6
❑ 77.2
E 79.3
E MA
0.348
8°.6
PM
50.7
❑ 100.6
IF 1126
F 101.6
0Aa3
8°k
7
Meridian Avenue and San Cams Steel
San Jose
AM
39.9
❑ W1
E 62.2
E 33.4
3.360
6%
PM
53.6
❑ 98.5
F 1028
F 60.9
0269
446
8
Lk=in Averse and San Cabs Sleet
Barr. Jose
AM
372
❑ 40.9
D 41.3
D 5.8
0.193
PM
36.9
❑ 96.6
FF
1 7
0.61$
0°k
9
Bird Avarua and San Caddo Steel •
San Jose
AM
35.8
❑ 61.0
E
3%
PM
43.8
❑ 174A
f I MA
F 213.8
0.618 1
M
10
Marne Street and Forest Street
San Jose
AM
17.6
B 17.7
B 17.7
B 0.1
0.010
PM
19.9
B 20.0
B 20.0
B 0.1
0.011
11
Mame Street and "Mol g Street
San Jose
AM
32.3
C 32.5
C 32.6
C 02
0.014
PM
33.2
C 33.3
C 33.3
C 0.5
0.020
12
Monne Sum and NwNtd Stmt
San Jae
AM
27A
C 27.5
C 27.6
C 02
0019
PM
29.5
C 29.7
C 29.9
C 0.4
0.024
13
WrOester Bmk%,ard and Hedding StreevPnnerkW Avera
San Jose
AM
30.6
C 322
C 32.7
C 72
9.081
PM
38.6
❑ 39.0
D 39.8
❑ 26
0.037
14
WMhester Bctk%Wd and Forest Sne"kd*,9= Cirde
San Jose
AM
26.6
C 264
C 25.8
C -0.2
0.014
15
San Tomes Fgwesaaey and Ste"s Creek SoLke ord •
San Jose
AM
86A
F 97.2
F 99A
F IGA
0.063
34%
PM
67.6
E 70.3
E 71.6
E 27
0.023
15
Saratoga Averm a
ose
PM
39.7
❑ 40.6
D 41.3
❑ 3.6
0.067
17
14e1y Backward and Sevens Creels Bo k,,xd "
San Jane
AM
37.5
D 37.1
D 37.0
❑ 0.1
0.032
PM
37.6
❑ 37.7
0 37.6
❑ 0.3
0.023
18
Saratoga Amertre and Ktely Bak*"d "
San Jose
AM
35.1
D 382
D 38.1
❑ 92
0.085
PM
412
D 48.7
D 48.8
❑ 6.8
0.084
19
Saratoga Averse and 1.280 (North) "
San Jane
AM
29.5
C 27.8
C 27.7
C -23.5
OA38
PM
23.7
C 23.0
C 22.9
C -1.3
0.035
20
Saramgs Aaere and 1-280(Sorih)"
San Jose
AM
34.6
C 3.9
D 402
❑ 92
0.055
PM
331
C 35.7
D 35.7
❑ 4.3
0.051
21
Saretega Avera and Moopark Aveirue
San Jose
AM
46.8
❑ 472
0 47.7
D 1.1
0.037
PM
46.3
❑ 46.7
0 46.8
D 1.0
0.031
22
San Tamm Fey and Moorpark A"d e "
San Jose
AM
87.6
F 92.6
F 92,2
F &2
351
PM
48.7
❑ 49.5
D 51.6
❑ 5.6
0.000
23
UWrohesler Baiovard and Olin Aver.e
San Jose
AM
17.9
B 18.4
B 21.2
C 7.4
0207
PM
19.5
B 22.5
C 33.8
C 252
0291
24
Wndrester Bak%wd and Clam Drive
San Jose
AM
22.9
C 22.5
C 26.6
C 5.3
0.073
PM
32.5
C 322
C 47.0
D 18.3
0283
25
iWrrchester Boulerr td and 1.280 WB axampll'sdr Way
San Jose
AM
32.7
C34.2
C
E
1.197
PM
52.5
1)66.7
E 75.1
E 29.1
0.103
81%
26
VWrele w BarinkW and Mmpark Avere
San Jam
AM
4.7 d
❑ 43.1
D 49.6
❑ 118
0.103
PM
43.5
❑ 43.8
0 43.9
❑ 1.0
0.007
27
4280 EB off -ramp and Moorpark Averse •
San Jose
AM
11.8
B 11.8
8 12.3
B 02
0.037
PM
13.5
B 13.6
B 13.7
B 0.1
9.019
28
Wrrdesler Bcaievvall and Wliaus Rid
San Jose
AM
35.5
❑ 35.5
D 35.8
❑ 0.5
0.032
PM
361
❑ 36.1
D 35.9
❑ -0.6
0.016
29
Wrrehester Baievard and Payne Aveore
San Jose
AM
38.6
❑ 38.5
0 38.5
❑ 0.1
O-=
PM
38.5
❑ 38.5
0 382
❑ -0.6
0.016
30
4860 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Borievard
San Jose
AM
22.4
C 22.6
C 24.1
C 1.7
0.110
PM
24.9
C 25.3
C 25.9
C 1.3
0.060
31
Ddnw Avenue and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
15.0
B 14.7
B 14.8
B 12
0218
PM
22.0
C 37.0
0 38.2
❑ 22.1
0.309
32
VV= Way and San Carlos Street
San Jose
AM
32.9
C 46.6
D 46.8
❑ 17.7
0.382
PM
35.0
D 161.1
F ists
r 14cLe
1"s
33
Bascom Aaefe art? 4880{N)"
San Jose
AM
112
B 11.5
B 114
B 03
0010
PM
10.3
B 10.8
B 10.8
B 64
0020
34
Rescan Aaerre and 4880 (S)"
San Jose
AM
9.2
A 9.3
A 9.2
A 02
0.009
PM
6.6
A 6.6
A 6.6
A 02
0.006
35
Sat Tara Fgrem%ey ad Williams Road
San Jose
AM
64.6
E 68A
E 71.0
E 11.1
0.026
32°/
FORTBAY
FILE NO: PDC16-036
PROJECT APPLICANT: FORTBAY, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: 4300-4340 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Project Description: The project is a Planned Development Rezoning of a 9.9 -acre site to allow a mixed-use commercial/residential
project. The project includes demolition of the existing buildings, construction of two seven -story residential buildings (Building A
and B) to allow up to 500 residential units with approximately 11,500 square feet of ground floor retail within Building A, a six -story
approximately 244,000 square foot office building, and a six -story parking garage with up to 1,089 parking spaces. Additionally, the
project may relocate an existing public right-of-way (Lopina Way), to the east property line; include two new driveways along Albany
Drive to provide access to the proposed office parking garage and Building B; and relocate the existing driveways along Stevens
Creek Boulevard. Residential parking would be provided within both residential buildings, and the existing Lopina Way right-of-way
will be replaced with a landscaped promenade.
APPLE CAMPUS 2:
TIA traffic study for EIR:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-DEIR/Appendix-B-Transportation-Impact-Analysis.pdf
LLA ABSOCIAT1L. Iwo. APPLE CAMPUS r r10]1GT slit
jt114Z !ti! V. ARTTIMO, IMPACTS AND AIYIOATION lrlA RK11
I� T1AN8 FC, 1TATION AND 01ROULATION
Fable V.I-9: Levels of Service for Intersections Operating linacceptabts under Existing
Plus Proiect C(mditians
Existing I Existing, Plus
Iln=C .
AM = morning peak hour, Pini = afternoon peak hour
u IntersectionJunsdicnons:CUP -City ofCupemnolmerseciian (LOS Dthreshold),CMP- C.MP Intersectron(LOS E
dulmhold)
Whole lmersedian weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
a LOS - Level of Sery ice
Change in the critical volume -to -capacity ratio (Vo between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
f Change in crdical movement delay between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
a It should be noted khat the delay wnrild improve during the PM peak hour due to the project proposed improvement on the
eastbound approach of the iritersectwn (convert eastbound Through lane to shared left-tunrhhrough Tan).
Bald indicatesunwceptahle intersectionoperations. Sold and highlighted indicatessignificantimpacts.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2413.
The addition of project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable LCIS F operations at the intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway in the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. liowever, the critical delay is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds (2.8
seconds) and the critical VIC ratio is not projected to increase by more than 0.01 (0.047) between the
Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios; therefore the project is considered to have a less -than -
significant impact at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway intersection based on
VTA's impact criteria.
The proposed project would result in significant intersection impacts under Existing plus Project
Conditions, as discussed below_
The project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause unacceptable operating conditions at
the following intersections, and these changes would he considered a significant impact.
Int. 21. Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino)
Int. 31. Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway (Cupertino)
Int. 36. Stevens Creek BoulevardlCalverl Drivel] -280 Ramps (west) (CMP)
rcocuoi..p.xPUBLIC REVIEWLR4FT 393
SteveCreek
Inter-
('haoge
Change
Peak
52
section
AM
C11P
Signal
51.2
in Crit.
in Crit.
IRterSECUOn
Hourr
.lurisdictian�
Control
Delay`
LOSa
Dela,`
LOS4
VI('
Delm1
F
WDIfeRoad)l-280
AM
+4007
+IS
12.8
B
61.7
E
+4.376
+64.7
,l
Northbound Ramp
PM
U1!1'
Signal
13.4
B
1_6.0
C
+0.124
• 16.:
;l
Tantau Avenuef
AM
C'lIE'
Signa]
24.1
55.1
E+
+4.454
+48.8
VallcoParku °
PM
,;
,35
{
+ll.]�iI
-6.1
Stevens Creek
80ulevard1Calwert
AM
27.6
'-7.I
C
*4.]]!•
s.4
36
Dowell -280 Ramps
1511 e.ehl
PM
CMP
Signa]
44.1
11
65.5
F
(4 241
+78.5
Iln=C .
AM = morning peak hour, Pini = afternoon peak hour
u IntersectionJunsdicnons:CUP -City ofCupemnolmerseciian (LOS Dthreshold),CMP- C.MP Intersectron(LOS E
dulmhold)
Whole lmersedian weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
a LOS - Level of Sery ice
Change in the critical volume -to -capacity ratio (Vo between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
f Change in crdical movement delay between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
a It should be noted khat the delay wnrild improve during the PM peak hour due to the project proposed improvement on the
eastbound approach of the iritersectwn (convert eastbound Through lane to shared left-tunrhhrough Tan).
Bald indicatesunwceptahle intersectionoperations. Sold and highlighted indicatessignificantimpacts.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2413.
The addition of project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable LCIS F operations at the intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway in the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. liowever, the critical delay is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds (2.8
seconds) and the critical VIC ratio is not projected to increase by more than 0.01 (0.047) between the
Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios; therefore the project is considered to have a less -than -
significant impact at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway intersection based on
VTA's impact criteria.
The proposed project would result in significant intersection impacts under Existing plus Project
Conditions, as discussed below_
The project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause unacceptable operating conditions at
the following intersections, and these changes would he considered a significant impact.
Int. 21. Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino)
Int. 31. Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway (Cupertino)
Int. 36. Stevens Creek BoulevardlCalverl Drivel] -280 Ramps (west) (CMP)
rcocuoi..p.xPUBLIC REVIEWLR4FT 393
SteveCreek
52
8aulevnsardlSan
AM
C11P
Signal
51.2
D-
51.5
D-
+4.404
+0.5
Tomas EY receway
PM
80.3
F
82,0
F
+4007
+IS
Iln=C .
AM = morning peak hour, Pini = afternoon peak hour
u IntersectionJunsdicnons:CUP -City ofCupemnolmerseciian (LOS Dthreshold),CMP- C.MP Intersectron(LOS E
dulmhold)
Whole lmersedian weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
a LOS - Level of Sery ice
Change in the critical volume -to -capacity ratio (Vo between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
f Change in crdical movement delay between Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
a It should be noted khat the delay wnrild improve during the PM peak hour due to the project proposed improvement on the
eastbound approach of the iritersectwn (convert eastbound Through lane to shared left-tunrhhrough Tan).
Bald indicatesunwceptahle intersectionoperations. Sold and highlighted indicatessignificantimpacts.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2413.
The addition of project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable LCIS F operations at the intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway in the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. liowever, the critical delay is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds (2.8
seconds) and the critical VIC ratio is not projected to increase by more than 0.01 (0.047) between the
Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios; therefore the project is considered to have a less -than -
significant impact at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway intersection based on
VTA's impact criteria.
The proposed project would result in significant intersection impacts under Existing plus Project
Conditions, as discussed below_
The project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause unacceptable operating conditions at
the following intersections, and these changes would he considered a significant impact.
Int. 21. Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino)
Int. 31. Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway (Cupertino)
Int. 36. Stevens Creek BoulevardlCalverl Drivel] -280 Ramps (west) (CMP)
rcocuoi..p.xPUBLIC REVIEWLR4FT 393
LIA t0laarrlrea. two, xrrLl atNrvl r P10QT Ila
run& tiir V. SITTING. IMPACTS AND YLTIOATION It SURRA
I. T1ANS1-01YtY10K ANL 0110ULA110d
•fable V.1-12: Lewes ofSeruice for Intersections()perating 1.'nacccpts bly under Cumula-
tive Plus Project Conditions
C'umulatiae
Cumulative Plus
52
San Tomas
AM
CMP
Conditions
Project Conditions
E+
56.5
E+
+{1.006
Change
Ckange
Ex v
PM
Inter-
101.8
Perk
Jorisdietio
sect=..
+0.005
+2.4
inCrit
in Crit.
Intersection
Hour'
Eb
Control
Delay`
LOSd
Delay`
LOS"
VX'
Delavr
Stevens Creek
33
BoulevardlSLelkrig
AM
CUP
signal
44.3
D
44.4
D
.0.002
- 0. l
Road
PM
62.2
E
62.7
E
+11.1105
+111.8
5
De Anxa Boulevard)
AM
CUP
signal
4S_6
D
46.8
D
• 0.00?
+0.2
Homestead Road
PM
61.4
E
64.2
E
+0.014
+4.0
De Anxa Boulevard)
AM
40.0
D
40.4
1)
• 0.015
+0.9
S
Stevens Creek Blvd
PM
CUF
Signa]
58.6
E+
62.5
E
+0.047
+11.3
De Anxa Boulevard)
AM
31.2
C
31.4
C'
-0.020
+0_3
McClellan Road
PM
CUP
Signa]
61.0
E
62.7
E
+0.012
+2.6
IS
Wolfe Road)
AM
SUN
Signa]
46.4
D
37.3
D
-0.021
+0_4
Fremont Avenue
PM
58.0
E+
60.4
E
+0.033
+3.1
21
Wolfe RoadR-280
AM
CUP
Signal
13.3
B
69.9
1�:
+0.389
+52.7
Northbound )tam
PM
15.7
B
32.1
•0.092
+20.9
23
Wolfe Road)
AM
CUP
Sig[5a]
25.9
C
31.3
�'-
•0.159
+6.9
V311e0 Parkvra
PM
64.6
E
9X9
F
+0.117
+42.7
27
Tantau Avenue}
AM
CUP
Sizcsal
36.3
D+
64.7
I°:
+0.350
+37.8
Homestead Road
PM
36.9
D+
49.9
D
-0204
+13.9
31
Tanta. Avenue} Val lee
AM
CUP
Signal
28.7
C
56.8
E+
+0:453
+49.1
Parka
PM
35.3
D+
3S.4
D -r
• 0.170
+0_9
32
TantauAvenuel
AM
CUP
Sian;fl
41.4
17
48.6
D
•0.135
+r E_4
Stevens Creek Blvd
PM
52.1
1?-
83.4
F
+0.146
+48.0
Stevens Creek
36
BlvdlCalvert Drivel
AM29.2
CMF
Signal
1'
'9.3
C
• 6.144
-3.4
1-280 Ram West
PM
98.1
1.
151.4
1
+0.216
+106.0
Stevens CreekSlvdl
40
Lawrence Ex Ramps
AM
CMF
Signal
43.7
D
84.6
1.
+O.iSS
+SLS
east
PM
33.8
C-
36.3
1 , .
• 0.033
+2.2
Lawrence 1_vpresswayl
L.
AM
55.1
E+
76.3
l.-
*0.094
+27.1
ai
YfY L'A n4m.
ma
CMF
Signa]
�,1 v
r.
,,,
all ■ii
-.0.
Notes'
AM = morning peak hour; FM = aflerrto.n peak hour
r Intersection Jurisdictions, CUP = City of Cupertino Intersection (LOS D threshold, except at #8, LOS E+Y ST M = City of
Sunm'vale Intersection (LOS D threshold}, CMP = CMF Intersection (LDS E threshold)
` Whole intersection weighled average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
d LOS -Level of Service
Change in the critical volume -to -capacity rano (VIC) between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
f Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Bald indicates unacceptable intersection operations. Bold and IrWighted indicates significarn impacts.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2013.
At four intersections (intersection numbers 3, 9, 15, and 52) the critical delay during the PM peak
hour is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds and the critical V/C ratio is not projected to
increase by more than 4.41 between the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios; therefore
the project would have a less -than -significant impact at the 43 Stevens Creek BoulevardfStelIing
rcacunl .qffd� 2 rTsnorrnutnstirnmr,u«s�-v���v.aa:�mnni3lPt,'817C REVIEW DR4F'T 4 1 0
Stevens CreekSlvdl
52
San Tomas
AM
CMP
Signal
55.8
E+
56.5
E+
+{1.006
+1_U
Ex v
PM
101.8
F
103.1
F
+0.005
+2.4
Notes'
AM = morning peak hour; FM = aflerrto.n peak hour
r Intersection Jurisdictions, CUP = City of Cupertino Intersection (LOS D threshold, except at #8, LOS E+Y ST M = City of
Sunm'vale Intersection (LOS D threshold}, CMP = CMF Intersection (LDS E threshold)
` Whole intersection weighled average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
d LOS -Level of Service
Change in the critical volume -to -capacity rano (VIC) between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
f Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Bald indicates unacceptable intersection operations. Bold and IrWighted indicates significarn impacts.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2013.
At four intersections (intersection numbers 3, 9, 15, and 52) the critical delay during the PM peak
hour is not projected to increase by more than 4 seconds and the critical V/C ratio is not projected to
increase by more than 4.41 between the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios; therefore
the project would have a less -than -significant impact at the 43 Stevens Creek BoulevardfStelIing
rcacunl .qffd� 2 rTsnorrnutnstirnmr,u«s�-v���v.aa:�mnni3lPt,'817C REVIEW DR4F'T 4 1 0
APPENDIX E
APPROVED, NOT OCCUPIED AND PENDING PROJECTS
AM Peak Hour Trips
PAI Peak Hour Trips
Project Hams
Land Use
in I out I Total
In I out I Total
Apprnvedand Buhr-Hai Occupiad Prefects (c. January2013)
Downtown Sunnyvale
Mixed Use 565
352
917
526
771
1,297
Area Projects
North Santa Clara Mixed Use 7,180
1.601
8,781
2.273
6,382
8,6E5
Area Projects
Vallm South Area
Mixed Use 235
201
436
584
576
1,160
Projects
ects
10212 and 10165 N. Retail, Hotel 51
36
87
5o
54
104
De Anza Blvd.
Villa Sarre Condominiums �ct Trak Assgmments Taken DfrerWiy fmm VAR
Serra TtA
PW MarketRetail PFwctTralfacAssigrrrnentsTaken amcdyFrwnPA
Market TIA
19770 Stevens Creek Retail 20 13 33 58 63 121
Blvd
De Anda College Junior College 892 s8 984 728 392 1120
Expansion
10100 N.Tanta Li Retail 35 38 73 30 23 53
Avenue
Cupertino Village Retail 34 22 56 74 80 154
Oaks Shopping Centei Mixed Use 119 59 178 141 214 355
900 Kiely Boulevard Mixed Use 79 313 392 312 167 479
Carden Academy- Private School 124 101 225 71 79 150
2499 Homestead Rd
Main Street Cupertino Mixed Use 492 190 682 564 592 1,256
Crossroads Mixed Use 106 82 188 217 206 422
Biltmore Mixed Use -2` 32 30 13 E 19
3175 EI Camino- Real Apartments 14 55 69 59 32 91
5403 Stevens Creak office 475 55 540 85 414 499
Boulevard
Kaiser Medical Offices 272 73 345 115 310 425
Homesteadad Road
ad
Valley Fair Expansion Shopping Mall 291 186 j 477 j 1,124 j 1,170 2,294
Apple Cafeteria Cafeteria 11 11 22 5 4 9
Cupertino Bay Club Health Club 34 43 77 3 -42 -39
City of San Jose Various Project Traf x Assignments Taken Direcny ?ram City
Projects of San Jose Approved Trip Database
Penapng Prefects (c. January2013)
Wallin South Area
Retail, Reslaurar4
242
154
396
804
805
1.6m
Projects
Saich Way Station Mixed Use 34 21 65 23 23 46
3515 Monroe Street Apartments 43 172 215 166 89 255
2645 El Camino Real Apartmants 20 s0 1110 82 44 126
2585 Ei Camine Real Condominiums 6 27 33 25 13 38
Dov"oven Sunnyvale Apartments 16 9 25 16 9 25
Area Projects
Taken as 0 trips far arralysrs
Sources: City of Cupertino Approved and Pending Projects List, City of Sunnyvale Approved and
Pending Projects LisL City of Sarna Clara Approved and Pending Projects List. City of San Jose
Approved Projects Count Database_ Fehr & Peers, 2012.
LOS Comparison for San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Existing AM
LOS/Date
Existing PM
LOS/Date
Cumulative AM
LOS
Cumulative PM
LOS
Apple Campus 2
May 31, 2013
D-/2011
F/2011
E+
F
Santana Row
Lots 9 & 17
Development
November 12,
2014
D/2/26/2013
E/9/11/2012
E
E
Santana West
June 14, 2016
F/5/27/2015
E/9/24/2014
F
E
CITY PLACE SANTA CLARA (UNDER CEQA LITIGATION)
Traffic study from DEI R:
Chapter 03-03 - Transportation. Part 1 (PDF) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15536
Chapter 03-03 - Transportation, Part 2 (PDF) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15538
Table 3.3-49. Curnulative with -Project signalized Intersection LOS Results
ExtsiIIIg' Cumulatived Cumulative with
A In A in
jurisdiction/ Peak CAL Crit Project
ID Intersection CMP- Hourh Delay{ LOST Delay LOS( Delay LOSE V/D Delayh Contribution
125 San Tomas Santa Clara AM 53.5 E >180 F }180 F 0.033 14.2 1.6%
ExpresswayjStevens County PM 59.9 E 142.6 F 147.8 F -0.104 11.2 2.0t%
Creek Boulevard (CMP)
City Place SarRa Clara Project 3.3.189 October 2015
Draft EMFDnmental Impart Report ICF 00333.:9
City of Santa Clara Emi—mental Impart Analysis
Tra ripe rtatientrraFfic
Table 3.3-49. Cumulative with-Pro)ect Signalized Intersection LOS Results
Existing Cumulative' Cumulative with Project
A in A in
jurisdiction{ Peak CriL CrIL Project
ID Intersection CMF- Hourh Delays LOSE Delay- LOS' Delay LOSF VJ g Delayh Contribution
Notes:
= CMF = Congestion Management Program intersection (VTA).
TM AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour
'Existing" presents the delay and LOS for intersections, using existing geometry plus any approved and funded transportation projects and existing
traffic counts plus project trips from projects that are currently under constriction (see Appendix 3.3-13 and Appendix 3.3-D).
d- 'Cumulative" presents the delay and LOS For intersections, using 2040 geometry and traffic volumes estimated using the VTA travel demand model.
Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle, calculated using methods described in the 2009 Highway
Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County conditions for signalized intersections
' LOS =Level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIA analysis software packages, which applies the methods described in the 2000
Highway Capacity Mamual.
s Change in critical volume -to -capacity ratio between cumulative without -Project and cumulative with -Project conditions.
> Change in average critical movement delay between cumulative without -Project and cumulative with -Project conditions.
Geometry has been mad ifled to include the improvements for projects under construction and planned under Cumulative conditions as outlined in
Appendix 3.3-D.
} An LOS D threshold is used for study intersections within San josh, including CMP designated intersections. Santa Clara County intersections in San
los6 use an LOS E threshold.
a Maximum left- fright -turn lane or through -lane queuing in excess of available /potential storage at driveway entrances Cintersections #10, 11, 12,
61, 62, 850 86, and 87) during the morning and evening peak hours will most likely result in a worse LOS than calculated. These queues would
require multiple traffic signal cycles to clear and could extend upstream and affect nearby intersections.
Hold text indicates unacceptable operations according to the jurisdiction's LOS standard.
Bold and highlighted indicates a significant impact.
Source: Feitr & Peers, September 201S.
Street
55 Lawrence Santa Clara AM 73.5 E 135.3 F 144.0 F 0.047 15.4 2.346
Expressway/Homestead County PM 56.7 E 160.0 F >100 F 0.076 33.6 2.9%
Read (CMP)
Oily Place Sarka Clara Project 33-L83 Ortnher 2015
Oran Environmental Impart Report CFoo313.i4
City of Santa Clara Environmental Impart Analgsis
TramWrtationfTraFfic
Table 3.3-49. Cumulative with -Project Signalized Intersectian LOS Results
Existing, Cumulatived Cumulative with Project
6 in A in
jurisdiction/ Peak Crit Crit Project
ID Intersection CMP, Hourb Delay, LOSF Deiayr LOY Delay, LOSF V/Cg Delayh Contribution
56
Lawrence Santa Clara AM 62.5 E 100.0 F
110.2 F
0.024 8.9
2.4%
Expressway/Pruneridge County PM 48.5 D 147.9 F
159.5 F
0.0-04 -1.E
2.7%
Avenue
80
San Tomas Santa Clara AM 53.0 D 144.4
F 167.3
F 0.083
37.3
2.4%
Expressway/Homestead County PM 57.9 E 109.4
F 120.4
F 0.045
17.1
3.1%
Road (CMP)
81
San Tomas Santa Clara AM 26.4 C 23.0
C 29.2
C 0.017
0.2
3.1%
Expressway/Forbes County PM 24.3 C 23.4
C 35.2
D 0.078
28.0
3.6%
Avenue
82
San Tomas Santa Clara AM 69.1 E }180
F }180
F 0.049
24.1
2.5%
Expressway/Prnneridge County PM 50.8 D 82.0
F 87.5
F 0.021
8.7
3.3%
Avenuei
83
San Tomas Santa Clara AM 73.7 E 116.0
F 132.1
F 0.052
24.6
24%
Expressway/Saratoga County PM 55.4 E 120.0
F 13{7.7
F -0.0D8
-11.9
3.0%
Avenuei (CMP)
SAN JOSE ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN TIA FOR THE DEIR
http://www.saneoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2198
•
The broad -brush program -level traffic study shows 73% of Cupertino's lane miles are impacted by San Jose's
GP. Stevens
Creek Blvd. will be deficient.
•
San Jose indicates they altered their policy to no longer driver comfort and
convenience, yet this is not holding
up to CEQA
scrutiny due to other concerns such as greenhouse gas emissions.
Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan:
Transportation Impact Ana€ ms for the Draft En%imnrrrerrW lmpaof Report
Ocicber 2010
adjacent jurisdiction are attributable to San Jose. The 25 pereent threshold represents what would be a
noticeable change in traffic by San Jose General Plan.
The following roadways were analyzed to determine impacts presented in Table 15. CMP system
roadways are identified in italicized text. Minor arterials were also analyzed to determine impacts
presented in Table 15. however, they are not specifically identified below.
• Campbell: Hamilton Avenue, Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard
■ Cupertino: Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stevens Creek 8aulevard,
Pruneridge Avenue, North Wolfe Road, DeAnza Boulevard, Stelling Road
46 Gilroy: Monterey Street, Leavesley Road, Hecker Pass Highway, East 10`' Street, Monterey
Street, East Luchessa Avenue
fp
FfHkz l'El LS I
IkAi 5l pRl✓tl{9i SO■}py lkY 7}
TABLE 15
ADJACENT JURISDICTION IMPACTS SUMMARY
{BASED ON AM PEAK 4 -HOUR PERIOD VOLUMES)
Existing Conditions
Proposed General Plan Update
City
Total Lane
Miles with
Deficient
VIC Ratio1
Impacted
Lane Miles
(San Jose
traffca:10%
of Volume)
Percent of
Impacted
Lane
Miles
Affected
Total
Lana
Miles with
Deficient
VIC Ratio
Impacted
Lane Miles
(San Jose
traffic 10%
01 volume)
Percent of
Impacted Lane
Miles Affected
Campbell
0.13
0.13
100
0.42
0.42
1110
Cupertino
0.67
0.67
100
7.52
5.45
73
Gilroy
0.00
0.00
0
1.65
1.65
100
Los Rhus
0.78
0.78
100
2.52
2.52
100
Los Altos HiNs
0.17
0.02
14
3.61
3.00
83
Loa Gatos
0.12
0.12
100
0.90
0.90
100
Milpitas
0.73
0.73
100
22.17
22.17
100
Monte Sereno
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0
Morgan Hill
0.00
0,00
0
1.97
1.97
100
Mountain View
0.72
0.65
90
11.76
14.83
92
Palo Alta
0.48
0.16
33
7.58
4.76
63
Santa Clara
0.17
0.17
100
1.95
1.95
100
Saratoga
1.26
1.26
100
5.71
5.71
100
Sunnyvale
0.00
0.00
0
1.45
1.42
98
Cal -trans Fadlifies2
5,093.26
4,3$1,72
86
4,951.58
4,584.04
93
Santa Clara County
Facilities
3.01
3.01
100
21.33
21.33
100
Notes-. Impacts are identified in bald text.
1 Lane miles of less than 0.5 were rounded to 0. For evaluating significant impacts. 9 impacted lane miles attributable to the Gil
are less than 0.5, impacts are considered lass rhanigraffcanr_
2 Includes all Caltrans facilitleswithin Santa Clara County.
Source: Fehr& Peers. 2014.
The following roadways were analyzed to determine impacts presented in Table 15. CMP system
roadways are identified in italicized text. Minor arterials were also analyzed to determine impacts
presented in Table 15. however, they are not specifically identified below.
• Campbell: Hamilton Avenue, Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard
■ Cupertino: Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stevens Creek 8aulevard,
Pruneridge Avenue, North Wolfe Road, DeAnza Boulevard, Stelling Road
46 Gilroy: Monterey Street, Leavesley Road, Hecker Pass Highway, East 10`' Street, Monterey
Street, East Luchessa Avenue
fp
FfHkz l'El LS I
IkAi 5l pRl✓tl{9i SO■}py lkY 7}
Ernvis0r; San Jose 2040 General Plan-
Transportation Impact Analysis for the drift Envirtmna7mMat Impact Report
October 20? 0
TABLE 14
TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDOR 1 M PACT SUMMARY
Roadway Segment
Cross Street
Cross Streat
Distance
(Miles}
AM Peak Hour Travel Speed
(MPH}
Proposed
Existing General Plan
Conditions Conditions
Second St_
San Carlos St_
SI _James St.
06
11.5 11.4
Alum Rock Ave.
Capitol Ave.
U5 101
3.4
20.0 12.9
Camden Ave_
SR 17
Meridian Ave_
5.2
24.0 18.0
Capital Ave
S. Milpitas Blvd.
Capital Expwy.
7.6
24.1 17.5
Hillsdale AveJ
Capitol Expwy.
Capitol Ave.
Meridian Ave.
19.8
28.6 23.b
E_ Santa Clara St.
LIS 101
Delmas Ave.
4.6
20.4 16.2
Meridian Ave.
Park Ave.
Blossom Hill Rd.
12.2
25.5 19.6
Monterey Rd.
Keyes St
Metcalf Rd.
18.2
24.6 17A
First St.
CA 237
Keyes St.
17.2
22.6 13.4
San Carlos St.
Bascom Ave.
SR 87
42
24.3 19.7
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Bascom Ave.
Tan tau Ave.
8.2
23.1 18.E
Tasman Or_
Lick Mill Blvd.
McCarthy Ln_
5.0
24.3 9A
The Alameda
Alameda Wy_
Delmas Ave.
4.2
22.5 141
IN. San Carlos St.
SR 87
Second St.
1.3
19.9 17.3
Nate: The values shown have been rounded for presentation purposes.
Sourca' Fehr& Peers_ 2010.
g. Adjacent Jurisdictions
Operations of adjacent jurisdiction roadway segments outside the City of San Jose boundaries were
reviewed to determine the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. Table 15 summar¢es
these results.
Given changes in land use, trip patterns, and behavior between the two scenarios, vehicular traffic on
roadway segments within several jurisdictions is projected to increase with the proposed General Plan
Update land uses as compared to existing conditions.
A roadway segment within adjacent jurisdictions is considered to be deficient if the future volume -to -
capacity (VIC) ratio is 1.0 or greater during the AM peak 4 -hour period in the year 2035_ Given the large
papulation and employment projected to reside in the region, and the complex travel patterns created by
the large population and employment numbers, only a portion of trips on any roadway segment in
adjacent jurisdictions are expected to have originated from a resident or jab within City of San Jose_
Therefore, a deficient roadway segment in adjacent jurisdictions is attributed to City of San Jas& General
Plan when the trips from the City are 10 (ten) percent or more on the deficient segment. The impact to an
adjacent jurisdiction is considered significant when 25 percent or more of total deficient lane miles in that
FEHR PEEKS
reAY MAL7MM rp NINkTAYr1
Adjacent Jurisdiction Impacts
Impact TRANS4. Motor vehicle traffic and congestion resulting from implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would increase on roadway segments outside
of the City of San Jose. {Significant)
Roadways within adjacent jurisdictions are considered to be deficient if the volume to capacity (VIC) ratio
under proposed General Plan Update conditions is 1.0 or greater, and is considered an impact when the
trips from the City are 10 (ten) percent or more of the total traffic on these roadways. The impact is
considered significant when the impacted roadway lane miles are 25 percent of the deficient lane miles.
With implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, 15 adjacent jurisdictions would have impacts
on greater than one lane mile of roadways. These impacts are the aggregate of the major roadways
within the adjacent jurisdiction boundaries of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Las Altos Hills, Los
Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara, Caltrans
facilities, and Santa Clara Ceuntyfacilities.
The traditional response to mitigate significant traffic -related impacts, or increases in automobile trips on
street segments, is to increase roadway capacity by providing additional lanes or facilities_ In Santa Clara
County, widening roads to provide additional travel lanes is no longer feasible in most cases because
available right-of-way is already constrained and utilized by other land uses or transportation facilities_
Dedication of additional land to paved roadways decreases landscaping, eliminates street treeslbus
stcpslbicycle lanes, reduces sidewalk widths, increases intersection sizes, and moves vehicular traffic
(with associated noise and pollution) closerto residences and businesses_
The proposed General Plan Update recognizes and acknowledges that there will be increased levels of
congestion resulting from new development, both within San Jose and elsewhere in the Bay Area_ This
reflects a c hange in policy for the City to acknowledge that transportation planning based solely on
cadway traffic operations (i.e_ analysis based on traffic level of service and volume to capacity ratios),
which considers only driver comfort and convenience, is not desirable since it fails to acknowledge other
users of the circulation system and other community values. In evaluating the roadway system, an impact
to adjacent roadways may be desired when balanced against other community values related to resource
protection, social equity, economic development, and consideration of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
users.
fp
FEHR & PEEKS
F&Ah%Fa1rarr0N CONSW91KNIJ
Envision San Jose 2NO General Plana
Transportation Impact Analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
October 2010
Widening a road to achieve a lower volume to capacity ratio results in higher expenditure of infrastructure
dollars for wider roadways that don of necessarily serve all users of the circulation system. Roadway
widening also provides capacity that is excess for the majority of the day outside the peak periods_
Furthermore wider roadways, in general, are inconsistent with goals promoting a more livable city, cause
greater impacts to biological resources and discourage roadway use by pedestrians and bicyclists. In
addition, mitigating impacts to affected roadway segments can have high infrastructure costs_
The proposed General Plan update contains several policies and actions that seek to reduce automobile
travel_ They include TR 1.1 through TR -1.9, TR 2.1 through 2.11. TR -3.1 through 3.4, TR -0.1 through
4.4, and TR -8.1 through 8.4. Implementation of these policies and actions would help reduce the
magnitude of traffic impacts on adjacent jurisdictions.
The proposed General Plan update also includes an implementing action to encourage coordination with
other jurisdictions:
CR -1.8 Interagency Participation and Coordination. Actively coordinate with regional
transportation, land use planning, and transit agencies to ensure development and
maintenance of a t ranspartation network with complementary land uses that
encourage travel by bicycle, walking, and transit, and ensure regional greenhouse
Based on the considerations above, no mitigation measures are feasible to reduce adjacent jurisdiction
impacts to a less than significant level. With adoption of the new policies and implementing actions
contained in the General Plan Update, this impact would be reduced but could remain significant.
Therefore, impacts to adjacent jurisdictions would remain significant and unavoidable.
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2040 EIR
Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data: http://www.cupertinogpa.org/documents/view/211
Cupertino presents that 11 of 16 intersections would operate at unacceptable level of service due to the proposed project. 9 out of
16 intersections are outside of Cupertino jurisdiction.
Tuesday. March 20, 2012
C uperbnoCIIN L tIUI1%il
Jennifer Griffin expressed her concern that the vacation of Finch Avenue would be
determined before an EIR is completed or permits for Main Street have been pulled. She said
that she felt Main Street and the vacation of Finch Avenue should be separate items.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden said that the vacation would not be approved until
Main Street is approved and that Council is only setting May 1 as the date for a public
hearing to coincide with the hearing regarding Main Street.
Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to adopt Resolution No_ 12-029 as amended with the
correct hearing date of May 1. The motion carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUB€.IC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
13. Subject: Annual Status report of the General Plan and Housing Element
Recommended Action- Approve for submission to the California Department of Housing &
Corn munity Development (HCD) by April 1, 2012
Description: Review of the General Plan progress and program implementation as required
by State Law
Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the staff report_
Jennifer Griffin said that developments such as Main Street, Biltmore, hose Bowl, Apple,
and the IHOP development are coming up. She noted that the General Plan says the City
can't approve additional housing if road intersections can't maintain above a D grade level of
service. She said she is concerned that Stevens Creek Blvd. will take the brunt of the traffic
with these new developments. She urged Council to take a look at this when approving the
projects.
Shrivastava explained that the General Plan does talk about maintaining a level of service D
for all intersections. She said that this will be looked at during the environmental review of
the projects_ She noted that the City will review and get a chance to provide comments
regarding the IHOP development, but since it's in a different city, they can only comment_
She said that staff would make sure that none of Cunertino's intersections would he impacted
above level service D when the projects are approved_
Wong moved and Mahaney seconded to approve the submission of the General Plan and
Housing Element annual status report. The motion carried unanimously.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED RE2014ING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Five (S) of the Axteen ( 16) intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least
one Freak hour under the proposed project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service
under the No Project scenario.
The intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service are bolded and underlined in Table
4 -13 -13 -All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under the
proposed Project conditions. The LOS calculation sheets are included in AFgmndix G, Transportation and
Traffic data, of this Draft FIR -
TABLE 4.5-13 PRoPosED PR1al n I NTERSEcr1oN LEVELS OF $Hma Mal
3 Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek E+ AM 46.2 ❑ 47.7 D 0.050 -0.7
Blvd.' PM 52-9 ❑- 89.2 F 0.240 71-7
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd. and
AM
42.5
N6 Prclect
44.5
❑
Pmpnsed
"ad
4 E
PM
LOS
Ptltllc
ft
C
0.148
13-7
Chsr a In
ChaIIgR In
R Interse#lon
Standard
Hour
D&y
LDS
De1W
L.05
CHL VX
Crit. Delay
SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens
301S
AM
29.2
C
31.9
C
0.127
4.6
1
Creek Blvd.'
❑
PM
29-1
C
32.2
C-
0.103
4.4
SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens
0.029
AM
51-1
❑-
69.1
E
0.084
25-3
2
Creek Blvd-'
D
PM
24.9
C+
21.5
C+
0.110
2.2
3 Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek E+ AM 46.2 ❑ 47.7 D 0.050 -0.7
Blvd.' PM 52-9 ❑- 89.2 F 0.240 71-7
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd. and
AM
42.5
❑
44.5
❑
0.054
3.1
4 E
PM
22-2
C+
29.5
C
0.148
13-7
Fremont Ave.
PM
52.5
❑-
53.0
E
0.075
17.6
Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd./De
AM
51.2
❑-
301S
F
0.273
88.4
5 D
Ansa Blvd. and Homestead Rd.
PM
6&1
li
MA
F
0.486
214,8
6 ❑e Anxa Blvd- and 1-280 NB ❑ AM 46-4 ❑ Ml) F 0.393 170-6
Ramp' PM 71,7 E 262.2 F 0.623 274-1
D* Anxa Blvd. and 1.284 SS AM 47.4 ❑ 1109 F 0.345 142.6
7 Ramp' ❑ PM 353 ❑+ ".9 F 0.550 2373
De Anxa Blvd. and Stevens AM 45.8 ❑ 53.6 D- 0.079 10,8
8 Creek Blvd.' E+ PM 75.2 E- 15014 F 0.445 188.9
DeAnxa Blvd. and McClellan
11
AM
33-0
C-
39.3
❑
0.138
9.3
9 Rd,{ D
PM
22-2
C+
29.5
C
0.148
13-7
PaeiFira ❑r-
PM
707
E
109,8
F
0.153
573
13 Blaney Awe. and Homestead Rd. D
AM
44.0
❑
51.4
❑-
0.067
10.7
iQ De Anxa Blvd. and Bollinger Rd.E+
PM
16.4
6
25.0
C
0.1.87
10.7
PM
25.1
C
22.6
C+
0.029
-1.3
De Anxa Blvd. and SR 85 NB ❑ AM 32-9 C- 37.6 ❑+ 0.099 5.9
Ramp' PM 16-4 a 27.8 C 0.130 182
De Ansa Blvd. and SR 85 SB
AM
23.9
C
26.2
C
0.063
3.6
12 ❑
Ramp'
PM
22-2
C+
29.5
C
0.148
13-7
AM
34.9
C-
52.9
❑-
0.205
263
13 Blaney Awe. and Homestead Rd. D
PM
16.4
6
25.0
C
0.1.87
10.7
Wolfe Rd. and El Camino Real AM 47-6 D 48.0 ❑ 0.015 0.7
14 {SR 82jh E PM 51.8 ❑- 53.2 D- 0.027 1.4
AM 45-5 ❑ 47.4 ❑ 0.045 -1.5
15 Wolfe Rd. and Fremont Awe.` E
PM 51-8 ❑- 59.3 E+ 0.060 7.1
4.13-54 raNE 18. 2614
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING, DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.13-13 PROPOSED RojECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICETMM
AM 17.0 B 32.0 C 0.204 18.8
17 Wolfe Rd. and Pruneridge Ave_ D
PM 26.9 C 43.2 Q 0.118 20.6
AM
No Protect
Proposed
Project
F
LDS Peak
A*
pag.
Dan& in
Chang In
N Intusecdon Standard Hour
D&y UDS
Delay LOS
Crit. V9
CTR. Delay
AM
36.3 D+
39.5 D
0.094
4.7
16 Wolfe Rd. and Homestead Rd_ D
AM
3&9
D+
SILO
PM
51.9 D•
1452 F
0.224
77.2
AM 17.0 B 32.0 C 0.204 18.8
17 Wolfe Rd. and Pruneridge Ave_ D
PM 26.9 C 43.2 Q 0.118 20.6
AM
8&3
F
113.2
F
0.1.00
44.0
18 Wolfe Rd. and I.290 N6 Ramp' ❑
31
Stevens Creek Blvd.'
D
PM
722
E
54.6
D-
PM
36.5
D+
703
E
0.146
579
AM
3&9
D+
SILO
F
0.175
69.9
19 Wolfe Rd. and 1-28OS9 Ramp' Q
E
0.136
42.8
29 Creek Blvd!
PM
d4.2
PM
24.7
C
85.7
F
0.230
84.9
AM 26.4 C 31.1 C 0.113 5.9
20 Wolfe Rd. and Vallco Pkwy D
PM 51.2 D- S0.1 D -0.011 -3.4
Wolfe Rd./Miller Ave. and
AM
46.5
D
571
E+
0.114
16-S
31
Stevens Creek Blvd.'
D
PM
722
E
54.6
D-
-0.072
-22.4
Homestead Rd-"
AM
42.0
D
42.6
❑
0.019
1.0
22 Miller Aye- and Bollinger Rd. e
❑
34.8
C-
53.1
E
0.136
42.8
29 Creek Blvd!
PM
d4.2
D
49.3
❑
0.046
8.1
23 Finch Ave. and Stevens Creek D AM 26.6 C 23.1 C 0.195 -1.1
81vd_ PM 41.8 D 46.6 ❑ 0.032 3.5
24 North TantauAve_/QuaIII Ave. D AM 44.6 D 67.7 E 0.130 28.4
and Homestead Rd_ PM 43.6 D A? EF 0.107 18-S
North TantauAve- and AM 24.2 C 31.1 C 0.050 -8.0
25 Pruneridge Ave. D PM 16.6 B 17.4 a 0.032 1.3
North TantauAve- and Vallco AM 29.2 C 31.4 c 0.135 13.9
26 Pk -y D PM 34.6 G 37.5 D+ 0.034 2.8
Tontau Ave. and Stevens Creek AM 47.4 D 58.1 E+ 0.134 15.2
27 Blvd_ D PM 56.6 E+ 85.3 F 0.136 41.7
Lawrence Expressway and
AM
59.0
E+
52.9
E
0.022
6.5
28
E
Homestead Rd-"
PM
58L0
E+
56.9
E
0.032
10.7
1.280 5B Ramp and Stevens
AM
34.8
C-
53.1
E
0.136
42.8
29 Creek Blvd!
E PM
84.9
F
1393
F
0.159
70A
30 Agilent Tech Drive Way and D AM 52.9 D- 81.9 F 0.0% 37.6
Stevens Creek Blvd. PM 29.8 C 30.1 C -0.008 -0.1
31 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp E AM 72.8 E 112.4 F 0.126 523
and Stevens Creek Blvd_ I'm 29.9 C 29.9 C -0.012 -0.6
33 Lawrence Expressway NB Ramp E AM 53.9 D• SA F 0.142 523
and Stevens Creek Blvd. PM 30.1 C 29.8 C 0.016 0.7
33 Lawrence Expressway ands E AM 4&6 D 54.3 ❑- 0.026 7.0
Calvert Dir -11-280 S8 Ramp PM 50.6 D 65.1 E 0.062 21.9
34 Lawrence Expressways and E AM 60.5 E 62.8 E 0.014 3.5
Bollinger Rd,/Moorpark Ave.° PM 46.0 D 46.0 ❑ -0.00S 0.5
FLAC EWON9S 4.13-51
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, rOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED RE2ONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AM
31.0
C
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
C
0.107
2.3
36
TABLE 4.13-13 PROPOSED PROJECT I NTEFt5ECTim LEVELS OF SERVIa TABLE
D
PM
31.1
C
No Project
Proposed
Project
2.7
LOS Peak
Arg. A4
Change Fn
Change Fn
S Intierxction Standard Four
Delay LM D ft
LOS
CrIL Vic
Crit. Delay
L1eAnxa Blvd- and Rainbow Dr. AM
30.2 C+ 19.5
a-
0.036
-0.4
35 D
{south} PFA
19.2 B- 18.8
B-
0.061
0.3
Notes: Notes: N8 = northbound; SS - southbound; EB=easihound: WB - westbound.)kWmW Indkates a substandard lexel of wmvioe
Bold. underllnei and shaded M mrindicates a signlflcant project Impart
a_ This isa CNIP intersection wi:hin the Ctyof Cupertino. Cupertino appllesks own standard of LOS b toCM P Intersections.
In. Thlsls a OAP Intersection within the City of Sunnyvale. The CMP'sstandard of LOS E applies.
c The City of Sun rrgvaleAs the control lingjurlsdictlon For the rntersertlon.
d. ThLsis a bAP Interse€Uon on a County Expressway. The CMP and County's sundard of LOSE applies.
e_ This isa CMP Intersection within the City of Santa Cara. The CmVsstandard of UM applies.
f. The Gty of Santa Cara is the control ling jurisdiction for the intersection.
g_ The City of San lose Is the mntrdlingJurisdkWn for the Intersection.
h. This ds a future Interserdon_
As shown inTahle 4.13-13, above, the proposed Project would result in siyni scant impacts to seventeen
{17) intersections during at least one of the peak hours_
■ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): LOS E -AM Peak Hour
■ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): LOS F- PM Peak Hour
■ Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road/DeAnxa Boulevard and Homestead Road (#S): LOS F -AM and PM Peak
Hours
■ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): LOS F - AM and Plus Peak Hours-
De
oursDe Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7): LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hours
■ De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): LOS F - PM Peal: Hour
■ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive {#9):1-04 F - PM Peak Hour
* We]Fe Road and Homestead Road (#16): LOS F -PM Peak Hour
■
Wel Fe Road and 1-280 Northbound Ramp {#18): LCIS F -AM Peak Hour
■ Weife Road and 1-280 Southbound Ramp {## 19): LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hours
■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road/ Miller Avenue (#2 L ): LOS E+ AM Peak Hour
■ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road. (##24): LOS E - AM Peak Hour and E+ -
PM Peak Hour
4.13-+52 PIP NE 18. 2D14
Bubb Rd./Peninsula Blvd. and
AM
31.0
C
31.9
C
0.107
2.3
36
Stevens Creek SNd_
D
PM
31.1
C
33.8
C-
0.104
2.7
North Stelli rig Rd./
AM
3&5
D+
39.9
D
0.072
4.8
37
Hollenbeck Ave. and
D
Homestead Rd_
PFA
43.6
D
44.4
D
0.035
2.9
Blaney Ave_ a rld Stevens Creek
AM
34.1
C-
40.9
D
0.194
11.9
38
D
Blvd_
PFA
40.0
D
43.5
❑
0.115
14.4
Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek
AM
4&7
D
48.9
D
0.011
1.8
39
D
Blvd.
PFA
25.2
C
25.3
C
0.024
0.4
AM
32.1
C-
32.4
C-
-0.001
0.0
40
Stelling Rd. and McClellan Rd_
❑
PFA
35.6
D+
35.5
D+
0.014
1.8
Wolfe Rd. and Apple Campus
AM
1&9
B-
22.8
C+
0.069
9.1
41
❑
Aeeess
PM
36.8
D+
48.2
D
0.077
12.2
Notes: Notes: N8 = northbound; SS - southbound; EB=easihound: WB - westbound.)kWmW Indkates a substandard lexel of wmvioe
Bold. underllnei and shaded M mrindicates a signlflcant project Impart
a_ This isa CNIP intersection wi:hin the Ctyof Cupertino. Cupertino appllesks own standard of LOS b toCM P Intersections.
In. Thlsls a OAP Intersection within the City of Sunnyvale. The CMP'sstandard of LOS E applies.
c The City of Sun rrgvaleAs the control lingjurlsdictlon For the rntersertlon.
d. ThLsis a bAP Interse€Uon on a County Expressway. The CMP and County's sundard of LOSE applies.
e_ This isa CMP Intersection within the City of Santa Cara. The CmVsstandard of UM applies.
f. The Gty of Santa Cara is the control ling jurisdiction for the intersection.
g_ The City of San lose Is the mntrdlingJurisdkWn for the Intersection.
h. This ds a future Interserdon_
As shown inTahle 4.13-13, above, the proposed Project would result in siyni scant impacts to seventeen
{17) intersections during at least one of the peak hours_
■ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): LOS E -AM Peak Hour
■ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): LOS F- PM Peak Hour
■ Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road/DeAnxa Boulevard and Homestead Road (#S): LOS F -AM and PM Peak
Hours
■ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): LOS F - AM and Plus Peak Hours-
De
oursDe Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7): LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hours
■ De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): LOS F - PM Peal: Hour
■ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive {#9):1-04 F - PM Peak Hour
* We]Fe Road and Homestead Road (#16): LOS F -PM Peak Hour
■
Wel Fe Road and 1-280 Northbound Ramp {#18): LCIS F -AM Peak Hour
■ Weife Road and 1-280 Southbound Ramp {## 19): LOS F -AM and PM Peak Hours
■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road/ Miller Avenue (#2 L ): LOS E+ AM Peak Hour
■ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road. (##24): LOS E - AM Peak Hour and E+ -
PM Peak Hour
4.13-+52 PIP NE 18. 2D14
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue (#27): LOS F— PM Peak Hour
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1-180 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): LDS F — PAA Peak Hour
■ AgdentTech Drive Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#34): LOS F -AM Peak Hour
■ Lawrence Expressway Southhound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#31): LOS F —AM Peak Hour
■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp (#32): LOS F —AM Peak Hour
mit1g❑tion 1i eosUFe5
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic Mitigation Fee Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that
are necessary to mitigate impacts From Future projects hated on the then current City standards_ As part
of the Preparation of the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a
"nextu" Ludy that will serve as the basis For requiring development impact Fees under AB 1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66MO et seq., to support
implementation of the pirefIcKed Project -The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a
"reasonabie relationships' or nexus exist between the traffic improvements and Facilities required to
mitigate the traffic impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Prnject_ The Following
examples of traffic improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of service
standards and these, among other improvements, could he included in the development impact fees
nexus study:
• SR M Northbound Ramps and Stevens Geek Boulevard (#2): An exclusive left -turn lane
For the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off -ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left -turn lane, one all -movement lane, and one right
turn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans r ight-of--way.
■ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): The addition of a second exclusive left -
turn lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Greek Boulevard to northbound
Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median_ Right turns would snare the
hike lane.
■ Sunnyvale- aratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5): W, Eden De
Anza Boulevard to Four lanes in each direction or the Installation of triple left -turn lanes.
■ be Anza Boulevard and 1-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): Rectriping of De Anza l3oul evard in
the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated From through
traffic may he required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns wnuld occur from the
hike lane_ The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield to
pedestrians- Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space For bikes wait at red lights
may enhance the bicycle experience.
■ be Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek. Boulevard (#$): Restripie vvestbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide room For right turn vehicles to he separated from through vehicles may be
required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and v011 still be controlled by the traffic
signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights.The
pedestrian crossing; will not he affected may enhanee the bicycling experience_
F LAC €W 0tif3 4,15-S4
County) (432): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway
Northbound Damp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one though -movement lane, and one
exclu-ave right -turn lane may he required_ Right-of-way acquisition would he required_
The Fees shall be accessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing
building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use- The fees collected shall be
applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated by
multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate_ Traffic
mitigation Fees shall he included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is
issued. The City shall use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to
fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other things that at the
time of potential future development may he warranted to mitigate traffic impacts.
While implementation of Mitigatinn Measure TRAE- l would .ecure a funding mechanism for future
roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from Future projects based
on then current standards, impacts would remain si8nTicantand unavoidable, because the City cannot
guarantee improvements at these intercectiom at this time_ This is in part because the nexus study has yet to
be prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are under the jurisdictions of the Cities of
Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Caltrans. Specifically, the Following intersection: are outside the jurisdiction
of Cupertino:
PLAC EW ONES
x.13-55
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
■ % $5 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (##2)
■ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6)
■ Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (# 16)
■ Wolfe Road and 1-290 Northbound Ramp (#19)
■ Wolfe Road and 1-290 Southbound Ramp (# 19)
■ North Tantau Avenue /Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24)
■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (##30)
■ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)(##3I )
* Lawrence i;xprescway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#3))
However. the City will continue to cooperate with these jurisdictions to identify improvements that would
reduce or minimize the impacts to intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of future
development projects in Cupertino -
Sign ificanor
upertino_Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable_