Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

A Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis was not required because the project is estimated to generate fewer than 100 peak-hour trips. This report also includes the following analyses:
 Vehicle queuing analysis at high demand turn movements  Project site access and circulation evaluation
 Impacts to transit, bikes, and pedestrians
Intersection operations were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology during the peak hours.

Existing Transportation Setting
Regional access to the project site is provided via Montague Expressway and North Capitol Avenue.

Local acces to the project site is provided by Lundy Place, Trade Zone Boulevard, and Tarob Court.

These roadways are described below.

Lundy Place is a north-south, two-lane roadway extending from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the north to Trade Zone Avenue in the south, where it becomes Lundy Avenue. Lundy Place terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 650 feet north of Tarob Court.

Trade Zone Boulevard is an east-west, four-lane collector street extending from Montague Expressway in the west to Capitol Avenue in the east.

Tarob Court is a two-lane roadway extending west from Lundy Place. It provides access to the office/industrial buildings located to the west of Lundy Place and terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 800 feet west of Lundy Place. Tarob Court provides direct access to the project site via a single driveway.

Existing bicycle access to the project vicinity is provided primarily via a network of nearby Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes which are shared with vehicular traffic. Buffered Class II bike lanes are provided along Trade Zone Boulevard from Ringwood Avenue to Lundy Avenue. Conventional Class II bike lanes are present on Lundy Avenue south of Trade Zone Boulevard, McCandless Drive, and East Capitol Avenue. Currently, there are no bike facilities on Lundy Place or on Trade Zone Boulevard between Lundy Avenue and East Capitol Avenue. Existing Class III bike routes are present on Montague Expressway and Trade Zone Boulevard between Montague Expressway and Lundy Avenue.

Majority of the streets in the project vicinity have sidewalks, except the following street sections:
 South side of Trade Zone Boulevard between Montague Expressway and Ringwood Avenue  Both sides of Trade Zone Boulevard between Lundy Avenue and Autumnvale Drive  West side of Lundy Place
 Both sides of Tarob Court
The signalized intersection of Trade zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue has crosswalks on all approaches. There are no crosswalks at the unsignalized intersection of Lundy Place and Tarob Court.

515
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 5 of 19 ends

Existing transit service in the area includes VTA buses and VTA light rail. One VTA bus stop is located about 500 feet south of the project site at the intersection of Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue and is currently served by two bus routes: Route 77 and Route 831.

Route 77 is a VTA bus line that provides service between Eastridge Transit Center and Great Mall/Main Transit Center via King Road. Route 77 operates between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, with headways between 15 and 20 minutes. Route 77 also provides weekend service.

Route 831 is an ACE line that provides service between the Great America ACE station and the Lundy Avenue/Commerce Drive intersection. Eastbound service is provided during weekday mornings between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM with 45 to 60 minutes headways. Westbound service is provided during weekday afternoons between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM with 45 to 60 minutes headways. No service is provided during weekends.

VTA light-rail runs in the median of Great Mall Parkway/North Capitol Avenue. The closest light rail station (Cropley Station) is located near the Trade Zone Boulevard and North Capitol Avenue intersection, which is only 0.6 miles east of the project site.

In the future, BART service will be provided to the study area. As part of the BART extension to the South Bay, BART will pass through Milpitas, with the Milpitas Station located at the southeast corner of the Great Mall Parkway and Montague Expressway intersection. The station will be located approximately one-half mile north of the project site.

Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field.

The field observations revealed that the level of service analysis generally reflects actual existing traffic conditions. A summary of the observations is provided below.

Intersection at Lundy Avenue and Trade Zone Boulevard. During the AM peak hour, field observations showed that the queues for the westbound left-turn movement extended past the left-turn lane into the adjacent through lane on Trade Zone Boulevard. However, the long vehicular queues were able to clear in a single cycle. During the PM peak hour, long vehicular queues were observed on eastbound Trade Zone Boulevard. However, the eastbound through movement received adequate green time and all traffic was able to clear in one cycle. It should be noted that the proposed project would not add any trips to either of these movements.
516
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 6 of 19 ends

Project Traffic Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution step, an estimate was made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment step, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections in the study area. These procedures are described further in the following paragraphs.

Through empirical research, data has been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Based on trip generation rates for low-rise multi-family housing, the project would generate 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 26 trips during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1.

As stated previously, the existing site is occupied by an office/industrial building that is currently in operation. Trips generated by existing uses on site can be credited against the proposed residential development. Based on AM and PM peak hour driveway counts conducted by Hexagon in May 2019, the existing land uses generate 11 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips. After applying these existing trip credits, the proposed project would generate 9 net AM peak hour trips and 14 net PM peak hour trips.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on the City of Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP), of which the proposed development would be a part of. Trips were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the TASP trip distribution for residential uses. The project trip distribution and net project trip assignment are shown on Figure 3.

Land Use Unit Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Multi-Family Housing1 40 DU 0.50 5 15 20 0.65 17 9 26
Existing Use
Office/Light-Industrial 2 16 ksf 9 2 11 3 9 12
Overall Net Project Trips -4 13 9 14 0 14
Notes:

DU - Dw elling Units; ksf - 1,000 square feet

1. Based on Fitted Curved Equations for Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise, Land Use Code 220), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 10th Edition.

Size
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

2. Based on AM and PM peak hour drivew ay counts conducted on May 2, 2019. 517
X = Study Intersection
= Site Driveway
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
SAN
JOSE

MILPITAS
3 2
1 N Capitol Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
S Main St
Fortune Dr
Lundy Ave
Cropley Ave
Trimble Rd
Ringwood Ave
Qume Dr
Concourse Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
680
75%
20%
5%
2001 Tarob Court
Figure 3
Project Trip Distribution and Net Project Trip Assignment LundyAveLundyAve
Zone
Blvd
ProjectDwy
Trade
Tarob
Ct
Tarob
Ct
Lundy
Pl
1 2
3 -1(1)
10(0)1(0)2(0)
-1(3)
-2(10)
-4(14)
0(13)
13(0)
-4(14)
518
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 8 of 19 ends

Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Traffic volumes for existing conditions were determined from existing traffic counts conducted in May 2019. Traffic volumes for background conditions were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the trips generated by approved and pending developments, which were estimated using the following three components:

1. Background growth traffic volumes used in the Tarob Master Plan1,

2. Nearby development projects, and

3. City of San Jose Approved Trips Inventory.

The traffic volumes for the study scenarios are shown in Figures 4 through 7. The roadway geometries and traffic control at the study intersections were assumed to remain unchanged under all study scenarios.

Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The signalized intersection of Lundy Avenue and Trade Zone Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of City of San Jose. The City of San Jose utilizes TRAFFIX software and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology to evaluate intersection operations. The HCM methodology evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service. In San Jose, the minimum acceptable level of service is LOS D, and project impacts at signalized intersections occur when:

1. The level of service at an intersection drops below its LOS standard when project traffic is added; or

2. An intersection that is operating worse than its level of service standard under no project conditions has an increase in critical delay of four or more seconds AND the demand-to-capacity ratio (V/C) is increased by more than 0.01 when project traffic is added.

The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the V/C value by 0.01 or more.

A significant impact at a signalized intersection is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection levels of service to an acceptable LOS or restore the intersection to operating levels that are better than no project conditions The results of the intersection level of service analysis are summarized in Table 2. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The results show that the signalized intersection at Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Avenue would operate at LOS D or better under existing and background conditions with or without the proposed project. According to City of San Jose level of service standards, the project would therefore have no impacts on intersection level of service.

1 Focused Transportation Impact Analysis for the Tarob Master Plan in Milpitas, California, dated December 16, 2016 by Fehr and Peers.
519
X = Study Intersection
= Site Driveway
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SAN
JOSE

MILPITAS
3 2
1 N Capitol Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
S Main St
Fortune Dr
Lundy Ave
Montague Expy
Cropley Ave
Trimble Rd
Ringwood Ave
Qume Dr
Concourse Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
680
2001 Tarob Court
Figure 4
Existing Traffic Volumes
LundyAveLundyAve
Zone
Blvd
ProjectDwy
Trade
Tarob
Ct
Tarob
Ct
Lundy
Pl
1 2
3 104(288)
5(7)
133(427)
15(25)14(12)14(31)
692(229)
910(208)
46(8)
11(5)
185(898)
204(433)
41(16)
19(7)
7(2)8(12)
9(7)
7(40)
2(9)
9(3)
43(18)
16(45)
520
X = Study Intersection
= Site Driveway
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SAN
JOSE

MILPITAS
3 2
1 N Capitol Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
S Main St
Fortune Dr
Lundy Ave
Montague Expy
Cropley Ave
Trimble Rd
Ringwood Ave
Qume Dr
Concourse Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
680
2001 Tarob Court
Figure 5
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
LundyAveLundyAve
Zone
Blvd
ProjectDwy
Trade
Tarob
Ct
Tarob
Ct
Lundy
Pl
1 2
3 104(288)
4(8)
133(427)
25(25)15(12)16(31)
692(229)
910(208)
45(11)
9(15)
185(898)
204(433)
37(30)
19(7)
7(2)8(12)
9(7)
20(40)
15(9)
5(17)
43(18)
16(45)
521
X = Study Intersection
= Site Driveway
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SAN
JOSE

MILPITAS
3 2
1 N Capitol Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
S Main St
Fortune Dr
Lundy Ave
Montague Expy
Cropley Ave
Trimble Rd
Ringwood Ave
Qume Dr
Concourse Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
680
2001 Tarob Court
Figure 6
Background Traffic Volumes
LundyAveLundyAve
Zone
Blvd
ProjectDwy
Trade
Tarob
Ct
Tarob
Ct
Lundy
Pl
1 2
3 135(377)
7(10)
138(448)
62(45)17(14)33(39)
713(268)
935(354)
49(25)
33(56)
327(976)
314(493)
55(43)31(27)
7(2)36(23)
9(7)
49(70)
2(9)
9(3)
51(45)
58(75)
522
X = Study Intersection
= Site Driveway
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
SAN
JOSE

MILPITAS
3 2
1 N Capitol Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
S Main St
Fortune Dr
Lundy Ave
Montague Expy
Cropley Ave
Trimble Rd
Ringwood Ave
Qume Dr
Concourse Dr
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
680
2001 Tarob Court
Figure 7
Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes
LundyAveLundyAve
Zone
Blvd
ProjectDwy
Trade
Tarob
Ct
Tarob
Ct
Lundy
Pl
1 2
3 135(377)
6(11)
138(448)
72(45)18(14)35(39)
713(268)
935(354)
48(28)
31(66)
327(976)
314(493)
51(57)31(27)
7(2)36(23)
9(7)
62(70)
15(9)
5(17)
51(45)
58(75)
523
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 13 of 23 ends

Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Summary
Count LOS Avg Delay1 Avg Delay1 Avg Delay1 Avg Delay1
Date Standard (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay3 V/C (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Delay3 V/C AM 05/02/19 D 30.3 C 32.2 C 3.50 0.045 35.4 D 35.6 D 0.0 0.001 PM 05/02/19 D 41.8 D 44.0 D 4.10 0.048 44.7 D 44.7 D 0.0 0.000 AM 05/02/19 N/A 4.8/8.9 A 5.2/8.7 A N/A N/A 4.9/8.9 A 5.1/8.9 A N/A N/A PM 05/02/19 N/A 6.2/8.6 A 6.4/8.6 A N/A N/A 5.7/8.8 A 5.9/8.8 A N/A N/A AM 05/02/19 N/A 1.2/8.4 A 2.1/8.4 A N/A N/A 0.7/8.6 A 1.3/8.6 A N/A N/A PM 05/02/19 N/A 1.3/8.5 A 2.3/8.5 A N/A N/A 0.8/8.7 A 1.4/8.7 A N/A N/A 1 Signalized intersection level of service is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, using average control delay for the entire intersection.2 Side Street Stop Controlled intersection. Delays are reported for both the overall average delay / the approach with highest delay.3 For the signalized intersection at Lundy Ave. and Trade Zone Blvd., the increase in delay shown here represents increase in critical delay.

SSSC 2
Increase in Increase in
Existing + Project

3. Project Driveway and Tarob Ct SSSC 2
Background + Project
LOS

1. Lundy Ave and Trade Zone Blvd2. Lundy Ave and Tarob Ct Existing Background
Intersection Control
Peak
Hour LOS LOS LOS
Signal
524
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 14 of 19 ends

The study intersections of Lundy Avenue/Tarob Court and Project Driveway/Tarob Court are unsignalized and under the jurisdiction of City of Milpitas. Unlike signalized intersections, which typically represent constraint points for the roadway network, unsignalized intersections rarely limit the potential capacity of a roadway. The determination of appropriate improvements to unsignalized intersections typically includes a qualitative and quantitative analysis of movement delay, traffic signal warrants, movement traffic volumes, availability of alternate routes, and intersection safety. For this reason, improvements to unsignalized intersections are frequently determined on the basis of professional judgment. The City of Milpitas does not apply significance thresholds to unsignalized intersections. Both unsignalized study intersections are projected to operate at LOS A under existing and background conditions, with or without the proposed project.

An assessment was conducted to determine whether the traffic volumes at the Lundy Avenue/Tarob Court intersection would warrant the installation of a traffic signal. This assessment was based on the Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant (Warrant #3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak hour traffic volumes would be sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. The signal warrant analysis sheets are included in the Appendix. The analysis showed that the peak hour volume warrant would not be satisfied at the Lundy Avenue/Tarob Court intersection under any study scenarios during the AM and PM peak hours.

Vehicle Queuing Analysis
A vehicle queuing analysis was conducted for the eastbound left-turn movement at the Trade Zone Boulevard/Lundy Avenue intersection and the northbound left-turn at the Tarob Court/Lundy Avenue intersection. The queuing analysis was conducted for both background and background plus project conditions. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized below and in Table 3 for the AM and PM peak hours. The analysis indicates that, with the addition of project traffic, the 95th percentile vehicle queues could be accommodated by the storage provided at the subject locations. 525
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 15 of 19 ends

Table 3
Vehicle Queuing Analysis
Trade Zone Blvd
and Lundy Ave
Lundy Place and
Tarob Ct
EB Left Turn NB Left Turn
Measurement
Background (AM)
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 116 7.4
Volume (vph) 33 55
Avg. Queue (veh) 1.1 0.1
Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 27 3
95th %. Queue (veh) 3 1
95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 75 25
Storage 130 125
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y
Background (PM)
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 116 7.3
Volume (vph) 56 43
Avg. Queue (veh) 1.8 0.1
Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 45 2
95th %. Queue (veh) 4 1
95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 100 25
Storage 130 125
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y
Background + Project (AM)
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 116 7.4
Volume (vph) 31 51
Avg. Queue (veh) 1.0 0.1
Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 25 3
95th %. Queue (veh) 3 1
95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 75 25
Storage 130 125
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y
Background + Project (PM)
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 116 7.3
Volume (vph) 66 57
Avg. Queue (veh) 2.1 0.1
Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 53 3
95th %. Queue (veh) 5 1
95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 125 25
Storage 130 125
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y
1 Vehicle queue calculations based on signal cycle length for signalized intersections and average movement delay for unsignalized intersections.
2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued
526
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 16 of 19 ends

Impacts to Transit, Bikes, and Pedestrians
According to the VTA (Santa Clara County CMP) Transportation Impact Analysis Technical Guidelines, a project would create an impact on pedestrian and bike circulation if: (1) it would reduce, sever or eliminate existing or planned bike/pedestrian access and circulation in the area; (2) it would preclude, modify, or otherwise affect proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects and/or policies identified in the Lead Agency’s adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan, or the plans of other agencies such as the Countywide Bicycle Plan or adjacent Cities’ bicycle/pedestrian plans; or (3) it would cause a change to existing bike paths such as alignment, width of the trail ROW, or length of the trail.

The project site is located within the City of Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP). The plan oversees the redevelopment of the southern portion of the City that transforms a low-density industrial area to an urban residential and mixed-use district with an emphasis on walkability and bicycling. The plan includes a new street system that promotes walking and biking as the dominant modes for short internal trips, especially with the future Milpitas BART station and VTA light rail system within close proximity to the project site. As part of the Milpitas TASP, a future street connection and pedestrian bridge across Capitol Avenue are planned to connect Tarob Court to Milpitas Boulevard and the new BART station. A proposed Class III bike route is also planned on Tarob Court to serve this new bicycle access route to the transit center.

As part of project improvements, curb extensions with new sidewalks would be installed along the Tarob Court and Lundy Place project frontages. In addition, the two existing driveways at the project site will be reduced into one new site driveway on Tarob Court, which would reduce the number of potential vehiclepedestrian conflict points.

The proposed project would generate pedestrian trips to/from transit stops, recreation areas, and employment centers. Overall, the volume of pedestrian trips generated by the project is expected to be relatively low and not exceed the carrying capacity of the sidewalks and crosswalks nearby. U.S. Census data indicate that bicycle trips comprise less than one percent of the total commute mode share in the City of Milpitas. For the proposed project, this would equate to approximately one new bike trip during each of the AM and PM peak hours. The low volume of bicycle trips generated by the project would not exceed the bicycle-carrying capacity of streets surrounding the site, and the increase in bicycle trips would not by itself require new off-site bicycle facilities.

The addition of the project would not remove any existing bike/pedestrian facilities, nor would it preclude any future planned improvements. Because most intersections around the project site are signalized and have very few bike/pedestrian activities, the addition of project traffic would have a negligible effect on walking and biking in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not create an adverse impact to bike/pedestrian circulation in the area.

According to the VTA TIA Technical Guidelines, a project would create an impact on transit if: (1) it would generate a demand for additional transit services; or (2) it would cause a permanent or temporary reduction of transit availability or interference with existing transit users, e.g., relocation/closure of a transit stop or vacation of a roadway utilized by transit.

According to the Milpitas TASP, transit trips would comprise approximately 9% of all peak hour trips. For the proposed project, assuming 9 percent of total commute trips would be transit trips, this would generate approximately 1 new transit trip during the AM peak hour and 2 new transit trips during the PM peak hour. In addition to commute trips, there will be additional transit trips to nearby schools, parks, and shopping areas. The volume of transit trips generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit service to the site.

The addition of the project would not remove any existing transit facilities, nor would it preclude any future planned improvements. As shown in the LOS calculations, the addition of project traffic would have a negligible effect on bus delays the project vicinity. Therefore, based on the VTA Technical Guidelines, the proposed project would not create an adverse impact to transit operations in the area and no 527
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 17 of 19 ends

improvements to existing transit service frequencies would be necessary in conjunction with the proposed project.

Site Access
This site access and circulation review is based on the site plan (dated October 2018) provided to Hexagon (see Figure 2). The site would be accessed by one driveway on Tarob Court on the west end of the property, about 200 feet west of the intersection at Lundy Place and Tarob Court. The proposed site driveway would be located at approximately the same location as the existing driveway on Tarob Court for the existing building at the project site. The width of the site driveway entry is 22 feet, which meets the minimum City standard for driveways. Under project conditions, it is anticipated that this driveway would serve approximately 20 AM peak hour project trips and 26 PM peak hour project trips. The project condition traffic volumes at the site driveway are shown on Figure 2.

There are existing driveways serving other parcels on Tarob Court adjacent to and opposite of the project frontage. The site driveway does not align with the existing driveway on the opposite side of Tarob Court, but is offset about 25 feet. There is also another existing driveway beside the site driveway on Tarob Court about 50 feet to the west. The spacing of the site driveway, and its location relative to existing driveways, are acceptable given the relatively low traffic volumes at the nearby driveways and Tarob Court.

According to the level of service and queuing calculations, the site driveway would operate at LOS A with queues rarely exceed one or two vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. The vehicle queues at the site driveway could be accommodated in the storage space provided, and the onsite queues would generally not interfere with traffic operations on Tarob Court and Lundy Avenue.

Pedestrian access to the project site is provided at locations along the frontage on Tarob Court and Lundy Place. Primary pedestrian access is provided via the main entry facing the sidewalks on Tarob Court. Besides the primary access on Tarob Court, there would be walking paths connecting the parking garage with the existing sidewalks on Lundy Place on the east side of the property. As mentioned previously, new sidewalks with curb extensions will also be installed on the project frontage on Tarob Court, providing a continuous pedestrian pathway to existing sidewalks on Trade Zone Boulevard via Lundy Place. Overall, the network of pedestrian paths and the sidewalk improvements on the project frontages provide adequate access to the existing sidewalk network in the project vicinity.

Recommendation 1: To accommodate pedestrians, the project should consider adding one new ADA-compliant curb ramp at the existing northwest curb return at Tarob Court and Lundy Place (along the project frontage). A striped crosswalk is also recommended when the opposite side of the curb return would be upgraded with a new curb ramp along with the redevelopment of the parcel at 1996 Tarob Court.

Currently, the Tarob Court approach at the Tarob Court/Lundy Place intersection is yield controlled. If the striped crosswalk described above were to be added, the Tarob Court approach should also be converted to a stop-controlled approach in order to improve safety for crossing pedestrians.

The sight distance at the project driveway on Tarob Court was checked and determined to be adequate.

Because the project would install a curb extension, which includes adding sidewalks on the Tarob Court frontage, the site driveway would be shifted closer to the centerline of Tarob Court, thereby further improving the sight distance for vehicles exiting the site driveway. As part of the project improvements, the radius of the existing curb return along the project frontage at the Lundy Place/Tarob Court intersection would be reduced. This improvement would help reduce vehicle speeds on Tarob Court, and therefore, improve the sight distance required for vehicles entering and exiting the driveways.

Recommendation 2: Prior to final design, the placement of any landscaping, monuments, and signs within the sight triangles of the site driveway should be reviewed by Public Works staff to ensure adequate corner sight distance.
528
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 18 of 19 ends

Recommendation 3: As a result of the proposed curb extensions on Tarob Court and Lundy Avenue, the cross-section widths for both streets would be reduced and on-street parking would not be able to be accommodated. Therefore, on-street parking along the project frontages on Tarob Court and Lundy Avenue should be restricted.

Site Circulation
The project site includes an open parking lot and a parking garage on the ground level. Onsite parking areas would be accessed by one site driveway on Tarob Court. Both the open parking lot and parking garage follow a standard 90-degree parking layout. The main parking aisle and the two east-west feeder parking aisles inside the garage are 26 and 24 feet wide, respectively, which meets the City’s standard for 90-degree parking. However, the north-south parking aisle connecting the two east-west parking aisle is not dimensioned. The dimensions of the regular and compact parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet and 8 feet by 15 feet, respectively. Both parking space dimensions meet the minimum City standards.

However, the widths of the parking garage entrances are not dimensioned.

Upon entering the garage, vehicles would follow the main drive aisle through the open parking lot and arrive at a roundabout at the southern end of the aisle. The two feeder drive aisles, which are connected at right angles to the main drive aisle, would provide access to the parking garage east of the main drive aisle. The ends of the two feeder drive aisles are connected by another drive aisle, forming a U-shape circulation pattern which makes a complete loop around of the parking garage. The layout shows no dead-end aisles.

Recommendation 4: Because the proposed site plan is conceptual, prior to final design, the design and layout of the parking garage, drive aisles and driveways, should be reviewed by Public Works staff.

The last two parking spaces (numbered 67 and 68) in the open parking lot located off the main drive aisle are approximately 20 feet south of the sidewalk on Tarob Court, and approximately 30 feet south of the beginning of the site driveway. Vehicles parked in these spaces would have to back out directly into the main site access aisle, potentially into the line of incoming traffic on the aisle just turning into the site driveway. However, given the low traffic volumes at the site driveway and on Tarob Court, the design is acceptable.

The site plan shows one elevator at the front lobby that would provide residents access to the parking garage. The sidewalk on Tarob Court would be accessed directly from the front lobby while the sidewalk on Lundy Avenue would be accessed from pedestrian pathways connecting with the parking garage. No bicycle parking facilities are shown on the site plan.

Recommendation 5: The project applicant should demonstrate that adequate short term and long term bicycle parking is provided in accordance with City of Milpitas parking code requirements.

A trash collection room is located adjacent to the roundabout at the southern entrance of the parking garage. The roundabout has a 80-foot outside diameter and a 26 feet wide lane that would allow turnaround maneuvers of garbage trucks as noted on the site plan. Therefore, garbage trucks would perform their operations onsite within the development. The site plan does not show a designated loading area for delivery trucks.

Recommendation 6: The project should indicate on the site plan loading locations for delivery trucks.
529
2001 Tarob Court Traffic Operations Report

Page 19 of 19 ends

Conclusions & Recommendations
The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the procedures and guidelines specified by the City of Milpitas. The analysis resulted in the following key findings:
 The proposed project would not result in any level of service impacts to the study intersections.  The proposed project would not result in any queuing storage deficiencies at the study intersections.
 The project would not create any impacts on pedestrian, bike, or transit facilities.

The analysis also produced the following recommendations:
 To accommodate pedestrians, the project should consider adding one new ADA-compliant curb ramp along the project frontage curb return at the Tarob Court and Lundy Place intersection. A striped crosswalk is also recommended when the opposite side of the curb return would be upgraded with a new curb ramp along with the redevelopment of the parcel at 1996 Tarob Court.  Prior to final design, the placement of any landscaping, monuments, and signs within the sight triangles of the site driveway should be reviewed by Public Works staff to ensure adequate corner sight distance.
 As a result of the proposed curb extensions on Tarob Court and Lundy Place, the cross-section widths for both streets would be reduced and on-street parking would not be able to be accommodated. Therefore, on-street parking along the project frontages on Tarob Court and Lundy Place should be restricted.
 Because the proposed site plan is conceptual, prior to final design, the design and layout of the parking garage, drive aisles and driveways, should be reviewed by Public Works staff.  The project applicant should demonstrate that adequate short term and long term bicycle parking is provided in accordance with City of Milpitas parking code requirements.  The project should indicate on the site plan loading locations for delivery trucks. 530

APPENDIX

531

Traffic Counts

532
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 3
2 0
0 1
2 0
8 3
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 34.9% 0.63
TOTAL 2.9% 0.91
TH RT
WB 1.5% 0.95
NB 5.0% 0.81
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.0% 0.85

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 76 216 13 0 15
1 1 3 399 0
7:15 AM 0 7 36 40
7:00 AM 1 2 43 27 0 46 207 9 0 27 3 29 0
0 0 3 479 0
7:45 AM 0 1 43 54
7 0 36 0 34 0
432 0
7:30 AM 0 5 46 39 0 102 207
1 25 0 0 0 3
524 1,834
8:00 AM 0 3 40 44 0 140 225
0 135 214 14 0 22 2 33 0 4 0 2
1 176 249 9 1 21
2 2 3 543 1,978
8:15 AM 0 2 41 45
13 0 27 2 42 0
3 2 5 573 2,219
8:45 AM 1 3 56 58
6 0 21 2 26 0
579 2,125
8:30 AM 0 2 48 57 0 184 217
0 25 0 3 3 3
0 191 219 18 0 34 1 40 0 6 7 4 638 2,333
Count Total 2 25 353 364 1 1,050 1,754 19 15 26 4,167 0 Peak
Hour
All 1 10 185
89 1 203 11 254 0
10 11 0 8 1 3 0 7 1 7 68 0
15 2,333 0
HV 0 2 2 12 0 4
204 1 691 910 46 1 103 5 133 0 14 14
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 20% 1% 6% 0% 1% 1% 24% 0% 8% 20% 2% - 50% 7% 47% 3% 0 0
7:15 AM 3 2 3 1 9 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 4 2 3 1 10 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 4 8 3 2 17
0 1 0 1 1 0
2 7:30 AM 4 5 5 1 15 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 3 4 3 3 13 0 2
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 4 7 1 2 14 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 4 8 5 5 22
0 0 0 0 0 2
1 8:30 AM 5 6 3 5 19 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
1 5
Peak Hour 16 25 12 15 68 2 4
Count Total 31 42 26 20 119 3 4 1 0 8 1 1
1 0 7 0 0 0 3
2 0
0 0
00 00
1 0
3 1
0 3
0 0
N
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
TEV: 2,333
PHF: 0.91
15 14
14 43
61 0
46 910
691
1,648
333
1 133
5 103
910
242
1 204
185
10 400
1,029
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 533
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 1 10 0
7:15 AM 0 2 0 1
0 0 1 0 2 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 2 1 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
9 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 3 0 1 3
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 1 3 4 0 1
0 0 1 15 0
7:45 AM 0 0 3 1
1 0 5 0 0 0
2 0 0 14 55
8:15 AM 0 1 1 1
4 0 1 0 0 0
17 51
8:00 AM 0 0 1 3 0 2 1
0 2 0 2 0 0
13 59
8:30 AM 0 1 0 4 0 1 3
0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1
0 1 3 4 0 4
2 0 3 19 63
8:45 AM 0 0 0 4
2 0 1 1 1 0
0 1 0 2 0 3 22 68
9 1 10 119 0
Peak Hour 0 2 2 12
Count Total 0 5 8 18 0 6 19 17 0 16 1 9 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
68 0
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 4 10 11 0 8 1 3 0 7 1 7

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
1 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 3
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
4 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 2
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 7
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 1 0 0 0 7
0 0 1 0 8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 3 0
0 0 3 1 3 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 534
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 1
5 5
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 2.9% 0.74
TOTAL 1.2% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.9% 0.88
NB 1.2% 0.84
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.2% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 49 42 2 0 63
6 5 8 519 0
4:15 PM 0 4 214 100
4:00 PM 0 4 176 93 0 47 36 3 0 51 1 89 0
7 1 2 639 0
4:45 PM 1 4 230 106
2 0 65 0 102 0
584 0
4:30 PM 1 2 248 102 0 60 47
3 91 0 4 4 8
619 2,361
5:00 PM 0 1 186 105 0 54 47
0 41 58 1 1 64 0 102 0 6 1 4
1 45 46 1 0 51
15 3 4 634 2,476
5:15 PM 0 2 241 116
3 0 97 2 117 0
4 2 7 669 2,543
5:45 PM 0 2 245 94
1 0 80 2 104 0
621 2,513
5:30 PM 0 0 226 118 0 63 62
0 95 0 10 5 8
1 65 53 3 0 60 3 111 0 2 2 6 647 2,571
Count Total 2 19 1,766 834 2 424 391 54 23 47 4,932 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 5 898
16 1 531 11 811 0
2 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 2 31 0
25 2,571 0
HV 0 1 4 11 0 2
433 2 227 208 8 0 288 7 427 0 31 12
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 20% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% - 3% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 8% 1%
0 0
4:15 PM 5 2 3 2 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 4 1 7 1 13 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 3 4 1 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 7 4 2 0 13 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 5 2 3 0 10 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 6 2 2 0 10 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 5 0 3 1 9
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 1
Peak Hour 16 4 9 2 31 1 0
Count Total 34 14 25 6 79 1 0 1 0 2 1 2
1 0 2 1 2 1 1
1 0
0 0
00 10
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 1
N
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
Trade Zone Blvd
Lundy Ave
TEV: 2,571
PHF: 0.96
25 12
31 68
20 0
8 208
227
445
1,358
2 427
7 288
672
722
0 433
898
5 1,336
521
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 535
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 1 13 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 3
1 0 6 0 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
12 0
4:30 PM 0 1 2 4 0 3 0
0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 0 0 4
0 0 0 13 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 10 45
5:15 PM 0 0 1 4
0 0 2 0 0 0
10 48
5:00 PM 0 0 2 4 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
10 43
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 1 2 32
5:45 PM 0 1 1 3
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 9 31
0 0 6 79 0
Peak Hour 0 1 4 11
Count Total 0 2 8 24 0 5 7 2 0 21 0 4 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
31 0
Interval
Start
Trade Zone Blvd Trade Zone Blvd Lundy Ave Lundy Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 2 2 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 2

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 2
5:45 PM
1 0 0 0
1 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
1 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 536
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 0
WB - -
NB 20.0% 0.83
Peak Hour: 7:15 AM 8:15 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 37.5% 0.67
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 31.3% 0.67
TOTAL 25.0% 0.85

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct n/a Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 0 11
0 1 1 18 0
7:15 AM 0 2 0 1
7:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 0
0 1 1 16 0
7:45 AM 1 1 0 2
0 0 7 4 0 0
27 0
7:30 AM 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 6
27 88
8:00 AM 1 2 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 1 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
0 2 0 22 92
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2
0 1 9 4 0 0
0 7 2 22 84
8:45 AM 0 1 0 3
0 0 8 3 0 0
13 78
8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 3 0 18 75
Count Total 2 9 0 16 0 0 0 0 24 10 163 0
Peak
Hour
All 2 7 0
0 1 64 36 0 1
0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 4 0 23 0
7 92 0
HV 2 2 0 2 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 1 40 19 0 1 0 8
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 100% 29% - 29% - - - - 0% 15% 32% - 100% - 50% 0% 25% 0 0
7:15 AM 1 0 3 0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 1 2 4 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 0 4 3 8
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 1 4 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 2 0 4 2 8 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 3 0 3 2 8
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM 0 0 5 8 13 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 0
Peak Hr 6 0 12 5 23 0 0
Count Total 10 0 22 21 53 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
Lundy Ave
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
Lundy Ave
Tarob Ct
TEV: 92
PHF: 0.85
78 16
27 1 40
19 16
60 1
7 7
16 49
2 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 537
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct n/a Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 1 4 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
4 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 3 0
7:45 AM 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 2 0 8 23
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 3 0 0
8 19
8:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 0 2 0
5 24
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6 2 13 34
8:45 AM 0 1 0 2
0 0 2 3 0 0
3 0 0 0 2 0 8 34
0 17 3 53 0
Peak Hour 2 2 0 2
Count Total 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 13 0 1
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
23 0
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct 0 Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 4 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 538
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
WB - -
NB 13.0% 0.64
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 10.6% 0.65
Date: 05-02-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 14.3% 0.58
TOTAL 11.9% 0.70

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct n/a Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 1 7
0 5 0 30 0
4:15 PM 0 1 0 11
4:00 PM 0 3 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0
0 4 2 17 0
4:45 PM 1 1 0 8
0 0 3 1 0 0
23 0
4:30 PM 0 1 0 6 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0
14 84
5:00 PM 0 1 0 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
0 4 3 27 81
5:15 PM 1 1 0 13
0 1 2 1 0 0
0 1 0 13 78
5:45 PM 0 1 0 8
0 0 0 2 0 0
24 82
5:30 PM 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 5 1
0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 1 1 18 82
Count Total 2 9 0 86 0 0 0 0 23 7 166 0
Peak
Hour
All 1 6 0
0 4 23 12 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 10 0
2 84 0
HV 0 2 0 3 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 2 14 7 0 0 0 12
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 33% - 8% - - - - 0% 7% 29% - - - 8% 50% 12%
0 0
4:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 2 0 1 1 4 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 1 0 2 1 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hr 5 0 3 2 10 0 0
Count Total 7 0 4 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
Lundy Ave
Tarob Ct
Lundy Pl
Lundy Ave
Tarob Ct
TEV: 84
PHF: 0.7
212 14
13 0
7 14
54 23
2 40
6 47
17 1
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 539
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct n/a Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
1 0
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 4 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 2 8
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 10
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 2 5
0 2 2 15 0
Peak Hour 0 2 0 3
Count Total 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
10 0
Interval
Start
Tarob Ct 0 Lundy Ave Lundy Pl
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 540
IDAX Data Solutions
19205 ‐ Milpitas ‐ Tarob Court Counts
5/2/2019
Time: NB L SB R EB R EB L Time: EB R WB L NB R NB L
7:00 1000 7:00 0000
7:15 1020 7:15 0400
7:30 1000 7:30 0000
7:45 1000 7:45 0100
8:00 0000 8:00 0000
8:15 1110 8:15 0010
8:30 0000 8:30 0010
8:45 0010 8:45 0100
16:00 0010 16:00 0010
16:15 0000 16:15 0000
16:30 0000 16:30 0010
16:45 1020 16:45 0000
17:00 1020 17:00 0020
17:15 0020 17:15 0000
17:30 0110 17:30 0000
17:45 1010 17:45 0000
AM Peak 4 0 2 0 AM Peak 0500
PM Peak 2 1 7 0 PM Peak 0020
Total: 6190 Total: 0520
Driveway 1: Lundy Ave Driveway 2: Tarob Ct
In Out In Out
541

LOS Calculations

542
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 15 14*** 14
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
11 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 46

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 185 2 Critical V/C: 0.614 2 910
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 36.7 0
204*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 30.3 1 692***
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 104*** 5 133
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 7:50-8:50
Base Vol: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 104 5 133 14 14 15 11 185 204 692 910 46
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.04 0.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3352 161 1750 1822 1822 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.40 0.24 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.53 0.55 0.55 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.31 0.75 0.75 0.44 0.05 Delay/Veh: 47.3 47.3 60.6 49.4 49.4 50.2 43.7 44.8 63.6 26.6 16.2 12.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.3 47.3 60.6 49.4 49.4 50.2 43.7 44.8 63.6 26.6 16.2 12.2 LOS by Move: D D E D D D D D E C B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 2 6 1 1 1 0 3 9 22 9 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
543
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 62 17 33***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
33 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 49

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 327 2 Critical V/C: 0.715 2 935
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 45.0 0
314*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.4 1 713***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 135 7*** 138
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 7:50-8:50
Base Vol: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 135 7 138 33 17 62 33 327 314 713 935 49
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.36 0.64 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3340 173 1750 2374 1223 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.41 0.25 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.49 0.56 0.56 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.37 0.72 0.16 0.16 0.41 0.14 0.40 0.84 0.84 0.44 0.05 Delay/Veh: 50.5 50.5 70.1 50.2 50.2 58.3 45.1 40.7 63.3 35.5 15.4 11.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.5 50.5 70.1 50.2 50.2 58.3 45.1 40.7 63.3 35.5 15.4 11.5 LOS by Move: D D E D D E D D E D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 3 3 7 1 1 3 1 5 14 26 10 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
544
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 72 18*** 35
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
31 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 48

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 327 2 Critical V/C: 0.716 2 935
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 45.0 0
314*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.6 1 713***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 135 6*** 138
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 135 6 138 35 18 72 31 327 314 713 935 48
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.36 0.64 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3362 149 1750 2375 1221 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.41 0.25 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.49 0.56 0.56 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.36 0.72 0.17 0.17 0.48 0.13 0.40 0.84 0.84 0.44 0.05 Delay/Veh: 50.5 50.5 70.1 50.3 50.3 60.9 45.0 40.7 63.3 35.5 15.4 11.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.5 50.5 70.1 50.3 50.3 60.9 45.0 40.7 63.3 35.5 15.4 11.5 LOS by Move: D D E D D E D D E D B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 3 3 7 1 1 3 1 5 14 26 10 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
545
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project AM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 25 15*** 16
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
19 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 46

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 202 2 Critical V/C: 0.659 2 921
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.2 0
251*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 32.2 1 702***
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 129 5*** 135
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 7:50-8:50
Base Vol: 104 4 133 16 15 25 9 185 204 692 910 45
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 104 4 133 16 15 25 9 185 204 692 910 45
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 25 1 2 0 0 0 10 17 47 10 11 1
Initial Fut: 129 5 135 16 15 25 19 202 251 702 921 46
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 129 5 135 16 15 25 19 202 251 702 921 46
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 129 5 135 16 15 25 19 202 251 702 921 46
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 129 5 135 16 15 25 19 202 251 702 921 46
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.93 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3379 131 1750 1878 1761 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.40 0.24 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.51 0.56 0.56 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.29 0.79 0.79 0.44 0.05 Delay/Veh: 49.1 49.1 64.5 49.5 49.5 51.5 44.2 42.0 62.7 30.1 15.8 11.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.1 49.1 64.5 49.5 49.5 51.5 44.2 42.0 62.7 30.1 15.8 11.9 LOS by Move: D D E D D D D D E C B B
HCM2kAvgQ: 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 3 11 23 9 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
546
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 7 8 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
9 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.025 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 4.8 0
7 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.8 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 41 19 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 15 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 113 113 12 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1616 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 889 781 1075 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1616 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 871 761 1075 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 950 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 547 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=16]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=91] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 41 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 7 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 75
Minor Approach Volume: 16
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 910
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 548
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 7 36 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
9 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.047 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 4.9 0
49 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 55 31 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 43 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 181 181 40 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 814 717 1038 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 791 691 1038 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 990 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 549 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=58]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=187] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 55 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 49 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 129
Minor Approach Volume: 58
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 550
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 7 36 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
9 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.060 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 5.1 0
62 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 5.1 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 51 31 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 43 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 173 173 40 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 822 724 1038 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 801 700 1038 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.06 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1000 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 551 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=71]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=196] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 51 31 0 0 36 7 9 0 62 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 125
Minor Approach Volume: 71
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 774
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 552
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project AM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 7 8 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
9 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.023 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 5.2 0
20 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 5.2 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 37 19 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 15 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 105 105 12 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1616 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 898 789 1075 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1616 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 882 771 1075 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1007 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 553 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=29]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=100] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 37 19 0 0 8 7 9 0 20 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 71
Minor Approach Volume: 29
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 925
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 554
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing AM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 16 0 Critical V/C: 0.006 0 43
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.2 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 0 9
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 2
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 16 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 16 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1069 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1615 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1069 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1615 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 555 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
ApproachDel: 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=2]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=70] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 43 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 68
Minor Approach Volume: 2
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 936
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 556
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background AM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 58 0 Critical V/C: 0.006 0 51
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.7 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.7 0 9
LOS: A

Base Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 58 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 58 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1014 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1559 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1014 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1559 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 557 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
ApproachDel: 8.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=2]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=120] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58 0 9 51 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 118
Minor Approach Volume: 2
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 558
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project AM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 58 0 Critical V/C: 0.015 0 51
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 0 5
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 58 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 58 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1014 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1559 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1014 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1559 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 559 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
ApproachDel: 8.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=15]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=129] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 5 51 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 114
Minor Approach Volume: 15
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 799
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 560
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project AM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 16 0 Critical V/C: 0.014 0 43
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.1 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 0 5
LOS: A

Base Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 16 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 16 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1069 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1615 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1069 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1615 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 561 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:08:39 2019 Page 3-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
ApproachDel: 8.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=15]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=79] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 43 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 64
Minor Approach Volume: 15
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 953
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 562
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 25 12 31***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
5 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 8

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 898 2 Critical V/C: 0.707 2 208
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.1 0
433*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.8 1 229***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 288 7 427***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 4:50-5:50
Base Vol: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 288 7 427 31 12 25 5 898 433 229 208 8
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3423 83 1750 2580 999 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.26 0.26 0.77 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.19 0.02 Delay/Veh: 30.1 30.1 45.5 50.0 50.0 51.5 37.0 38.8 45.1 63.1 31.3 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 30.1 30.1 45.5 50.0 50.0 51.5 37.0 38.8 45.1 63.1 31.3 29.4 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D D D E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 16 1 1 1 0 15 16 10 3 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
563
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 45 14 39***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
56 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 25

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 976 2 Critical V/C: 0.787 2 354
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 56.2 0
493*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.7 1 268***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 377 10 448***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 4:50-5:50
Base Vol: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 377 10 448 39 14 45 56 976 493 268 354 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3417 91 1750 2630 944 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.26 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.37 0.85 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.16 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.30 0.05 Delay/Veh: 32.9 32.9 54.1 50.4 50.4 54.7 39.3 39.8 50.9 70.3 31.1 28.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 32.9 32.9 54.1 50.4 50.4 54.7 39.3 39.8 50.9 70.3 31.1 28.2 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D D D E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 19 1 1 2 2 17 20 13 5 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
564
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project PM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 45 14 39***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
66 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 28

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 976 2 Critical V/C: 0.787 2 354
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 56.2 0
493*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.7 1 268***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 377 11 448***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 377 11 448 39 14 45 66 976 493 268 354 28
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3408 99 1750 2630 944 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.26 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.37 0.85 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.19 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.30 0.05 Delay/Veh: 32.9 32.9 54.1 50.4 50.4 54.7 39.7 39.8 50.9 70.3 31.1 28.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 32.9 32.9 54.1 50.4 50.4 54.7 39.7 39.8 50.9 70.3 31.1 28.3 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D D D E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 19 1 1 2 2 17 20 13 5 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
565
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project PM
Intersection #1: LUNDY/TRADE ZONE
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 25 12 31***
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 10/2/2014 Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
15 1
Cycle Time (sec): 116
1 12

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 922 2 Critical V/C: 0.755 2 228
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 53.2 0
462*** 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 44.0 1 263***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Initial Vol: 307 8 438***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 2 Oct 2014 << 4:50-5:50
Base Vol: 288 8 427 31 12 25 15 898 433 229 208 11
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 288 8 427 31 12 25 15 898 433 229 208 11
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 19 0 11 0 0 0 0 24 29 34 20 1
Initial Fut: 307 8 438 31 12 25 15 922 462 263 228 12
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 307 8 438 31 12 25 15 922 462 263 228 12
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 307 8 438 31 12 25 15 922 462 263 228 12
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 307 8 438 31 12 25 15 922 462 263 228 12
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3418 89 1750 2580 999 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.26 0.15 0.06 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.29 0.82 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.20 0.02 Delay/Veh: 31.5 31.5 50.6 50.0 50.0 51.5 36.9 39.5 48.8 66.0 30.9 28.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 31.5 31.5 50.6 50.0 50.0 51.5 36.9 39.5 48.8 66.0 30.9 28.9 LOS by Move: C C D D D D D D D E C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 5 5 18 1 1 1 0 16 19 12 3 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
566
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 2 12 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
7 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.037 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.2 0
40 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.2 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 16 7 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 14 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 52 52 13 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1617 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 962 843 1073 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1617 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 954 835 1073 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1054 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 567 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.6 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=47]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=84] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 16 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 37
Minor Approach Volume: 47
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1099
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 568
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 2 23 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
7 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.066 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 5.7 0
70 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 5.7 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 43 27 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 25 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 137 137 24 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1603 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 861 758 1058 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1603 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 843 737 1058 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1034 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 569 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=77]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=172] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 43 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 95
Minor Approach Volume: 77
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 847
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 570
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 2 23 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
7 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.066 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 5.9 0
70 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 5.9 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 57 27 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 25 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 165 165 24 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1603 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 830 731 1058 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1603 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 807 704 1058 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1029 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 571 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=77]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=186] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 57 27 0 0 23 2 7 0 70 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 109
Minor Approach Volume: 77
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 811
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 572
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project PM
Intersection #2: LUNDY/TAROB CT
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 2 12 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
7 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 1! Critical V/C: 0.037 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 6.4 0
40 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 6.4 0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 30 7 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 14 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 80 80 13 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1617 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 927 814 1073 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1617 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 914 799 1073 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1046 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * A *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 573 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.6 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=47]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=98] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 LUNDY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 30 7 0 0 12 2 7 0 40 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 51
Minor Approach Volume: 47
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 574
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 45 0 Critical V/C: 0.009 0 18
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 0 3
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 45 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 45 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1576 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1576 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 575 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
ApproachDel: 8.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=9]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=75] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 3 18 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 66
Minor Approach Volume: 9
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 576
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 75 0 Critical V/C: 0.009 0 45
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.8 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 0 3
LOS: A

Base Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 75 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 75 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 992 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1537 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 992 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1537 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 577 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
ApproachDel: 8.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=9]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=132] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 3 45 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 123
Minor Approach Volume: 9
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 578
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Project PM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 75 0 Critical V/C: 0.011 0 45
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.4 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 0 17
LOS: A

Base Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 75 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 75 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 992 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1537 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 992 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1537 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 579 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
ApproachDel: 8.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=9]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=146] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 75 0 17 45 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 137
Minor Approach Volume: 9
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 750
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. 580
COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose 2001 Tarob Court
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing+Project PM
Intersection #3: PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Initial Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0

Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol

Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 45 0 Critical V/C: 0.011 0 18
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 2.3 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 0 17
LOS: A

Base Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 45 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 45 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1576 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1576 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 8.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A * * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 581 COMPARE Thu May 16 16:06:32 2019 Page 3-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
ApproachDel: 8.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=9]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=89] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 PROJECT DRWY/TAROB CT
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 0 17 18 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 80
Minor Approach Volume: 9
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 893
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Traffic Signal Warrant
583
3411 Capitol Avenue Mixed Use
Lundy Avenue and Tarob Court
Peak Hour Volume Warrant Per 2012 MUTCD- 40 MPH or Under AM Peak Hour Volumes
* NOTE: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with 2 or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with 1 lane.

One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Lundy Avenue x 75 129 125 Minor Street - Highest Approach Tarob Court x 16 58 71
Warrant Met? NNN
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Approach
Lanes
Existing
AM
Background
AM
-
-
Background
+
Project
AM
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Lundy Avenue x 37 95 109 Minor Street - Highest Approach Tarob Court x 47 77 77
Warrant Met? NNN
-
-
Approach
Lanes
Existing
PM
Background
PM
Background
+
Project
PM
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400500600700800900
100011001200130014001500160017001800
MINOR STREET - High Volume Approach (vph)
MAJOR STREET - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
PEAK HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT - 2012 MUTCD
(40 MPH or Under)
Existing AM
Background AM
Background + Project AM
-
-
Existing PM
Background PM
Background + Project PM
-
-
*
*
2 or morel lanes (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor)
2 or more lanes (major) & 1 lane (minor) or
1 lane (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor)
1 lane (major) & 1 lane (minor)
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 584
Memorandum
Date: April 28, 2021
To: Leah Beniston, Vice President–Entitlements, TTLC Tarob 4, LLC From: Jason Brandman, Vice President/Director and Phil Ault, Senior Project Manger Subject: Qualitative Consistency Analysis Summary for the 2001 Tarob Court Project

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides a qualitative California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) consistency analysis summary for a 32-unit residential development project (Project) proposed by The True Life Companies (Applicant or TTLC) on a 1.22-acre site located at 2001 Tarob Court (Project Site). The Project Site is located within the planning area for the Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) and is designated as High-Density Transit Oriented Residential (HD-TOR) in both the Milpitas General Plan and the TASP. The Project Site is currently developed with industrial office use. Residential development on the Project Site has been evaluated in previous environmental documents associated with the TASP and a previously approved project on the Project Site, as explained below.

Environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the TASP were evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report (TASP EIR) certified in 2008, which included analysis of development of 7,100 units of residential development and 18,000 new residents as relevant to TTLC’s proposed Project.

In 2017, TTLC obtained approval from the City of Milpitas (City) of a General Plan Amendment and TASP Amendment modifying the site from Industrial Park (INP) to HD-TOR, and a Zoning Amendment to rezone the Project Site from Industrial Park with Transit Oriented Development Overlay (MP-TOD) to Multiple Family, High Density with Transit Oriented Development Overlay (R3-TOD). The City evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the General Plan amendment and TASP Amendment though an Addendum to the 2008 TASP EIR.

In September 2019, TTLC obtained approval of a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Assessment for the development of a 40-unit residential condominium building on the Project Site (2019 Approved Project). The 2019 Project was analyzed for consistency with the TASP EIR, including the 2017 Addendum. LSA Associates prepared a June 2019 Exemption Memo in addition to an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 documenting the City’s analysis. Based on this analysis, the City approved an Addendum to the TASP EIR for the 2019 Project and also stated as an independent basis for compliance with CEQA, that the 2019 Approved Project was exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Guidelines Section 15182 (Project 585
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 2 ends

Consistent with a Specific Plan), 15183 (Project Consistent with the General Plan), and 15168 (Projects Consistent with a Program EIR).

The current 32-unit Project proposed by TTLC is very similar to the 2019 Approved Project, as summarized in the next section. In order to assess the proposed Project’s CEQA impacts, FCS reviewed the TASP EIR, 2017 Addendum, as well as the 2019 Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist prepared by LSA Associates. This memorandum provides a qualitative consistency analysis confirming that the proposed Project is still within the scope of the TASP EIR, including the 2017 Addenda to the TASP EIR, and the proposed Project will not have any new significant or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified and evaluated for the 2019 Approved Project.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project proposes to develop 32 townhomes consisting of two buildings ranging from 3-4 stories in height with 4, 2-bedroom 2-bath units 1,854 gross square feet in size, 12, 3-bedroom 2-bath units ranging from 1,888 to 1,916 gross square feet, and 16, 3-bedroom, 3-bath units ranging from 2,090 to 2,354 gross square feet. All units will have a tandem 2-car garage. The Project will also provide 9 guest spaces, 10 public bicycle parking spaces, 2 electric vehicle charging spaces, and 2 ADA parking spaces.

The Project will gain ingress and egress from both Tarob Court and Lundy Place via both existing driveway curb cuts. The Project Site is approximately 1.2 acres and is currently developed with an industrial office building that is currently in use. The project site is located within a light industrial area of Milpitas that is predominantly developed with commercial office parks and other buildings for industrial and commercial uses with Tarob Court to the north, Lundy Place to the east, and commercial and light industrial land uses to the west and south. The Project site is designated Multi-Family Residential High Density (MFH) Within the City’s General Plan.

PROJECT CHANGES
The design changes that are now proposed as part of the Project are summarized in Table 1. The table provides a comparison of the 2019 Approved Project (as analyzed under the Environmental Checklist and Exemption Memo prepared by LSA Associates in June 2019) and the current proposed Project.

Table 1: Project Changes Comparison
Project Component 2019 Approved Project Current Proposed Project No. Residential Units 40 condo units 32 attached townhomes Density (Units/Acre) 31.25 du/ac 25 du/ac
Total Gross Square Footage 92,762 sq. ft. 65,736 sq. ft.

Access One driveway off Tarob Court Two driveways–one off Tarob Court and one off Lundy Place
Storm Drain Off-site storm drain replacement Not Provided 586
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 3 ends

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
This qualitative consistency analysis summary confirms that the proposed Project is still within the scope of the TASP EIR, including the 2017 Addendum, and will not have any new significant or more severe impacts beyond what was identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist prepared by LSA Associates.

Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas
The proposed Project is not located within a scenic viewshed or along a State Scenic Highway or other scenic highway. While intermittent views of the Milpitas foothills to the northeast are available from the Project Site, no on-site parks or open spaces have views of the foothills. The proposed Project would comply with the TASP policies and design standards; therefore, it would neither result in new significant impacts nor substantially increase the severity of impacts related to scenic vistas beyond what was previously identified and analyzed in the TASP EIR, 2017 Addendum to the TASP EIR, and 2019 LSA Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Scenic Resources
There are no scenic resources located on the Project Site. Therefore, the impacts associated with the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts to scenic resources or substantially increase the severity of those impacts beyond what was previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Visual Character
The TASP allows buildings in the R3-TOD district up to 75 feet in height and requires a density of 21-40 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project would include construction of a four-story building that would be approximately 55 feet in height with a density of approximately 25 dwelling units per acre.

Therefore, the proposed Project would meet the building height limits and density standards set in the TASP design standards and would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Hence, the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts to visual character beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Light and Glare
To minimize potential light and glare impacts, the proposed Project would implement and be consistent with TASP development standards that address street and outdoor lighting. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts related to light and glare beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.
587
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 4 ends

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The project site is located within the TASP Area, is not used for agriculture, thus, the proposed Project would have no impacts on agriculture or forestry resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would neither result in new significant impacts nor substantially increase the severity of impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Air Quality
Clean Air Act
Since April 19, 2017, the City has been required to adhere to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) current Clean Air Plan. The proposed Project would adhere to the Clean Air Plan and would not substantially increase population, vehicle trips or VMT. The proposed Project would implement the TASP measures, including provision of continuous pedestrian sidewalks and safe bike routs, encouragement of walking to nearby destinations, and provision of incentives for alternate modes of transportation. The proposed Project would decrease the number of proposed dwelling units compared to the 2019 Approved Project, resulting a slight decrease in overall project emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant or more severe impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Regional Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed Project would still result in redevelopment of the site with new residential uses. The new uses would result in mobile air quality impacts from increased vehicle trips to and from the Project Site and air quality impacts such as emissions generated from the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products. Emission estimates for operation of the 2019 Approved Project indicated that the proposed Project would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NO2, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Since the proposed Project would involve fewer dwelling units and an estimated slight decrease in average daily trips, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in new significant or more severe impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Construction Related Impacts
Construction emissions were analyzed for the 2019 Approved Project and were shown to be less than significant for ROG, NO2, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in similar construction-related, short-term air quality impacts as those impacts identified in the TASP EIR. The proposed Project would implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, reducing construction fugitive dust impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe construction-related air quality impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.
588
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 5 ends

Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts
The proposed Project would decrease the number of proposed dwelling units and would therefore result in an estimated slight decrease in average daily vehicle trips. Therefore, proposed Project would not result in new significant or more severe impacts related to localized carbon monoxide than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Similar to the 2019 Approved Project, none of the changes associated with the proposed Project would include additional TAC sources on the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Objectionable Odors
Implementation of the changes associated with the proposed Project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and, once operational, the Project would not be a source of odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe odor impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Biological Resources
Currently, the Project site is developed with light industrial and commercial uses. With implementation of TASP Policy 5.26, buildout of the 2019 Approved Project was shown to not result in impacts related to protected plants and wildlife and would not create impacts related to riparian habitat that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the TASP EIR. With implementation of TASP Policy 5.29, requiring setbacks from creeks to be a minimum of 25 feet from the top of a bank, the 2019 Approved Project was shown to not create impacts related to wetlands that are new or more significant that those analyzed in the TASP EIR. With implementation of TASP Policy 5.27, requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a survey that would be appropriate according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 2019 Approved Project was shown to not create any impacts related to migrating wildlife. The analysis also identified that the 2019 Approved Project would result in the removal of trees on the project site and the planting of approximately 40 new trees.

The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and with the same impacts as the 2019 Approved Project. Moreover, the proposed Project would comply with all the same policies and measures of the TASP EIR and, therefore, would not create any new significant or more severe impacts related to biological resources than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.
589
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 6 ends

Cultural Resources
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and with the same impacts as the 2019 Approved Project. The proposed Project would implement Policy 5.34 from TASP, and therefore, the Project would not lead to any new or more severe impacts to archaeological resources that would occur beyond those already identified in the TASP EIR and Addenda. In addition, the proposed Project would still report any discovery of human remains on the Project Site according to Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and would therefore not result in any new significant or more severe cultural resource impacts beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Energy
The proposed Project would decrease the number of proposed dwelling units compared to the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an estimated slight decrease in overall operational energy consumption. The proposed Project would also result in an estimated slight decrease in average daily vehicle trips compared to the 2019 Approved Project and would therefore result in a slight decrease in gas-related energy consumption. The proposed Project would still implement TASP Policy 3.21 3.22, and 3.33 which would further ensure that operational energy use of the project would be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, the proposed Project would still be constructed to CALGreen standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; therefore, no new significant or more severe impacts related to energy efficiency would occur beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Geology and Soils
Similar to the 2019 Approved Project, the proposed Project would still comply with the General Plan Policies and TASP Policies related to geological and soil impacts. The TASP EIR adequately evaluated the potential impacts related to geology and soils resulting from the 2019 Approved Project. The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in no new significant or more severe geological or soil resource impacts beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the 2019 Approved Project were calculated using CALEEMOD. The results showed that the 2019 Approved Project would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold. The proposed Project would decrease the number of proposed dwelling units and would result in an estimated slight decrease in average daily vehicle trips compared to the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in new significant or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.
590
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 7 ends

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The previous analysis for the 2019 Approved Project demonstrated that compliance with TASP policies regarding release of hazardous materials and risk of upset, emissions of hazardous materials near a school, and clean-up of hazardous materials at the project site would reduce any impact relating to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. No mitigation was required for aviation hazards, emergency response or evacuation plan, wildfires, or the transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials.

However, the Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) were revised in 2019, which resulted in lower screening levels. The benzene concentrations previously detected in the soil, soil vapor, and ground water are above the revised Tier 1 ESLs. It is understood that the applicant desires to enter into an oversight agreement with Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) for further Site assessment work and to evaluate what, if any, soil vapor mitigation measures are required. The applicant will coordinate initial agency oversite activities with the DEH to move to a Phase 2 Site Management Plan. These activities also include completion of the Application for Regulatory Oversight form and submittal of all applicable reports to the DEH. The DEH will issue a Remedial Action Agreement after their scoping meeting with the applicant. Once the applicant has executed this agreement, the DEH will issue a directive letter stating what next steps are required for further assessment. With implementation of this Remedial Action Agreement, potential Tier 1 impacts would be reduced to less than significant and the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe hazards or hazardous materials impacts beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, similar to the previous findings for the 2019 Approved Project, compliance with required state and local regulation and implementation of mitigation regarding stormwater and dewatering during construction and operational use would ensure the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of impacts than those identified in the 2019 environmental checklist and the TASP EIR. The operation of the proposed Project would also not involve dewatering or the use of groundwater as potable water, therefore, the buildout of the proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts to groundwater resources or substantially increase the severity of impacts than those identified in the 2019 environmental checklist and the TASP EIR. The proposed Project is not located within a dam failure inundation area and is protected from flooding by a levee along Berryessa Creek northeast of the project. The implementation of the General Plan Policies 4d-G-1 and 4.d-I-1 and TASP Policies 5.33, 5.34, and 6.1 through 6.5, would ensure that long-term water quality impacts would not be significant. The proposed Project would also not result in new significant impacts related to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow or substantially increase the severity of impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist. 591
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 8 ends

Land Use and Planning
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, similar to the previous findings for the 2019 Approved Project, the buildout of the proposed Project would not inhibit public connectivity, and would not physically divide a community; therefore, the impact regarding dividing an established community would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations of the project site. In addition, the development associated with the proposed Project is within the amount of growth evaluated and cleared within the TASP EIR and is compatible with existing and future residential uses in the vicinity of the Project Site; therefore, the density and intensity of the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe impacts regarding conformance with land use plans and those already identified in the TASP EIR and Addenda. The proposed Project would conform to the TASP policies as well as the development standards provided in Chapter 5 of the TASP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the establishment of planned land uses, would include land uses addressed by the TASP and would not result in any new significant or more severe land use compatibility impacts than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Mineral Resources
The entire TASP Area, including the Project Site, is in a developed urban area that does not have mineral exploration or extraction occurring in the vicinity. In addition, the TASP Area is not designated as containing mineral resource deposits of regional importance. The proposed Project lies within the TASP area boundaries, and therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts on mineral resources previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Noise
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, similar to the previous findings for the 2019 Approved Project, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe construction-period noise impacts, ground vibration noise impacts, land use compatibility stationary noise source impacts, aircraft noise craft, or traffic noise impacts with implementation of the General Plan and TASP policies previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Population and Housing
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, similar to the previous findings for the 2019 Approved Project, the proposed Project would not result in the displacement of a residential population, the expansion of urban services, or the opening of additional undeveloped land for future growth.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new significant or more severe population growth and/or housing impacts than previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.
592
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 9 ends

Public Services
The proposed Project would follow policies that would reduce Fire and Police Department impacts due to TASP development to less-than-significant levels. The proposed Project would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project and would therefore not affect the conclusions of the TASP EIR as the number of proposed residential units and resulting students is still withing the amount evaluated in the TASP EIR. The proposed Project would also not result in any new significant or more severe impacts to fire or police protection services, school impacts, or impacts on park facilities than those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Recreation
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe impacts to existing neighborhood or regional park facilities beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

Transportation/Traffic
The proposed Project would develop 8 fewer dwelling units than the 2019 Approved Project, resulting in an anticipated slight reduction in average daily vehicle trips. Furthermore, the project would improve site access by including an additional EVA only access from Lundy Place. Further analysis is not required, because trip generation less than 100 peak hour trips, per the Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and the previous Hexagon report identified the proposed Project would not result in any level of service impacts or queuing storage deficiencies at the study intersections, and impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant more severe impacts beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist in regard to site circulation and access, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The proposed Project would not be in conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist. 593
Leah Beniston
April 28, 2021

Page 10 ends

Utilities and Service Systems
The previous project included an off-site storm drain improvement within the City easement on the 1951 Tarob Court property. No deficiencies have been identified in this line; therefore, the proposed project is not providing the off-site storm drain improvement.

The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint and would develop 8 fewer dwelling units as the 2019 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is within the level of development evaluated in the TASP EIR, it would not result in any new significant or more severe impacts related to wastewater capacity and infrastructure than those identified in the 2019 environmental checklist and the TASP EIR. The proposed project would include the installation of new storm drain line on the project site and would connect to the existing 12-inch municipal storm drain located at the northwest corner of the project site. Therefore, no new significant or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist would result from the project regarding water supply or solid waste.

Wildfire
The proposed Project would be constructed on the same footprint as the 2019 Approved Project. The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the TASP EIR determined that there were no Very High Hazard Severity Zones within the TASP Area. In addition, the project site is not located in or near any State responsibility areas. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or more severe impacts related to wildfire hazards beyond those previously identified for the 2019 Approved Project in the Exemption Memo and Environmental Checklist.

SUMMARY
This consistency analysis summary confirms that the proposed Project is still within the scope of the TASP EIR and will have no new significant or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2019 environmental checklist and the TASP EIR.
594
TRLI-57368\2432962.1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: April 29, 2021
To: Leah Beniston, Vice President-Entitlements
True Life Companies
From: Chris Kinzel, PE, TE
Vice President
Janice Spuller
Project Manager
Subject: Peer Review- Traffic Operations Report for 2001 Tarob Court, Milpitas, CA and Trip Generation

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides a summary of TJKM’s peer review of the Traffic Operations Report for 2001 Tarob Court, Milpitas, CA¸ dated May 28, 2019, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Hexagon Report). The Hexagon Report was prepared as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for a 40-unit residential condominium project previously proposed by The True Life Companies (TTLC) and approved by the City of Milpitas in September 2019 (2019 Project).

TTLC is now proposing a 32-unit Project at 2001 Tarob Court (Project Site) which is very similar to the 2019 Project. The Project Site is located within the planning area for the Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) and is designated as High-Density Transit Oriented Residential (HDTOR) in both the Milpitas General Plan and the TASP. The Project Site is currently developed with industrial office use. Residential development on the Project Site has been evaluated in previous environmental documents associated with the TASP and the 2019 Project.

In order to assess the currently proposed Project’s traffic impacts, TJKM reviewed the Hexagon Report and also undertook additional quantitative trip generation analysis. This memorandum provides a peer review analysis of the Hexagon Report and confirms that the currently proposed Project will not have any new significant or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified and evaluated for the 2019 Project.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS REPORT REVIEW
The project description for the 2019 Project, as detailed in the Hexagon Report, proposed to demolish a 16,463 square feet office/industrial building and construct 40 condominium units. 595
TRLI-57368\2432962.1

VISION THAT MOVES YOUR COMMUNITY
The Hexagon Report is comprehensive, technically supportable, and well written. The trip generation in the Hexagon Report utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition to determine the trips for the multifamily housing, for low-rise (Code 220). For the existing office/industrial building use, Hexagon conducted a.m. and p.m. peak hour driveway counts in May 2019. For office/light-industrial, the driveway counts showed 11 a.m. peak hour trips and 12 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on this information, Hexagon determined the multi-family dwelling units would generate 20 a.m. peak hour trips and 26 p.m. peak hour trips. The 2019 Project, accounting for the existing industrial/office use, would net a total of nine a.m. peak hour trips and 14 p.m. peak hour trips.

TJKM reviewed the trip generation calculation with the current ITE 10th edition and found the trips for the 2019 Project are slightly lower at 18 a.m. peak hour trips and 22 p.m. peak hour trips, with a net total trips of seven a.m. peak hour, and 12 p.m. peak hour trips. This is nominal and should not affect the traffic operations analysis. Besides the slight discrepancy, TJKM is in agreement with the conclusions and recommendations of the report, and there was no significant impact to the study intersections.

NEW PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Since the Hexagon Report was completed in 2019, TTLC has proposed a slightly revised development plan for the Project Site, changing from the previous 40 condominium units to 32 townhouse style units. TJKM prepared the following trip generation utilizing ITE Code 221 for mid-rise multifamily units. ITE Code 221 is for mid-rise multi-family units, three to five stories high. The previous Hexagon Report used ITE Code 220 for low-rise multi-family units up to two stories high. TJKM compared the use of the ITE Code 110 for General Light Industrial or the Hexagon Report, which conducted on-site driveway counts. TJKM utilized the ITE the driveway count data from the Hexagon Report for the existing use, however, since Daily trip rates were not available, TJKM utilized the ITE Daily Trip rate for industrial uses. Table 1, shows the project trip generation.

Table 1 Proposed Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed
Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise
(221) 32 DU 5.44 174 0.36 3 9 12 0.44 9 5 14
Existing
Industrial/Office* 16.5 ksf 4.96 82 9 2 11 3 9 12
Net Total Trips 92 -6 7 1 6 -4 2
Notes: DU-Dwelling Units, ksf- Thousand Square feet
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition *- ITE Code 110 rate for Daily Trips were used since the Hexagon Report did not have Daily Rates. Driveway counts from the Hexagon Report were used for a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
596
TRLI-57368\2432962.1

VISION THAT MOVES YOUR COMMUNITY
The currently proposed project, with 32 dwelling units, will net 92 daily trips, one a.m. peak hour trip and two p.m. peak hour trips. Table 2 shows a comparison of net trip generation between the Hexagon Report for the 2019 Project (with 40 units) and the proposed project (with 32 units). The 2019 Project had 8 more a.m. and 12 more p.m. peak hour trips, as detailed in the Hexagon Report, than the proposed Project. The reduction in trips for the Project is consistent with the reduction in units from the previous 2019 Project.

Table 2 Project Net Trip Generation Comparison
Project Type Size Net Daily
Trips
Net A.M
Peak Hour
Net
P.M Peak
Hour
Previous Report (2019 Hexagon Study)
Multifamily Housing, Low Rise (220) 40 DU N/A 9 14
Proposed Project
Multifamily Housing, Mid-Rise (221) 32 DU 92 1 2
Difference 8 12
Further transportation analysis of the 32-unit proposed Project is not required, because it is less than 100 peak hour trips, per the Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. In addition, the Hexagon Report identified the 2019 Project would not result in any level of service (LOS) impacts or queuing storage deficiencies at the study intersections, and impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities.

Because the proposed Project will generate fewer trips than the 2019 Project, it will also not result in any impacts associated with LOS, queuing, or pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. 597

CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 4, 2021
TO: Lillian VanHua, AICP, Associate Planner, City of Milpitas FROM: Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal
Matthew Wiswell, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Peer Review of the Qualitative Consistency Analysis Summary for the 2001 Tarob Court Project
The purpose of this peer review is to determine whether the Qualitative Consistency Analysis Summary for the 2001 Tarob Court Project (Consistency Analysis) prepared by First Carbon Solutions dated April 28, 2021 meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Consistency Analysis was prepared by First Carbon Solutions under contract with TTLC Tarob 4, LLC, the project applicant for the proposed 2001 Tarob Court Project (proposed project). The City of Milpitas (City) is the Lead Agency.

Based on LSA’s review, the Consistency Analysis generally meets the requirements of CEQA and employs sound methods and analysis to develop its conclusions. LSA concurs with the finding that the proposed project is still within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP FEIR) and subsequently prepared Categorical Exemption prepared for a previous version of the 2001 Tarob Court Project in June 2019, and would not have any new significant or more severe environmental impacts beyond those that have been previously identified. However, the following comments are provided to ensure that the Consistency Analysis is complete and adequately addresses the requirements of CEQA.

1. The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section on page 7 should include a discussion of the requirements of TASP Policies 5.20, 5.21, and 5.22. While the discussion on page 7 indicates that the project applicant would comply with these policies by coordinating with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) and entering into a Remedial Action Agreement, it should be noted that the potential impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are addressed by existing TASP policies, and that coordination with SCCDEH and the Remedial Action Agreement are not new mitigation.

2. The Transportation/Traffic section on page 9 should incorporate the findings of the Peer Review‐Traffic Operations Report for 2001 Tarob Court, Milpitas CA and Trip Generation Technical Memorandum prepared by TJKM dated April 29, 2021. LSA’s transportation planning staff have reviewed this report and concur with the findings. 598
AGENDA ITEM: X-1

MILPITAS PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
October 27, 2021
APPLICATION: TRUE LIFE TOWNHOMES – 2001 TAROB COURT – PSD21-0004, P-UP21-0005, P-MT21-0001, P-EA21-0002. A Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Assessment to allow development of a 32-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of two multi-family buildings up to 50 feet in height (three to four stories), with tandem garages accessed from a central drive aisle, and associated site improvements on a 1.22-gross acre site located in the Multi-Family High Density Residential (R3) Zoning District at 2001 Tarob Court. The project is located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) area and submitted in accordance with California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the consistency memorandums to the Addendum to the TASP EIR and the exemptions in
accordance with CEQA, and adopt Resolution No. 21-022,
recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD21-0004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP21-0005, Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0001, and Environmental
Assessment No. EA19-0007 to allow development of a 32-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of two multifamily buildings up to 50 feet in height (three to four stories), with tandem garages accessed from a central drive aisle, and associated site improvements, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

PROJECT LOCATION:

Addresses and Assessor’s
Parcel Number (APN): 2001 Tarob Court (086-36-034)
Area of City: Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP): Trade Zone/Montague Subdistrict
PEOPLE:

Project Applicant: Leah Beniston, Vice President of Entitlements The True Life Companies, San Ramon, CA
Consultant(s): Architect: SDG Architects, Brentwood, CA Civil Engineer: Wood Rogers Engineering, Pleasanton, CA Landscape Architect: R3 Studios, Oakland, CA
599

Page 2 of 26 ends

Property Owner: Scott Menard, TTLC Management LLC
Project Planner: Lillian VanHua, AICP, Acting Senior Planner LAND USE:

General Plan Designation: MMSP Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Specific Plan Designation: High-Density Transit Oriented Residential (HD-TOD) Zoning District: Multiple-Family High Density with Transit Oriented Development Overlay (R3-TOD)
ENVIRONMENTAL: The Project is consistent with the scope of activities approved under the Transit Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2006032091), as demonstrated by the peer review
memorandum, dated April 28, 2021. The memorandum confirms that the proposed project is still within the scope of the TASP EIR and will have no new significant or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2019 Environmental Checklist and the TASP EIR. As a separate and independent basis, the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), Section 15182 (Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), and Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, The True Life Companies, requests a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Assessment to allow the development of a 32- unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of two multi-family buildings up to 50 feet in height, with tandem garages accessed from a central drive aisle, and associated site improvements on a 1.22-acre site located at 2001 Tarob Court in the Trade Zone/Montague Subdistrict of the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) area. The application was submitted in accordance with California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019).

The project proposes a total of 32 townhome condominium units, consisting of two buildings ranging from three to four stories in height with two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. All units will have a tandem two-car garage. Five of the 32 units, or fifteen percent (15%) of the base units, will be affordable to moderate-income households in conformance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. By providing the required on-site affordable units, the project qualifies for certain parking waivers under the affordability provisions of the State Density Bonus Law.

Specifically, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5) permits eligible housing projects under the State Density Bonus Law to provide onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking.

The proposed project requires approval of three entitlements, as follows:

1. Site Development Permit SD21-0004: To allow the development of two multi-family buildings, ranging from three to four stories in height, with up to 32 residential units on the

1.22-acre site; and
600

Page 3 of 26 ends

2. Conditional Use Permit UP21-0005: To allow the condominium use; and

3. Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0002: To establish 32 residential condominium spaces and related common areas and to record site easements; and

4. Environmental Assessment EA21-0002: To review and verify an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA.

Staff reviewed the entitlement applications listed above and found them to be in compliance with the policies, standards, and processes outlined in the City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan, Transit Area Specific Plan (Milpitas Metro Specific Plan), Zoning Ordinance, Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC), and the State Density Bonus Law. Although the project is not requesting a density bonus, by providing the minimum number of required affordable housing units, the project qualifies for parking waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the affordable housing provisions of the State Density Bonus Law. The balance of this report provides specific details regarding each of the requested entitlements.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA and adopt Resolution No. 21-022, recommending approval of the Project to the Milpitas City Council, subject to the conditions of approval included in as Exhibit 1 within the above-referenced resolution.

BACKGROUND
History
The project site is currently occupied by a 16,200-square foot light industrial office building. The site was originally developed in the 1980s as part of the Tarob Court industrial park. On June 3, 2008, the City Council adopted the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP or Plan). The Plan encompasses 437 acres and envisions the development of 7,109 residential dwelling units, 287,075 square feet of retail space, 993,843 square feet of office and industrial park space, and 350 hotel rooms. The Plan includes development standards, goals and policies to guide development within the Plan area. Because of the unique physical characteristics of various portions of the TASP, the Plan also established seven sub-districts, each with specific goals and policies to accommodate those unique characteristics.

The project site is located within the Trade Zone/Montague Sub-District of the TASP. This subdistrict is located east of Montague Expressway and south of Capitol Avenue, extending to the city limits on Trade Zone Boulevard and Lundy Place. On the Tarob Court side of the sub-district, the TASP envisions a moderate-to-high density residential area, with ample green space in the form of a large park and trails along Penitencia Creek. The Capitol Avenue and Montague Expressway portions of the sub-district are intended to be lined by mid-rise and high-rise mixed use buildings that buffer the adjacent residential uses from noise and traffic.

On November 2, 2018, TTLC submitted an application for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map to develop a 40-unit condominium residential project at the project site. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the above applications on July 31, 2019. On August 20, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8899, approving the development application.
601

Page 4 of 26 ends

In March 2020, the City initiated an update to the TASP and rebranded this effort as the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan. The updated Plan will shape the continued transformation of neighborhoods surrounding the Milpitas Transit Center, which opened in June 2020, to create a vibrant transitoriented community with a mix of housing, retail, entertainment, and employment uses and a safe and attractive network of parks and trails. Future development within the Tarob Court area is a primary component of the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan, with a vision for higher-density mixeduse development based on a future direct connection to the Milpitas Transit Center via an extension of South Milpitas Blvd into the neighborhood.

On March 24, 2021, TTLC submitted a new preliminary application pursuant to California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) for a 32-unit townhome subdivision at the project site. On April 30, 2021, TTLC submitted a formal application for the revised townhome project, which is at the lower end of the density range for residential development in the R3-TOD zoning district.

California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act)
California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, became effective January 1, 2020 and declared a statewide housing emergency through January 1, 2025. The Housing Crisis Act allows an applicant to submit a preliminary application for any housing development project, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2). A housing development project includes the following: residential units only; mixed-use development consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the project designated for residential use; transitional housing or supportive housing.

Under SB 330, eligible housing development projects are eligible for enhanced streamlining and vesting opportunities through a process initiated by the filing of a preliminary application. Once the preliminary application is deemed complete by the local jurisdiction, the housing development project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted. In addition, housing development projects that meet all applicable objective general plan and zoning standards may only be subject to a total of five public hearings, including continuances and most appeal hearings.

Once a preliminary application is deemed complete, a complete project application must be submitted and accepted by the Planning Department within 180 days of submission of the preliminary application. The project must also commence construction within 30 months after the date of final approval.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
The applicant requests a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Assessment for the future development of a 32-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of two multi-family buildings up to 50 feet in height, with tandem garages accessed from a central drive aisle. The scope of work includes associated landscaping and open space, parking and circulation, and infrastructure improvements, as well as the demolition of an existing 16,200-square foot light industrial office building. 602

Page 5 of 26 ends

The 32 townhome condominium units consist of four two-bedroom units and 28 three-bedroom units. The units will range in size from 1,854 to 2,354 square feet and all units will have a tandem two-car garage. The project also provides nine guest parking spaces, ten public bicycle parking spaces, two electric vehicle charging spaces, and two ADA parking spaces. The project will gain ingress and egress from both Tarob Court and Lundy Place via both existing driveway curb cuts.

Five of the 32 units, or fifteen percent (15%) of the base units, will be affordable to moderateincome households in conformance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. By providing the required on-site affordable units, the project is also eligible for certain waivers under the affordability provisions of the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) even though the project is not asking for an increase in units or density. Specifically, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5) permits eligible housing projects under the State Density Bonus Law to provide onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking. The analysis section of this staff report includes a full discussion of the State Density Bonus provisions related to this project.

Location and Context
The project is located on a 1.22-acre site on the west side of Tarob Court. The site is currently occupied by a 16,200-square foot light industrial office building. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project in an aerial image:

Figure 1 – 2001 Tarob Ct. (Aerial Image)
The property located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (Milpitas Metro Specific Plan) area and zoned R3 Multi-Family High Density Residential with a Transit-Oriented Development (-TOD) overlay. Table 1 and Figure 2 below summarizes the project site’s land use designation and surrounding uses:

Project Site
N
603

Page 6 of 26 ends

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Uses
Subject
Site
Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential
(R3-TOD)
Light
Industrial
North Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential
(R3-TOD)
Light
Industrial
South City of San Jose City of San Jose Light
Industrial
East Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential
(R3-TOD)
Future
Multi-family
Residential
West Milpitas Metro Specific
Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential
(R3-TOD)
Light
Industrial
Figure 2 – 2001 Tarob Ct. (Zoning Map)

PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section will evaluate elements of the proposed project for conformance with the Milpitas 2040 General Plan, the 2008 Transit Area Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the Milpitas Municipal Code, and the State Density Bonus Law.

Project Site
N
R3-TOD
Park-Open Space
604

Page 7 of 26 ends

General Plan Conformance
The General Plan designation for the project site is Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), but since City Council has not formally adopted the MMSP, the TASP development standards currently apply. The intent of both the MMSP and TASP standards is to facilitate development of higher intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods near the Milpitas Transit Center and to encourage walking, biking, and the use of alternative modes of transportation.

As proposed, the project is in conformance with the applicable policies and standards in the City’s General Plan, as outlined in Table 2:

Table 2: General Plan Consistency
Policy Conformance
Policy LU 1-4: Continue to provide for a
variety of housing types and densities that
meet the needs of individuals and families
and offers residents of all income levels, age
groups and special needs sufficient housing
opportunities and choices for locating in
Milpitas.

Consistent. The project provides an additional
housing type to meet the needs of various
families and residents of all income levels. The
project, as proposed, consists of 32 townhome
residential units, ranging from two to three
bedrooms. Five of the residential units will be
reserved for moderate-income households.

The City would prefer to see higher density
development at this location.

Policy LU 5-1: Require new development and
redevelopment to be compatible,
complementary and, where appropriate, well
integrated with existing residential areas.

Integrate new large-scale development
projects into the fabric of the existing
community rather than allowing projects to
be insular and self-contained, walled off, or
physically divided from surrounding uses.

Improve connectivity between neighborhoods
and services with new development. Tie
circulation systems and open spaces into
existing streets and open spaces. Reduce
unnecessary barriers and improve
connections between neighborhoods and
services by retrofitting existing development
over time as area improvements or
redevelopment occurs.

Consistent. The project, as proposed, is well
integrated with the existing residential
developments along Lundy Place and Tarob
Court, as the project has a similar architectural
style, building height, multi-family product,
and site layout. Additionally, the project will
gain ingress and egress from both Tarob Court
and Lundy Place via existing driveway curb
cuts, and as a result, the project will blend
seamlessly into the fabric of the existing
community. The project will also be
compatible and complementary to future highdensity residential development planned for other parcels on Tarob Court which are
currently developed with light industrial uses
but are zoned for redevelopment as similar
high-density residential uses.

Policy LU 5-3: Ensure new development is
consistent with specific height limits
established within the City’s Zoning
Consistent. The project meets the height
standards by proposing two three to four-story
buildings, up to 50 feet in height, in a zoning
605

Page 8 of 26 ends

Ordinance as applied through the zoning
district for all properties within the City.
district that allows a maximum height of 75
feet.

Transit Area Specific Plan Conformance
The TASP/MMSP land use designation for the project is High Density, Transit-Oriented Residential. This designation provides for medium-density residential uses within the Trade Zone/Montague Sub-District. As demonstrated in Table 3, the project is consistent with the applicable TASP/MMSP land use policies.

Table 3: TASP/MMSP Consistency
Policy Conformance
Policy 3.4: Provide a variety of housing types for
different types of households, different income
levels, different age groups, and different lifestyles.

Consistent. The proposed project will
provide various housing types, including
two and three-bedroom units for sale at
market-rate and five of the 32 units will be
for sale to moderate-income individuals or
households, consistent with the City’s
goal of providing housing for various
households and income levels. The City
would prefer to see higher density
development at this location.

Policy 3.17: New streets shall be located as
generally shown on the Street System Map, Figure
3-2 within the TASP
Consistent. A portion of the project’s
TASP fees will contribute to the new
Tarob Court configuration, designed to
replace the cul-de-sac with a local street
and connection to Sango Court.

Policy 3.2: Affordable housing units should be
provided with new housing developments.

Determine affordable unit requirements on a
project-by project basis, considering the size of the
project, the location of the site, and the mix of
affordable units in the Midtown Area. Allow
housing developments of 12 units or less to pay a
fee in lieu of providing affordable units.

Consistent. The project conforms to the
City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and
will designate five out of the 32 units, or
fifteen percent (15%) of the base number
of units, for moderate-income level
individuals or households.

Policy 3.3: Affordable housing should be
integrated into all residential projects.

Consistent. The project will designate
five residential units for sale to moderateincome individuals or households and the units will be dispersed throughout the
project site.
606

Page 9 of 26 ends

Zoning Conformance
The project site is zoned R3 Multiple-Family High Density Residential with a Transit-Oriented Development (-TOD) Overlay. As demonstrated in Tables 4 and 5, the project is consistent with most of the applicable development standards for the R3 Multiple-Family High Density Residential Zoning District and TASP/MMSP area. The affordability provisions of the State Density Bonus Law allow the project to deviate from certain standards. A detailed discussion of the standards from which the project deviates follows Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of TASP R3-TOD Development Standards
Standard
(R3-TOD)
Required Proposed Conformance
Density 21-40 du/ac 25 du/ac Y
Setbacks
Front
(min/max)
Side
Rear
8 foot-15 foot (max.) from back of
sidewalk
15 foot (min.), 20 foot over three
stories when abutting residential
15 foot (min.), 20 foot over three
stories when abutting residential
15 feet
26 – 47 feet
20-28 feet
Y
Height Up to 75 feet 49-feet-11-inches Y
Private Open
Space
An average of 200 SF of usable
open space shall be provided for
each dwelling unit. Balconies,
porches, or roof decks may be
considered usable open space
when properly developed for
work, play or outdoor living areas.

At least thirty (30) percent of
required open space shall be
contiguous to and provide for
private usable open space of the
individual dwelling unit.
200 x 32 = 6,400 SF = 0.15 acres
Private recreational
area: 0.14 acres
Private open space
(balconies) =
1784 SF/building =
1784 x 2 = 3,568
SF = 0.08 acres
Total private open
space = 0.22 acres
= 299.5 SF/unit
Private balconies
provided for every
unit
Y
607

Page 10 of 26 ends

Standard
(R3-TOD)
Required Proposed Conformance
Each dwelling unit shall be
provided with private open space
as follows:
- Balconies and porches
(above ground level):
minimum 60 SF; or
- Patios (at ground level):
minimum one hundred
square feet.

Landscaping
A minimum of twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total lot area shall be
landscaped or recreational open
space, exclusive of parking and
vehicular traffic area.
25% x 1.22 = 0.31 acres

0.46 acres (37.7%) Y
In addition, projects located in the TASP/MMSP area must comply with the additional development and design standards outlined in Table 5:

Table 5: Additional Development Standards Applicable in the TASP/MMSP Standard Proposed Conformance
Projections into
Required Yards
Porches, stairs, balconies,
bay windows, and awning
may project up to six feet
into required setbacks.

None Y
Building
Orientation and
Entrances
Building must face the
street; and primary
building entrances must
be oriented toward the
street.

Buildings face
Tarob Court, which
is the project’s
primary street
frontage.

Y
Vehicle Parking
Two to Three Bedrooms:

1.6 covered (min), two (2)
covered (max)
64 tandem spaces in
32 garages (2 per
unit)
Y
Bicycle Parking
One space per four
housing units, exempting
those with private
garages; on-street guest
racks equivalent to five
10 public spaces
provided plus
project has 32
private garages
Y
608

Page 11 of 26 ends

Standard Proposed Conformance
percent (5%) of parking
requirement.

Parking Structure
and Parking Lot
Location
Parking must be located
so that it is not visible
from the street.
32 private garage
entrances face
interior drive aisle
Y
Parking Access and
Curb Cuts
Maximum two curb cuts
per lot per street frontage
One curb cut along
each street frontage Y
Tandem Parking
May be allowed with a
Conditional Use Permit
pursuant to MMC Section
53; maximum of fifty
percent (50%) of parking
required for residential
uses may be tandem
parking in projects with
private individual garages.

All residential unit
parking is tandem
(64 spaces).

This is permitted
under Gov. Code,
§ 65915(p)(5)
under State
Density Bonus
Law
Park Acreage
Requirements

0.03 acres (after payment
of TASP/MMSP fee)

0.14 acres
proposed, which
includes private
recreation areas
along the southern
end of the site
Y
Subdivision Ordinance
The project’s form, content and dedications of the proposed tract map are consistent with the provisions in Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the City’s Municipal Code, as set forth in the attached Resolution No. 21-022. Vesting Tentative Maps require approval of a Resolution by the Planning Commission recommending final approval by the City Council.

Architectural Design
The project’s design concept arranges two multi-family buildings, three to four stories in height, that mirror one another across a central drive aisle. The arrangement preserves ground floor open space and creates a 26-foot wide drive aisle between the buildings. The project’s contemporary architectural design uses stucco, siding, stone tile veneer, and a variety of metal details.

Variations in the building colors, materials and planes and protruding balconies provide architectural interest and avoid a boxy appearance.

The building massing is broken up through an alternating painted color blocking treatment of dark green (SW “Dried Thyme”), light grey (SW “Natural Choice”), and steel blue (SW “Needlepoint Navy”). At the ground level, stone tile veneer and metal awnings frame the entry to 609

Page 12 of 26 ends

the units. The garage doors are face the interior drive aisle, while the grand raised entrances face Tarob Court to enhance the public realm of Tarob Court’s streetscape. The ground level entrances and private open space areas on the southern end of the property also offers residents the opportunity for out-of-doors leisure, as well as community engagement.

The project has a similar architectural style to the Parkside project and visually relates to the previously approved three-story townhouses across Tarob Court. Moreover, the project conforms to the Transit Area design guidelines, which require orientation of the building to the street, wellarticulated exterior walls with consistent style and materials, muted colors for primary building walls with richer accent colors and integrated parking.

Figure 3 is a perspective view of the north and west building elevations.

Figure 3 – Proposed Project Looking Southeast from Tarob Court Tree Removal and Landscaping Requirements
The project includes removal of 34 existing trees, including 21 protected trees, from the project site. Pursuant to MMC Title X, Chapter 2 (Tree Maintenance and Protection), the project will plant two replacement trees for every one protected tree that is removed, or 128 new trees planted on the site. Tree species include Chinese Pistache, Magnolias, Lavender Crape Myrtle, and Crabapple. Other new landscaping around the perimeter of the site will include various shrubs (Australian Fuchsia, Candy Stripe Bamboo, Fortnight Lily, Lavender, New Zealand Flax), grasses (Reed Grass, Deer Grass, Fountain Grass) and groundcovers (Peach Drift, California Fuchsia, Pink Groundcover Rose) as demonstrated in Figure 4. Vines will also be welded on a wire mesh fence 610

Page 13 of 26 ends

on the southern end of the site.

Figure 4 – Landscape Plan
Parkland and Open Space Requirements
TASP requires all new developments to provide 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons or payment of fees-in-lieu, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66477) and as codified by MMC Section XI-1-9 (Improvements: Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee or Both, for Recreational Purposes). The Parkland Fee is based upon the estimated number of persons expected to inhabit the development (per U.S. Census definitions), and the estimated value of parkland in the City of Milpitas (currently $2,787,840 per acre). The U.S. Census estimates that 2.49 persons on average will inhabit each unit. The project proposes 32 units, resulting in an estimated population of 80 persons. Based on this population estimate, the project is required to provide 0.28 acres of parkland, equivalent to approximately $777,472.82.

Additionally, as mentioned above, all projects in the TASP area are required to pay a Transit Area Development Impact Fee (TADIF), a portion of which is used for park and recreation purposes within the TASP area. The park portion of the TASP fee for this project is valued at $690,061.12, equivalent to 0.25 acres of parkland. This amount will be applied to the project’s $777,472.82 parkland requirement, leaving a delta to be satisfied of 0.03 acres, or an in-lieu fee of approximately $87,411.70.

To satisfy the 0.03-acre delta, the project is proposing the use of 0.12 acres as private recreation space on-site, as allowed by MMC Section XI-1-9 referenced above. Each individual unit has a 611

Page 14 of 26 ends

private balcony, totaling 3,568 square feet. The private recreation areas also include a bench, mailbox station, concrete paving and various landscaping, as shown on Sheet L002 of the project plans (See Attachment B: Project Plans). By designing these elements into the project, the parkland requirement is met without additional fees. Table 6 outlines this information below.

Table 6: Summary of Adherence to Parkland Requirements
Project Unit Count 32
Project Population Estimate 80 persons
TASP Parkland Requirement

3.5 acres/1,000 people or
equivalent fees-in-lieu.
($2,787,840 per acre)
Total Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Required 0.28 acres/$777,472.82 Amount Satisfied Through TASP Fees (Acreage/Dollars) 0.25 acres/$690,061.12 Remaining Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Required 0.03 acres/$87,441.70 Private Recreation/Open Space Included in the Project 0.12 acres Total Acreage/Fees Provided 0.28 acres
Balance of Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Due 0.0 acres/$0 Affordable Housing Ordinance
Pursuant to MMC Section XII-1-3.00, all new residential development projects of ten units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy are required to construct fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception set forth in XI-1-4.00. All exceptions require City Council approval.

The project will reserve five units (or fifteen percent (15%)) as affordable to moderate income households. The project has been conditioned to execute an agreement imposing appropriate ownership controls on the affordable units.

State Density Bonus Law
To encourage the production of affordable housing, the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) allows developers to receive a density bonus of up to a fifty percent (50%) increase for most projects, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and an eighty percent (80%) increase in density for projects that are one hundred percent (100%) affordable. The Density Bonus is a state mandate, and any developer who meets the requirements of the state law is entitled to receive the density bonus and other benefits as a matter of right. The City’s local Density Bonus Ordinance (MMC Section XI-10-54.15) mirrors the State requirements. 612

Page 15 of 26 ends

By providing the required on-site affordable units pursuant to MMC Section XII-I-3.00, the project is eligible to receive certain waivers under the affordability provisions of the State Density Bonus Law. While the project is not requesting additional density, it is entitled to up to one concession, unlimited waivers of development standards, and parking standard reductions.

Parking Requirements
Under the TASP, a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 64 resident parking spaces are required for the proposed project, based on bedroom count (TASP Table 5-3: Minimum Parking Requirements). The applicant proposes to provide 64 resident spaces, the maximum required.

Parking for residents would primarily be provided in individual tandem parking garages oriented towards the internal drive aisle. As the project is an eligible housing project under the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5) permits all onsite parking to be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking.

The project also requires ten guest parking spaces, and the applicant proposes to provide nine spaces. Under Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) and MMC Section XI-10-54.15(F)(5), the applicant may request reduced parking standards for the entire development. The reduced parking standards are inclusive of guest parking and handicapped parking and may be tandem or uncovered. The nine guest spaces will be provided as follows:
• Seven (7) along the private driveway;
• One (1) ADA guest spot along the private driveway; and • One (1) electric vehicle charging spot along the private driveway.

To maintain a consistent streetscape along Tarob Court, the project will be required to install decorative concrete paving to identify all on-street parking spaces.

Table 7 demonstrates the project's compliance with the parking standards for the R3-TOD Zoning District:
613

Page 16 of 26 ends

Table 7: Project Compliance with Parking
Bicycle Parking – For residential uses within the TASP, one space of long-term bicycle parking per every four housing units is required, exempting units with a private garage. As the project has 32 private garages, no long-term bicycle parking spaces are required.

For guests, the TASP requires short-term bicycle parking spaces equivalent to five percent (5%) of the total automobile spaces required. This equates to three (3) short-term bicycle spaces for guests, and the project will provide ten bicycle spaces in compliance with the requirement.

Traffic and Access
Access to the project site is provided by a driveway located at the northern corner off Tarob Court and at the southern corner off Lundy Place. The driveways provide access to an internal twentysix (26)-foot access drive lane and fire lane, which includes a fire engine/garbage truck remote control gate along the southern corner of the site. There are 32 private residential garages along the central drive aisle. Nine guest parking spaces will be located along the access drive lane, including one accessible parking space and one electric vehicle parking space. All traffic and access data has been reviewed by Transportation and Fire and is compliant with all applicable requirements.

Floodplain Management
The project site is located in Flood Zone AO. The applicant will place engineered fill across the site, raising the grade by approximately 4.5 feet to ensure that the project complies with the City of Milpitas Floodplain Ordinance (MMC Section XI-15-4.3(a)(4)). This will allow the City’s Floodplain Administrator to determine that the project will not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. (In this context, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed Number of
Units
Number
of Bedrooms/
Unit
Min/Max
Ratio
Permitted/Unit
Min/Max No.
of Spaces
Req’d/Allowed
Total Spaces
Provided
Conforms
(Y/N)
LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL
32 2-3

1.6/2.0
per unit 51/64 64 Y
Guest --
20% of total
spaces
required
10 9
Permitted
under State
Density
Bonus Law
RESIDENTIAL PARKING TOTAL: 61 73 Y
614

Page 17 of 26 ends

development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.) Grading
Development of the proposed project would result in the demolition of all existing structures and pavements. Less than 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be brought to the site to raise the elevation out of the floodplain.

Utilities
The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. The majority of existing utilities within the boundary of the project site would be removed and replaced.

Water – The proposed project includes the removal of all existing utilities. New 8-inch water lines within the project site will connect to existing service connections and the existing 12-inch main located within Tarob Court.

Wastewater – The San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) provides wastewater treatment for Milpitas. The City of Milpitas maintains existing sanitary sewer lines within the vicinity of the site, including an 8-inch line on Tarob Court. The proposed project includes the installation of a new on-site 8-inch wastewater line that will connect to the City’s existing line.

Stormwater – Bioretention areas will be incorporated into the landscape design to provide appropriate vegetation and water quality treatment for impervious surfaces including roofs, driveways, streets, and sidewalks.

The project will connect to the existing 12-inch municipal storm drain located at the northwest corner of the project site. The project includes pervious pavers throughout the interior access driveway. Upon construction of the improvements, approximately 0.81 acres (66 percent) of the project site would be covered by impervious surfaces and approximately 0.41 acres (34 percent) would be covered by landscaped areas including lawns, shrubs, and trees. All walkways within these areas would be sloped to drain onto the surrounding landscaping for bio-retention and treatment.

Electricity and Natural Gas – Electricity and natural gas services to the site are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Existing underground utility connections and gas mains provide electricity and gas to the project site. The project includes removal of all existing utilities and requires the construction of new electricity and gas connections to serve the project. New electrical lines (servicing the project only) will be installed underground and connect to the existing joint trench box in the northern corner of the project site.

Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2013 and includes Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals, policies and actions for new and existing development projects. 615

Page 18 of 26 ends

One of the key aims of the CAP is to encourage transit-oriented development as a means to reduce GHG emissions. The project would be in compliance with this goal, as it would locate future residents within walking distance of public transportation, jobs, restaurants, and services. To reduce energy usage, the project would incorporate green building measures in compliance with CALGreen standard building measures for residential buildings and Title 24 requirements.

Additionally, the project includes a total of 0.46 acres of common open space and landscaped areas, following the City’s standards, which would offset GHG emissions.

Implementation of the TASP includes policies that address transportation and land use that are consistent with the CAP. TASP Policy 3.21 would provide continuous pedestrian sidewalks and safe bike routes throughout this portion of the TASP planning area; Policy 3.22 encourages walking and biking routes to schools and major destinations; and Policy 3.33 requires new development within the TASP Area to provide incentives for alternative modes of transit, which support the CAP.

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase population, vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled. Further, the project adheres to the building guidelines of the TASP with only modest deviations that would not impair achievement of CAP goals and promotes reductions in GHG emissions through high-density development in close proximity to transit. As such, the project is in conformance with the City’s Climate Action Plan.

Development Fees
The project is subject to the following fees, payable at the time of building permit issuance:

TASP Impact Fee
The TASP/MMSP Impact fee is currently set at $44,009/unit for residential uses for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Based on approval for development of 32 units, the estimated Transit Area Specific Plan Development Impact Fee for this project is $1,411,168 ($44,009/unit x 32 units). This fee is automatically adjusted each fiscal year in conjunction with the City’s annual budget process. The proposed project will pay the fee at the issuance of building permits.

Parkland Impact Fee
TASP requires all new development to provide 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons or payment of fees-in-lieu. Per the parkland section, above, the project has satisfied this requirement.

See Table 6 for more information.

Public Art Fee
The Project will comply with the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, as set forth in Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-14. This fee is currently set at one-half of one percent of building development costs. The proposed project will pay the fee based on the construction valuation at the building permit issuance. 616

Page 19 of 26 ends

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
A finding is a statement of fact relating to the information that the Planning Commission has considered in making a decision. Findings shall identify the rationale behind the decision to take a certain action.

Vesting Tentative Map
To approve the Major Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-1-20.01:

1. The tentative subdivision map is consistent with the General Plan.

The General Plan designation for the project site is Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), but since City Council has not formally adopted the MMSP, the TASP development standards currently apply. The intent of both the MMSP and TASP standards is to facilitate development of higher intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods near the Milpitas Transit Center and to encourage walking, biking, and the use of alternative modes of transportation.

The TASP designates this project site as High Density, Transit Oriented Residential (HDTOR). The intent of this designation is to provide high-density housing at a density range of 21-40 dwelling units/acre. As this project proposes 25 dwelling units/acre, it is consistent with both the intended land use of the General Plan and the relevant density requirement. The project site was not identified as a potential site for yielding affordable housing units in the City’s Housing Element, as the site was zoned for industrial uses prior to October 2017. Therefore, there is no net loss of affordable housing units.

Further, the tentative subdivision map is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2.

2. None of the conditions identified in California Government Code Section 66474 exist, to wit:

A. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451.

As set forth in Finding 1 above, the map proposes the development of the site into 32 residential condominium units at a density of 25 dwelling units/acre. The General Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan land use designation applicable to the site (Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), and High Density, Transit-Oriented Residential (HD-TOR)) permits residential development at densities of 21 to 40 dwelling units/acre. The map is therefore consistent with the General Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan.

B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
617

Page 20 of 26 ends

The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the density range of 21-40 dwelling units per acre as permitted by the General Plan and Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan. The proposed density is 25 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is also consistent with the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan development standards, including height (maximum of 50 feet proposed, where 75 feet is the maximum allowed), number of vehicular parking spaces (64 vehicular spaces proposed, where a maximum of 64 is allowed), bicycle parking (10 spaces proposed, where 3 are required), building orientation (proposed buildings will face streets, where requirement provides building must face streets).

C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is surrounded by property designated for high density, transit-oriented residential development under the City’s General Plan and zoned for this type of development under the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan/Transit Area Specific Plan. In addition, this site is suitable for the higher density development based on the location, physical attributes, and proposed infrastructure improvements.

D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The City Council, through adoption of Resolution No. 8702, has determined that the site is physically suitable for development at the proposed density of 25 dwelling units per acre, insomuch as it has amended the applicable general plan land use designation to High Density, Transit Oriented Residential (HD-TOR), and subsequently Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), which currently allows densities of 21-40 dwelling units per acre. The site is also flat and has direct access to adjacent streets (Tarob Court and Lundy Place) to accommodate the proposed density of the development.

E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The project, including the subdivision and its associated improvements, has been subjected to environmental review under CEQA through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment/Categorical Exemption/Peer Review Memos (Exhibit 2 to Exhibit A of Attachment A). The memo did not find that the project would be likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project is also located in an urbanized area and previously developed as an industrial building, and therefore, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

F. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
618

Page 21 of 26 ends

G. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

Upon review of the subdivision map, it has been determined that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision does not involve the vacation of easements, however, the existing right-of-way will be abandoned and portions of the area will be retained for a Public Services Utility Easement (PSUE).

Site Development Permit
To approve the Site Development Permit, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-57.03(F):

1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.

The project’s site design is consistent with the MMSP/TASP development standards for the Trade Zone/Montague Sub-district. The project consists of 32 condominium units and associated site amenities on a 1.22-acre site. The building’s contemporary architectural design visually relates to and is compatible with the adjacent townhome projects along Tarob Court. The project also features exterior horizontal blue and green-hued siding. The project has a strong sense of identity, achieving compatibility and aesthetic harmony with surrounding developments.

2. The project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

The project site is zoned R3 (Multiple-Family, High Density Residential with a Transit Oriented Development (-TOD) Overlay). Residential uses are permitted in the zoning district. As demonstrated in Tables 4, 5 and 7, the project substantially conforms to the zoning district and meets the intent for this type of project envisioned in this area.

The project also conforms to MMC Section XI-10-54.015 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Developments) and XI-10-57.05 (Density Bonus Permits). As the project is an eligible housing project under the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5), the project is entitled to reduced parking requirements. The requested deviations will support the development of affordable housing units on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard. 619

Page 22 of 26 ends

3. The project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

See General Plan consistency discussion set out above in support of issuing the Vesting Tentative Map.

4. The project is consistent with the Transit Area Specific Plan.

The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies and design guidelines of the TASP/MMSP, as demonstrated and outlined in Tables 3 and 5. As the project is an eligible housing project under the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5), the project is entitled to reduced parking requirements. The requested deviations will support the development of affordable housing units on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard.

Conditional Use Permit
To approve the Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-57.04(F):

1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity nor to the public health, safety and general welfare.

The project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, nor to the health, safety or general welfare. The project is consistent with other high density residential projects within the TASP. The condominium project creates housing opportunities and increases the diversity of housing types in the TASP area.

2. The project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, as the condominium use is conditionally permitted per MMC Table XI-10-4.02-1. The project substantially conforms to most of the development standards set forth by the Zoning Ordinance, as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance consistency discussion set out in support of issuing a Site Development Permit.

Moreover, the project also conforms to MMC Section XI-10-54.015 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Developments) and XI-10-57.05 (Density Bonus Permits). As the project is an eligible housing project under the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5), the project is entitled to reduced parking requirements. The requested deviations will support the development of affordable housing units on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard.

3. The project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

See General Plan consistency discussion set out above in support of issuing the Vesting Tentative Map.
620

Page 23 of 26 ends

4. The project is consistent with the Transit Area Specific Plan.

See Transit Area Specific Plan consistency set out above in support of issuing the Site Development Permit.

Density Bonus (Section XI-10.54.15(D)(F))

1. Determination of Maximum Allowable Densities. The maximum allowable base density specified in the General Plan, including any other permitted increases to density.

Based on 15% affordability, with 5 units (15%) reserved for moderate-income households, the proposed project is eligible for a 5% density bonus. The maximum allowable density in the R3- TOD Zoning District is 40 du/ac, which would yield 42 units on the subject 1.22-acre parcel.

The proposed 32-unit development is less than the allowable 5% density bonus. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant is entitled to receive the 5% density bonus as a matter of right.

2. Unit Type and Location. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project, shall contain on average the same number of bedrooms as the non-affordable units in the project, and shall be comparable with the non-affordable units in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council and/or Housing Authority modifying the requirements as to unit size or type, if it is found that such a modification would better serve the affordable housing need of Milpitas.

This standard is satisfied, as the Project proposes five units to be reserved for moderate-income households. These five three-bedroom units will be dispersed throughout the two multi-family buildings.

3. Agreement. Prior to final building inspection and occupancy for a project containing affordable units, the applicant shall execute and record at the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office the City's Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property, which Agreement shall explain the affordability requirements. The agreement shall be approved by the Milpitas City Attorney prior to recordation.

The Project will be conditioned to execute and record at the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office the City’s Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property.

4. Retaining Affordability. A developer shall agree to, and the City shall insure continued affordability of, all lower- or very low-income density bonus units for thirty (30) years or a longer period of time, if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. If the City does not grant at least one (1) additional concession or incentive, in addition to a density bonus as specified in Section XI10-54.15(E), Density Bonus Conditions, of this Chapter, the developer shall agree to, and the City shall ensure continued affordability for a minimum of ten (10) years of all lower or very low-income housing units receiving a density bonus.
621

Page 24 of 26 ends

The designated affordable units will be required to remain for a minimum of 50 years as stated in the Conditions of Approval and will require a Regulatory Agreement to be recorded over the Project site.

5. Affordable Rents. Those units targeted for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of sixty (60%) percent of the Santa Clara County median income. Those units targeted for very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of fifty (50%) percent of County median income.

This finding does not apply to the project. The project provides five for-sale units, or fifteen percent of the 32 units, to moderate-income households.

6. Relation to State. Density bonus requirements not specified in these regulations shall be governed by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, et seq.

Any density bonus requirements not specified in the City’s Municipal Code shall be governed by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, et seq.

Waivers and Modifications of Development Standards
Pursuant to MMC Section XI-10.54.15(F)(6), the City must grant waivers of development standards if the applicant demonstrates the waiver is necessary to make the affordable housing units economically feasible and can only deny such waiver request if the City makes the findings specified in MMC Section XI-10.54.15(F)(3):
a. The concession is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in State Health and Safety Section 50052.2 or for rents for the affordable units pursuant to Section XI-10-54.15(D)(5), Standards, of Chapter 10 (Zoning) of the Milpitas Municipal Code.
b. The concession would have a specific adverse impact as defined in State Government Code Section 65589.5(d) (2) upon the public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.

If findings cannot be made, the proposed waivers must be granted, based on the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 65915.

The proposed deviations for this project (one less guest parking space and tandem parking in all residential garages) would result in actual and identifiable cost savings, and these savings are necessary to provide the level of affordability proposed. Further, none of the deviations would result in any specific, adverse impacts to public health, safety, the physical environment, or historical resources, so the City has no justification to deny the requested waivers. 622

Page 25 of 26 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is located within the area evaluated as part of the Transit Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (TASP-EIR) (SCH#2006032091) certified by the City Council on June 3, 2008. An earlier environmental assessment (EA19-0002) for a higher density version of the project was conducted by LSA, on behalf of the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA. The environmental assessment conducted by LSA concluded that none of the circumstances necessitating preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are associated with the Project.

The environmental assessment conducted by LSA also concluded that an Addendum to the TASP EIR was the appropriate document to address these modifications rather than a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The Addendum fully addressed all potential impacts associated with this project, and no material changes have been made to the project that would alter the conclusions of the Addendum. The analysis contained in the Environmental Checklist confirmed that the modified project was within the scope of the TASP-EIR and would have no new or more severe significant effects and no new mitigation measures were required.

As a part of this project application, the applicant submitted a peer reviewed memorandum, dated April 28, 2021, conducted by First Carbon Solutions. The memorandum confirms that the proposed project is still within the scope of the TASP EIR and will have no new significant or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2019 Environmental Checklist and the TASP EIR.

The City conducted an environmental assessment (in the form of a memorandum, dated August 4, 2021) for the proposed project. LSA prepared a peer review memorandum on behalf of the City.

The memorandum found that the Consistency Analysis generally meets the requirements of CEQA and employs sound methods and analysis to develop its conclusions. The proposed project is still within the scope of the TASP FEIR and the subsequently prepared Categorical Exemptions prepared for a previous version of the project in 2019 and would not have any new significant or more severe environmental impacts beyond those that have been previously identified. Both memorandums acknowledging the entitlements and consistency with CEQA are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 to Exhibit A of the resolution.

As a separate and independent basis, the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which applies to projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. As a separate and independent basis, the project is also exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, because the project is a residential project that is generally consistent with a Specific Plan. Lastly, the project is also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, as the project is within the scope of the TASP program EIR. Moreover, the project complies with the City’s existing zoning, specific plan, community plan, and general plan. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
623

Page 26 of 26 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT/OUTREACH
Staff provided public notice the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements. At the time of publishing this report, there have been no public comments received.

A notice was published in the Milpitas Post on October 15, 2021. In addition, notices were sent to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A public notice was also posted at the project site, on the City’s Website, www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov, and at City Hall.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments;

2. Close the Public Hearing;

3. Consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 21-022 recommending that the Milpitas City Council approve Site Development Permit SD21-0004, Conditional Use Permit UP21-0005, Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0001, and Environmental Assessment EA21-0002, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.

ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution No. 21-022 with Conditions of Approval and CEQA Memorandums B: Project Plans
C: Applicant Response to CEQA Memorandum
624

CITY OF MILPITAS
Planning Commission
October 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1

MEETING MINUTES
7:00 PM
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
via Teleconference (Virtual Meeting)
CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Chuan called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Recording Secretary Elizabeth Medina called the roll.

PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Chuan led the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Chuan, Commissioner Albana, Alcorn, Belong, Ciardella, Galang
ABSENT: Chair Tao
STAFF: Ned Thomas, Lillian VanHua, Martin de los Angeles, Bill Tott, Steve Chan, Albert Zamora, Jaime Garcia, Elizabeth Medina

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DECLARATION
City Attorney Martin de los Angeles asked if any member of the Commission had any personal or financial conflict of interest related to any of the items on the agenda and there were none.

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING AGENDA
Vice Chair Chuan noted he found a typo in the agenda - change SB300 to SB330 in body of project description.

By motion, approve the meeting agenda as amended for October 27, 2021.

Motion/Second Ciardella/Galang
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

APPROVAL OF

MEETING MINUTES
By motion, approve the meeting minutes of September 8, 2021.

Motion/Second Belong/Alcorn
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Belong shared that due to relocation, he will be resigning from his seat as Planning Commissioner effective end of the meeting.

Planning Director Thomas shared that this is the time of year for commission appointments/re-appointments by the Council; Chair Tao, Commissioner Alcorn and Commissioner Galang’s appointments will expire end of year, and a seat vacancy opens up with Commissioner Belong’s resignation. Planning Director Thomas also shared information on recent meetings: 10/25 – Metro Specific Open House Community virtual meeting and 10/26 – Gateway/Main Street Kickoff meeting.
625
October 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 PUBLIC FORUM Vice Chair Chuan invited members of the public to address the commission and there were none.

CONSENT CALENDAR Adopt a Resolution Making Findings and Determinations Under Assembly Bill 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings.

Staff: Martin de los Angeles, City Attorney, (408) 586-3040 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 21-023 making findings and determinations under Assembly Bill 361 for the continuation of virtual meetings.

Motion/Second Alcorn/Albana
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
PUBLIC HEARING 32 TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT – 2001 TAROB COURT – SD21-0004, UP21- 0005, MT21-0001, P-EA21-0002: Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and Environmental Assessment to allow development of a 32-unit townhome condominium subdivision comprised of multi-family residential buildings up to 50 feet in height (three to four stories), with tandem resident garages accessed from a central drive aisle, and associated site improvements on a 1.22-gross acre site located in the R3 Multi-Family High Density Residential Zoning District at 2001 Tarob Court. The project is located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) area and submitted in accordance with California Senate Bill 3300 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). The project is consistent with the scope of activities approved under the Transit Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2006032091) and exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), Section 15182 (Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan), and Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning). Project Planner: Lillian VanHua, (408) 586-3073, [email protected]
Project Planner Lillian VanHua, City staff [Bill Tott/Building Official, Steve Chan/Transportation and Traffic Manager, Albert Zamora/Deputy Fire Chief, and Jaime Garcia/Assistant Fire Marshal] and applicant’s team [Leah Beniston/True Life Companies and Attorney Arielle Harris/Miller Starr Regalia] addressed commissioners’ clarifying questions in regard to garages having plugs for electric vehicles, if the project falls under California solar mandate, tandem parking, layout of units, emergency access/exits, fire sprinklers, fire safety with common walls of units, and explanation of waivers associated with project.

Vice Chair Chuan invited members of the public to address the commission and there were none.

Motion to close the Public Forum.

Motion/Second Alcorn/Albana
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0 0
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the consistency memoranda to a previously approved Addendum to the Transit Area Specific Plan EIR and the exemptions in accordance to CEQA. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 21-022, recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD21-0004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP21-0005, 626
October 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0001, and Environmental Assessment No. EA19- 0007 to allow development of a 32-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of two multi-family buildings up to 50 feet (three to four stories) in height, with tandem garages accessed from a central drive aisle, and associated site improvements, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Motion/Second Albana/Alcorn
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission received the Planning Commission Work Plan for FY2021- 22 from Planning Director Ned Thomas.

ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Chuan adjourned the meeting at 8:21 pm Motion/Second Belong/Galang
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
Meeting Minutes submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary Elizabeth Medina
627
628
1 1
0 0
UNIT 4
MA. BA. I

I WALK-IN
CLOSET
·-·- ----·
UNIT 4
MASTER

BEDROOM
14'-5" X 12'-7"
881[ I I filSS
DN
II
I UNIT 4

KITCHEN I
L---- oo -o
-
1f---'-
-. -.

I WALK-IN II CLOSET
UN T4
BEDR OM 3
UNIT 4 Q
BATH 2 0
UNIT 4
FAMILY
UNIT 4
LNDY
UNIT 4
DECK
I
��....._.J.Jr __ C1.u:::;::::::a;88�
;;;;;;;;;------;;;;;;;;;-----w---L-t

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
2001 TAROS COURT
Milpitas, CA September 10, 2021
l'llE
TRlJE
TjTFE
Cl)
Ol
� TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
� 12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
CJ 925.824.4300
0 iiiiiiiiiiiii/t
UNIT 1 Q MA. BA.+--
g ALK-IN II
----CLOSEit·
"
0 - - -
IQ :T 1 Q___..-rnBA TH 2
1 uNIT 1 ��" 1
- +..::'..----------+
MASTER

BEDROOM
14'-5" X 12'-r -==- _-_·-=-.-=-
_-_·--===-
=---=====±=f===< :;-;: =�=�
UNIT 1
LNDY
UNIT 1
BEDROOM 2
11'-7" X 10-1"

I I I I

I I I I
I
I
I
UNIT 1
I
DECK
I
UNIT 1

KITCHEN
UNIT 4 DN
STAIR
UNIT 1
FAMILY

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
UP
UNIT 4
ENTRY;
PORCH
DN
27'-1 O"
--7
\
I
1)
I '!
;
I I I\ '
I
I \
/
I I
I \
1 I
I
I \
/
I I
I \
1 1
I
I I \
\
/ I I
j_ _ - --'\- - - +- _ _j_
I
\ /
\ I
I
\x
1 I
/ \
I \
I \
I i \
I \
I
/ \
I \
�
1 UNIT
1 I \

ANDEM GARAGE
10-1" X 38'-3�
I \
�-----�
\ 11
\ I
\
\ I
I
1---
\ I I \ I
\ I
\ I I
\ I
I
\ I
\ I
I
\ I
\ I
IX\
I
I \
I \ I
I \
I
I
\
\ I\
;1 \ I / R \ II / \ I
/
\�.

V
T./0.

I \
!WASTE CONTAINER I ;
1 STORAGE AREA, TYP.
\
L _____
\
_
J
__ ,_
I
I
I I
I I
------7--+
I
I
I
----l-------t- I -- - I
UP

ADAPTABLE

POWDER ROOM
UNIT 1
ENTRY
I
I I
I I
i PORCH
I
I
I
I I
;-----------tFIRST FLOOR PLAN
NOTE:

UNIT 1 IS AN ADA ADAPTABLE UNIT
7 I
I
I
I
I Cl? l LO
I
I
_j
UNIT 1 SQUARE FOOTAGES
FIRST FLOOR 258 SQ. FT.

SECOND FLOOR 1107 SQ. FT.

TOTAL LIVING 1365 SQ. FT.

TANDEM GARAGE 489 SQ. FT.

PORCH 28 SQ. FT.

DECK 75 SQ. FT.

UNIT 4 SQUARE FOOTAGES
FIRST FLOOR 90 SQ. FT.
1ST-3RD STAIRS 77 SQ. FT.

THIRD FLOOR 1340 SQ. FT.

TOTAL LIVING 1430 SQ. FT.

TANDEM GARAGE 486 SQ. FT.

PORCH 32 SQ. FT.

DECK 75 SQ. FT.
0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8'
UNITS 1 & 4 FLOOR PLANS
A01
SDG Architects, Inc.
3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120
Brentwood, CA 94513
925.634.7000 I sdgarchitectsinc.com
architects
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
54'

TAROB COURT

CITY LIMIT LINE

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE

ABANDONED PER CITY OF MILPITAS
(PORTIONS OF THIS AREA TO BE

RETAINED FOR PSUE)
(2,674± S.F.)

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY

LUNDY PLACE COMMON AREA
LOT 1 1.28± AC
87' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
75' PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
(E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2, (TO BE ABANDONED) 26' EVAE 6'
10' PSUE
LUNDY PLACE (E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2 26' EVAE
61'
SSE 15'
UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2 (E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE
6' PSUE
10' PSUE
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT C068 OR 75 (TO REMAIN)
COMMON
AREA
R=331.00'
∆=2°36'26"
L=15.06'
R=35.00'
∆=77°07'13"
L=47.11'
R=262.00'
∆=10°15'41"
L=46.92'
R=262.00'
∆=4°56'23"
L=22.59'
PSUE
10' PSUE
26'
EVAE
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

STAMPED CONCRETE PER MILPITASTRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

MONTAGUE EXPY

S MAIN ST

MCCANDLESS DR

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LUNDY AVE
TAROB
CT

GREAT MALL PKWY

N CAPITOL AVE
I-680
I-880

MONTAGUE EXPY

PROJECT
SITE

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
TM01
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
June 30, 2021

PROJECT NOTES

1.EXISTING USE

ENGINEER/PLANNERAPPLICANT
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.PROPOSED USEEXISTING ZONINGPROPOSED ZONINGPARK DISTRICTFIRE PROTECTIONSCHOOL DISTRICTSEWERWATERSTORM DRAINAREANUMBER OF LOTS / UNITSNOTESELECTRICITY & GASTELEPHONEOWNERBASIS OF BEARINGSEXISTING GENERAL PLANPROPOSED GENERAL PLANDENSITYFLOOD ZONECABLE TV

PROJECT ADDRESS

BENCHMARKDATUMCONDOMINIUM MAPDIMENSIONS
TTLC TAROB 4, LLC
12647 ALCOSTA BOULEVARD, SUITE 470
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
CONTACT: LEAH BENISTON PHONE: (925) 380-1699CAROL I CORTESE3626 NORCROSS CT, SAN JOSE, CA 95148
WOOD RODGERS, INC.
4670 WILLOW ROAD, SUITE 125
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
CONTACT: KARRIE MOSCA/PAUL MEUSER
PHONE: (925) 847-1547
2001 TAROB COURT, MILPITAS, CA 95035
086-036-034

1.22± ACRES EXISTING1.28± ACRES PROPOSED (AFTER ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY)

25.0± DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
1 LOT|32 CONDOMINIUM UNITS

INDUSTRIAL
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIALMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (MFH) 21-40 UNITS/GROSS ACREMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (MFH) 21-40 UNITS/GROSS ACRE R3 - HIGH DENSITY, TRANSIT ORIENTEDR3 - HIGH DENSITY, TRANSIT ORIENTED

MILPITAS RECREATION SERVICES DIVISIONMILPITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT

BERRYESSA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

CITY OF MILPITASCITY OF MILPITASCITY OF MILPITAS
PG&E
AT&T, COMCASTAT&T, COMCASTA CLOMR-F DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2019 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN FEMA ZONE FROM "AO" TO "X".MAP NUMBER: 06085C0069HCASE NUMBER: 19-09-2315C

THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 3, NAD83, AS MEASURED BETWEEN FOUNDMONUMENTS IN TAROB COURT. SAID BEARING BEING N50°39'32"W. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND BASED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCESDIVIDE GROUND DISTANCE BY A COMBINATION FACTOR = 1.000049802USC&GS BRASS DISK IN TOP OF NORTH END OF WEST HEADWALL, WPRR CULVERT CROSSING OF PENITENCIA CREEK, NORTH OF LUNDY ROAD.

ELEV=51.880' (NAVD88)NORTHERN AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), AND CALIFORNIA COORDINATE OF 1983, ZONE 3
A CONDOMINIUM MAP WILL BE RECORDED FOR LOT 1. THE SUBDIVISION IS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1350 ET. SEQ. OF THE CIVILCODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND FILED PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISIONMAP ACT.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP.

SUBDIVIDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS.

ABBREVIATIONS

LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
N.T.S.

LUNDY AVE
TM01 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESTM02 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANTM03 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANTM04 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANTM05 PRELIMINARY SOLID WASTE HANDLING PLANTM06 PRELIMINARY FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLANTM07 PARKING PLANTM08 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLANTM09 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANTM10 PRELIMINARY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANTM11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P 1.0 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT

SHEET INDEX

2. ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY ON PRIVATE LOTS, SUCH AS PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS FOR JOINT TRENCH FACILITIES.ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS WILL BE ADDED TO THE FINAL MAP.

CI VI L
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021 SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
637
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 13
11 12
14 15
17 18
19 20
21 22
24 25
26 27
30 28 29
31 32
43 42
33 41
34 40
39 38
37 35
36 5
16 23
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
EV

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE
(E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2, (TO BE ABANDONED) LUNDY PLACE (E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2 UTILITY EASEMENT 431 M 2 (E) 10' PUBLIC SERVICE
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT C068 OR 75 (TO REMAIN) EX TREES TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE

EX DRIVEWAY TO BE

RELOCATED

EX DRIVEWAY TO BERELOCATED
EX 20' PUE

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN & DEMOLITION PLAN
TM02
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
32 TREE TABLE

TREE NUMBER DESCRIPTION
1 8" LONDON PLANE
2 13" LONDON PLANE3 21" LONDON PLANE4 21" LONDON PLANE5 14" LONDON PLANE 6 16" LONDON PLANE7 20" LONDON PLANE
8 11" CAMPHOR9 15" LONDON PLANE
10 10" JAPANESE BLACK PINE
11 15" JAPANESE BLACK PINE
12 15" COAST REDWOOD13 14" COAST REDWOOD14 8" SILVER DOLLAR GUM15 14" COAST REDWOOD16 25" SILVER DOLLAR GUM17 9" SILVER DOLLAR GUM18 26" SILVER DOLLAR GUM19 9" CANARY ISLAND PINE 20 21" CANARY ISLAND PINE
21 19" CANARY ISLAND PINE
22 11" LONDON PLANE23 11" LONDON PLANE24 18" RAYWOOD ASH25 16" RAYWOOD ASH26 11" VALLEY OAK27 6" XYLOSMA28 5" XYLOSMA 29 6" XYLOSMA
32 12" XYLOSMA33 13" LONDON PLANE34 9" RAYWOOD ASH35 17" RAYWOOD ASH36 16" RAYWOOD ASH NOTE: TREES MARKED WITH AN "X" ARE TO BE REMOVED;

FIELD VERIFICATION OF TREE LOCATIONS NECESSARY
PRIOR TO REMOVAL. SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR MORE DETAIL.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
638
EV
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

INSTALL END OF SIDEWALK

BARRICADE PER COM STANDARD

FIRE ACCESS ROAD

STAMPED CONCRETE PER MILPITASTRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

EX TREES TO BEPROTECTED IN PLACE

TAROB COURT

CITY LIMIT LINE LUNDY PLACE COMMON AREA
A
B
40'
25'
8' TYP.
21' TYP
26'
LUNDY PLACE 43'

RETAINING WALL

WITH MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE
(FIRE ACCESS ROAD)
28'
(FRONT SETBACK)
(REAR SETBACK)
(TO OVERHEAD PROJECTION)
5'
C
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 42'
26'
(TO OVERHEAD PROJECTION)
(TO OVERHEAD PROJECTION)
47' (TO OVERHEAD PROJECTION)
34'
7'
5'
4'
4'
20'
4'
15'
4'
5'
5'
4'
4'
9' 8' 8' 9' 18' MIN
12'
9'
7'
COMMON
AREA
26'
D
*
*
*
*

EVA ACCESS ONLY - WITH REMOTE

CONTROL ACCESS PROVIDED BY HOA
TO FIRE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.

KNOX BOX TO BE PROVIDED IF NEEDED.

SEE DETAIL AT LEFT. B

SECTION B - LUNDY PLACE

PUBLIC STREET SECTION - HALF SECTIONNOT TO SCALE
5'
S/W
7'
L/S
11'
TRAVEL
20'
63' PROPOSED R/W
72' EXISTING R/W

7.5'
S/W
8' 4.5'

SHOULDER
40'
32'

VARIES R/W

ABANDONMENT
R/W
EX.

R/W
EX.

PUE

MILPITAS SAN JOSE
5% MAX
EX.

R/W

CITY LIMIT LINE
C

SECTION C - TAROB COURT

PUBLIC STREET SECTION - HALF SECTIONNOT TO SCALE
5'
S/W
7'
L/S
11'
TRAVEL
61' EXISTING R/W
PSUE
(VARIES
6' OR 10')
R/W
CL
10% MAX
R/W
54' PROPOSED R/W
5'
S/W
7'
L/S
11'
TRAVEL
8'

PARKING
7' R/W

ABANDONMENT

STAMPED CONCRETE PER MILPITASTRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EX.

R/W
10% MAX

PROPOSED

BUILDING

PROPOSED

BUILDING
6'
L/S
9'

BIO-RETENTION

PLANTER
4' 1'
S/W

5.6'
2% MIN
1'
DEEP DEEPEND EDGE S/W WITH 6" CURB
PORCH

TRAVEL LANE
24'-26'
A

PRIVATE STREET SECTION

SECTION A

NOT TO SCALE

PARKING
8' 5'
SWK.
6' MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE

W/ RETAINING
2'

PROPOSED

BUILDING
2' TRAVEL LANE
4' MIN. 26'
CLR.
32'

PROPOSED
UNITS
4' MIN.

CLR.

PROPOSED
UNITS
3" MOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTER * CLR.
32' MIN.

LNDSP
OR
DWY
LNDSP
OR
DWY
D

PRIVATE STREET SECTION

SECTION D

NOT TO SCALE
0'-10'

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
TM03
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
NOTES:

1. UNITS DENOTED WITH A * INDICATE ADA ACCESSIBLE UNITS.

2. UNITS DENOTED WITH A X INDICATE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

AFFORDABLE UNITS- NOTES · NUMBER OF UNITS: 5 · AFFORDABLE LEVEL: MODERATE PROPOSED SIZES:

PLAN 2- 4 UNITS @ 1,414 SFPLAN 4- 1 UNIT @ 1,430 SF · ALL AFFORDABLE UNITS WILL BE BUILT

CONCURRENTLY WITH THE MARKET
RATE UNITS. · AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT IMPOSING

APPROPRIATE OWNERSHIP CONTROLS

ON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS IS
REQUIRED. THIS WILL BE COMPLETEDDURING THE BUILDING PERMITPROCESS.

EVA GATE DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
639
EV
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

EX GAS

EX GAS
"D" CIRCLE (PSUE, EAE, PRSDE, PRIEE, & PRSSE)

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE
PROVIDE NEW CONNECTION @12"WPER COM STANDARDS

CONNECT TO EX SS MH PER COM STANDARDS

EX INV 41.02
NEW SD MH PER COM STANDARDSEX FL 39.0±
NEW SS MH PER COM STANDARDSINV 41.1±

NEW SD MH

NEW SS MH
INV 42.0±

CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER LINE PER

COM STANDARDS
PSUE

WIDTH VARIES
CONNECT TO EX 12"WATER PER COM

STANDARDS
26' EVAE 10' PSUE
6' PSUE
10' PSUE
26' EVAE
15' SSE

EXISTING

TREE TO BE

REMOVED

RETAINING WALL

WITH MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE

CONNECT TO EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE PER

COM STANDARDS
APPROXIMATELY 111 LF NORTH OF THIS LOCATION
EXISTING SS MHIE 42.08
PROVIDE NEW CONNECTION @12"WFOR INTERIM IRRIGATION SERVICE PER

COM STANDARDS

SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT C068 OR 75 (TO REMAIN)
"A" COURT
"A" COURT
PROVIDE NEW CONNECTION @8"RWFOR FUTURE RECYCLED IRRIGATION

SERVICE PER COM STANDARDS
A-A- PROVIDE NEW CONNECTION @12"W PER COM STANDARDS

SECTION A-A

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
TM04

1. STORM DRAIN · MINIMUM SLOPE: 0.005 WITH MINIMUM VELOCITY OF 2 FEET/SECOND · MINIMUM PIPE SIZE: 12" · STORM DRAIN FACILITIES MAY BE RCP OR N-12 PIPE

2. SANITARY SEWER · MINIMUM SLOPE: 0.0035 (EXISTING SLOPE: 0.0035±) · SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO BE SDR-26 PVC

4. WATER PIPE TO BE CLASS 200 AWWA C900

5. UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES PENDING FINAL DESIGN. FINAL DESIGN SHALLADHERE TO COM STANDARDS.

6. ALL ON-SITE WATER AND STORM DRAIN TO BE OWNED AND
MAINTAIN BY THE PROJECT HOA.

7. ON SITE SEWER WITHIN SSE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE COM. SEWER OUTSIDE OF SSE, WITHIN PRIVATE STREET TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.

UTILITY NOTES LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED

PROJECT BOUNDARY

TREATED STORMWATER (SD-T)STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

AREA DRAIN

WATER PIPE

FIRE HYDRANT

SANITARY SEWER PIPE

BF M MASTER WATER METER & BACKFLOW PREVENTOR

DOMESTIC WATER/IRRIGATION SERVICE

PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

ABBREVIATIONS

BLDG SANITARY SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD)

APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER

BLDG BUILDING

COM CITY OF MILPITAS

ESMT EASEMENT

EX EXISTING

EVAE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT

HOA HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATIONPSUE PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENT

MH MANHOLE

RW RECYCLED WATER

SS SANITARY SEWERSSE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT

TBA TO BE ABANDONED

GENERAL NOTES

EX JOINT TRENCH BOXES TO REMAINEX FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED FILTERRA BIORETENTION SYSTEM; SEE SHEET TM09 FOR DETAILSEXISTING STREET LIGHT TO BE REMOVEDEX WATER SERVICE TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING FIRE SERVICE & PERTINENT APPURTENANCES SHALL BE REMOVED.

EX IRRIGATION SERVICE TO REMAIN FOR PUBLIC IRRIGATION

RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED FILTERRA. SEE DETAIL ON TM09
DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=5'

FIELD VERIFIED LOCATION OFEXISTING SANITARY

SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL;
2' MAX AT THIS LOCATION.

PROPOSED 6"

VERTICAL CURB

REMOVE EXISTING PIPE

EX WATER PIPE TO REMAINEX SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO REMAIN

CONNECT TO EX SANITARY SEWER WITH NEW MANHOLE PER COM STANDARDS

EX SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO BE REMOVED BETWEEN NEW MANHOLES; SEE &

CONNECT TO EX SANITARY SEWER WITH NEW MANHOLE PER COM STANDARDS EXISTING WATER MAIN TO BE RELOCATED AS SHOWNEXISTING SANITARY SEWER FROM 1971 TAROB COURT TO REMAININSTALL NEW STREET LIGHT PER THE CITY'S TRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLANPROPOSED FIRES SERVICE LINES TO BUILDINGS 1 & 2 WITH BACKFLOW DEVICESIN CLOSET. 640
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
(APPROVED)
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

LUNDY PLACE

TAROB COURT
R=20' R
=
2 0' 26'
26'

EVA ACCESS ONLY - WITH REMOTE

CONTROL ACCESS PROVIDED BY HOA
TO FIRE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.

KNOX BOX TO BE PROVIDED IF NEEDED.
26' FC-FC
(TRAVEL WAY)

PROPOSED TRASH PICKUP SECTION

NOT TO SCALE
4'
APRON
4'
APRON
26' MIN. CLEAR

PRELIMINARY SOLID WASTE HANDLING PLAN
TM05
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021

GARBAGE TRUCK TEMPLATE

NOT TO SCALE
* COLLECTION CANS TO BE STORED WITHIN GARAGE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
641
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
(APPROVED)
26' EVAE

FIRE RISER ROOM

EXISTING FIRE SERVICE TOBE UTILIZED FORPROPOSED BUILDING 26' EVAE

EX FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
HOSE LENGTH=150'
HOSE LENGTH=150'
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE
111' BACK-UP DISTANCE

FIRE RISER ROOM
R=20' R
=
2 0' 26' EVAE EVA ACCESS ONLY - WITH REMOTE CONTROL ACCESS PROVIDED BY

HOA TO FIRE AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT. KNOX BOX TO BE
PROVIDED IF NEEDED.

PRELIMINARY FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN
TM06
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021

MILPITAS FIRE TRUCK TEMPLATE

NOT TO SCALE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
642
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
"A" COURT

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE

LUNDY PLACE
EV
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
"A" COURT

PARKING PLAN
TM07
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021
NOTES:

1. GUEST PARKING INCLUDES 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE AND 1 EV STATION.

2. GUEST PARKING IS BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN. ACTUAL PARKING PROVIDED MAY VARY WITH FINAL DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUM GUEST REQUIREMENTS.

PARKING SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION

ON-SITE GUEST

GARAGE SPACES
TOTAL

UNIT COUNT

REQUIRED

PARKING
RATIO
32 PARKING

REQUIRED

PROVIDED

PARKING
RATIO

PARKING
PROVIDED -32 1.6 SPACES/ DU 20% OF REQUIRED - 51.2 10.2 61.4 2.0 SPACES/DU -- 64874 SEE
DETAIL 3
SEE
DETAIL 2
SEE
DETAIL 1
PARKING DETAIL 1PARKING DETAIL 2
(PARALLEL GUEST)
(TANDEM GARAGE)
PARKING DETAIL 3
(ADA ACCESSIBLE VAN & EV)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
643

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE
DMA 3
DMA 1
DMA 4
DMA 5
DMA 6
DMA 2
"A" COURT
"A" COURT
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1

STAMPED CONCRETE PER MILPITASTRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN

PERVIOUS PAVER DETAIL

PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
TM08
NOTES:

1. ALL TREATMENT MEASURES AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE BASED ON THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SCVURPPP) C.3.STORMWATER HANDBOOK DATED JUNE 2016.

2. HYDROMODIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS LESS THAN EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE SITE.

3. PROVIDED SURFACE AREA OF THE BIO-RETENTION FACILITIES IS SUPPORTED BY USING THE 4% METHOD AND ARE DESIGNED FOR A MIN PONDING DEPTH OF 6". SEE PRELIMINARY STORM WATERMANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CALCULATIONS.

4. PER THE CITY OF MILPITAS SPECIAL PROJECTS WORKSHEET, THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A SPECIAL PROJECT PER CATEGORY "C" WITH A TOTAL TOD CREDIT OF 35%. SEE THE PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, APPENDIX A FOR DETAILED CALCULATIONS.

LEGEND

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE

PERVIOUS PAVERS

TREATMENT CONTROL MEASUREAREA DRAIN

PROPOSED FILTERRA- SEE DETAIL BELOW

TREATED STORMWATER (SD-T)
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021
TCM
BIO-RETENTION DETAIL (TCM 3 & TCM 4)
NOTE: DETAIL SHALL MEET SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFFPOLLUTION PROGRAM - C.3 STORMWATER WATER HANDBOOK.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
644
"A" STREET

A- C- TAROB COURT
LUNDY PLACE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT C068 OR 75 EXISTING DRIVEWAY D- E

RETAINING WALL - WITH MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE

GUTTER FLOWING

TOWARDS FILTERRA

CONFORM TO

EXISTING

PAVEMENT
FF = 52.1
BIO=49.6±
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
FF = 52.1
FF = 52.6
FF = 52.6
FF = 52.6
FF = 52.6 FF = 52.1
FF = 52.1

PROPOSED ROW

B- LOCATION OF

EXISTING DRIVEWAY
XX
XX
FF
FF
FF
FF

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
TMO9
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

ABBREVIATIONS

CL CENTERLINECOM CITY OF MILPITAS

D DRAINEX EXISTINGFF FINISHED FLOORFG FINISHED GRADEHP HIGH POINT

GB GRADE BREAK

PL PROPERTY LINEPSUE PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY EASEMENTPUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTR/W RIGHT OF WAY

SCVWD SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTSW SIDEWALKTBA TO BE ABANDONED

VAR VARIES
LEGEND

OVERLAND RELEASE DIRECTION
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021
645
EV
C
C
BUILDING 1
P=51.1
FF=52.1
MFF=52.1

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE
LUNDY PLACE "A" COURT
"A" COURT BUILDING 2 P=51.1 FF=52.1 MFF=52.1
BUILDING 2
P=51.6
FF=52.6
MFF=52.1
BUILDING 1
P=51.6
FF=52.6
MFF=52.1

PRELIMINARY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
TM10

ABBREVIATIONS
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
February 19, 2021 SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
646

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TM11

RESERVED FOR

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
February 19, 2021
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
MAY 03, 2021 SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
647
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE

RETAINING WALL

WITH MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

TAROB COURT

LUNDY PLACE

RETAINING WALL

WITH MASONRY

WALL OR FENCE
"A" COURT
"A" COURT

OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
P1.0
120
60 30
0 SCALE: 1" = 30'
NORTH
TTLC Tarob 4, LLC
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 470 San Ramon CA 94583
925.824.4300
2001 TAROB COURT
Milpitas, CA
JUNE 30, 2021
LEGEND

PRIVATE RECREATIONAL AREA
(0.14 ACRES)

OTHER PRIVATE OPEN SPACE &
LANDSCAPING (0.32 ACRES)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACE = 0.46 ACRES

PARK ACREAGE SUMMARY (TASP REQUIREMENT)
DESCRIPTION TASP CODE REQUIRED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (AC.) PROVIDED PARK (AC.) R3 ZONING CODE OPEN SPACE (MUNI CODE XI-10-4.05.C)
DESCRIPTION CODE REQUIREMENT REQUIRED AREA (AC.) PROVIDED AREA (AC.) ½
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
1 Lillian VanHua
From: Leah Beniston <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:59 AM
To: Lillian VanHua
Subject: Fw: 2001 Tarob Court Draft Conditions of Approval & CEQA Question CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Hi Lillian,
Below are FCS's responses to LSA's comments.

Please let me know if this will suffice.

Thanks,
Leah
From: Jason Brandman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:56 AM
To: Leah Beniston <[email protected]>
Cc: Harris Arielle <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2001 Tarob Court Draft Conditions of Approval & CEQA Question Hi Leah,
Thanks you for the opportunity to respond to the August 4, 2021 Peer Review from LSA.

As it relates to Item #1, TTLC Tarob 4, LLC has entered into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). The applicant’s consultant will be preparing a Site Management Plan (SMP) for SCCDEH’s review/approval. The applicant’s consultant is currently preparing a workplan for additional sampling. Those results will then be presented in the SMP.

Additionally, in terms of Item #2, the project will no longer have traffic utilizing the Lunday driveway, in or out, which was previously identified as an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) point. That said, in consultation with TJKM, no further analysis as it relates to EVA is necessary.

Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions and we would be happy to address.

Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason Brandman
Vice President/Director
Mobile 925.200.1656
Skype jbrandman1117
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
An ADEC Innovation
Confidentiality Statement
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 660
2 661
1 Liz Medina
From: Lillian VanHua
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:21 AM
To: Liz Medina; Ned Thomas
Subject: FW: Regarding the proposed 32-townhome project at 2001 Tarob Court… Public comment.

LILLIAN VANHUA, AICP
Acting Senior Planner
City of Milpitas / Planning Department
[email protected] / (408) 586-3073
From: John Doll < >
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 12:25 PM
To: Lillian VanHua <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding the proposed 32-townhome project at 2001 Tarob Court… CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Dear Ms. Van Hua:

The beauty of a city is highly influenced by the beauty of its buildings.

Along Montague Expressway, I find that the colors of the new buildings run the gamut from dreary / garish to attractive / cheerful. We should ask ourselves whether the proposed color scheme for a project is one that we would be happy to come home to.

In my view, the planned color scheme for this project is unattractive, especially the “Dried Thyme” dull green.

I recommend colors that are cheerful, but not garish---light pastel yellows, beiges, blues, and pinks, for example. I’m not fond of the “Needlepoint Navy” either, but maybe an alternating combination of a medium blue and a light pastel blue would provide visual interest and pleasing contrast.

Please acknowledge receipt of this input. Thank you.

Regards,
John Doll
31-year Milpitas resident
662

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Milpitas Affordable Housing Ordinance Update Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
Staff Contact: Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408-586-3260 Recommendation: Following the reading of the title by the City Attorney, move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce Ordinance No. 297.1 amending Milpitas Municipal Code Title XII, Chapter 1 (Affordable Housing Ordinance).

Executive Summary:

In June 2018, the City Council adopted the current Affordable Housing Ordinance. In 2021, the City Council directed staff to find ways to ensure that residential developers would build more affordable units on-site, rather than paying in-lieu fees.

In this Affordable Housing Ordinance update, proposed amendments still provide developers with alternatives to building affordable units on-site because staff and legal counsel believe that providing alternative means of compliance is needed in order to comply with existing state law. However, staff has proposed substantial changes to the process for granting exceptions to building affordable units on-site for ownership housing, which include strengthening the City Council’s required findings before allowing alternative means of compliance for ownership housing and incentivizing developers to build affordable units on-site.

For rental residential development, the proposed changes give developers the option to either build affordable rental units on-site or utilize any of the alternatives listed in the ordinance under certain conditions. While rental development would have a more flexible standard for compliance than ownership development, this flexibility is to ensure consistency and compliance with existing state law governing inclusionary housing as set forth in the Government Code.

Staff has also proposed additional changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance relating to fractional units, design and distribution of affordable units, clarification of accessory dwelling units, allowing mixed tenure compliance, removing credit transfer option, extending ownership unit affordability from 45 to 55 years, broadening the criteria for preferences, among others. These proposed changes are for the most part consistent with the existing ordinance and are primarily intended to add clarity and consistency to the ordinance.

Community and stakeholder feedback on the proposed ordinance was overall positive and focused on having flexibility and a range of alternatives to meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Staff recommends that Council move forward with the steps toward adopting the proposed ordinance amendments.

Background:

On June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Affordable Housing Ordinance No. 297, which applies to any land use entitlement application not deemed complete by July 20, 2018. The purpose of this ordinance is to, “(a) Enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the 663
City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low and moderate income, and (b) Assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.” Under the Affordable Housing Ordinance, new residential development projects with 10 or more units must include 15% of very-low or low-income units for rental development and 15% of very-low, low, or moderateincome units for ownership development. These units must remain affordable for a minimum of 45 to 55 years.

The ordinance allows several alternatives to building the required affordable housing on-site, including payment of in-lieu fees, building affordable housing off-site, dedicating land for affordable housing, and using credit transfers when a developer builds more affordable units than required.

On March 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8852, which approved the affordable housing fee schedule for a residential in-lieu fee and a non-residential impact fee. The Resolution became effective on July 1, 2019. The affordable housing fee level is adjusted July every year for inflation using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index. If granted an exception to pay in-lieu fees, a developer must pay the Affordable Housing Ordinance in-lieu fees prior to receiving a building permit.

On December 15, 2020, the City Council directed staff to explore changes to the in-lieu fee provisions in the ordinance. The City Council was interested in finding ways to ensure that developers would build more affordable units on-site, rather than paying in-lieu fees. Currently, the City needs to gather fee revenue for multiple years before it can support a new affordable housing project. On January 5, 2021, staff provided an information memorandum on the Affordable Housing Ordinance in-lieu fee options to the City Council. At the March 16, 2021 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with work on this item.

Analysis:

In alignment with Council direction, staff is proposing changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance to encourage more on-site affordable housing production. Staff is also proposing changes to add clarity and consistency throughout the ordinance.

Staff has compiled a comprehensive summary of proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance along with the reason for the proposed changes. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the summary.

Key Proposed Changes to Milpitas Municipal Code Title XII (Housing), Chapter 1 (Affordable Housing Ordinance)
This section describes and highlights key proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance.  Section 2: Definitions
Eight definitions are proposed to be added or modified to provide clarity. The proposed changes are intended to make the definitions more explicit and to remove ambiguity. The changes are staying consistent with the current ordinance.
 Section 3.00: 15 percent affordability requirement
Sometimes the 15% calculation of required affordable housing results in a fraction. The current ordinance provides that in-lieu fees are paid for all fractional units and there is no rounding. In Section 3.00, the proposed changes state that if the 15% calculation results in a fractional unit that is less than 0.5, the developer may pay an in-lieu fee for that fractional unit. If the 15% calculation results in a fractional unit that is equal to or greater than 0.5, the requirement is rounded up to the next whole number, resulting in one more unit.

Another proposed change in Section 3.00 adds language to clarify that accessory dwelling units shall not be included in the calculation of the total number of units subject to the on-site 15% inclusionary requirement. This is in concert with the proposed change in Section 2 that clarifies that accessory dwelling units cannot be used to meet inclusionary requirements.
 Section 3.02: Conditions of approval
664
The proposed changes clarify that the ordinance applies to mixed-use projects. A list of data and information that needs to be submitted is also delineated in order to clarify the documents that must be provided for staff to review the project.
 Section 3.03: Concurrent construction of affordable units Proposed language is added to explain how construction of affordable units must be carried out for phased developments and to further clarify that affordable units must be constructed in advance of, or concurrently with, market rate units within each phase.
 Section 3.04: Design and distribution of affordable units More specific language is added on how the design and distribution of affordable units should be ensured and to clarify how the quality of affordable units must be reasonably consistent with the market rate units. o Section 4: Exceptions to on-site development of 15% affordable units  Section 4A: Ownership projects
For ownership projects, substantial changes are proposed to the process for granting exceptions to building affordable units on-site. The changes encourage building affordable ownership units on-site by providing more stringent standards for ownership projects to use alternative means of compliance such as in-lieu fees, off-site units, or land dedication.

In the proposed ordinance, a developer must construct on-site affordable ownership units unless the City Council makes findings that allowing the developer to use one of the listed alternatives will

1. further the City’s low and moderate income housing goals; and

2. either (i) result in a greater amount of affordable housing or deeper affordability by meeting at least two of four listed criteria in the ordinance; or (ii) provide other community benefits that exceed the benefit of constructing on-site affordable units.

Consistent with Council direction to incentivize on-site affordable housing construction, the proposed ordinance requires that for an ownership project to not construct affordable units on-site and to use one of the alternative means of compliance, the City Council must make the above findings. In other words, if a developer intends to use one of the alternatives for an ownership project, the developer would need to provide a greater contribution to affordable housing or other greater community benefit, as compared to building the units on-site.

From a legal perspective, it is recommended that the City retain alternatives for ownership projects as part of the ordinance, rather than requiring all affordable units on-site. The key court case that upheld cities’ authority to require inclusionary housing is the California Supreme Court case of California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose (2009). In that case, the California Supreme Court found that a city could require the development of affordable housing as part of a market rate development, but also indicated that it was important to provide a menu of alternatives to developers to provide flexibility in the event that on-site development is infeasible. The court did indicate that the alternatives could require a larger contribution to affordable housing in order to incentivize on-site construction. Therefore, in the proposed ordinance, the City can require the additional findings outlined above before allowing developers to use an alternative in ownership projects.

In alignment with Council direction, the proposed ordinance clarifies and strengthens the findings required for City Council to approve exceptions to building affordable units on-site, thereby encouraging more on-site affordable housing construction. This sets a higher standard that must be met in order for developers to use any of the alternatives. The proposed ordinance gives the City Council more control in determining when and if to accept ownership development proposals that do not include on-site affordable housing units.  Section 4B: Rental projects
The proposed changes clarify that the City may allow an exception to the requirement to construct on-site affordable units for a residential rental project if requested by the applicant, provided that applicant shall be required to contribute to the City’s affordable housing needs through one of the alternative means of compliance (i.e., paying in-lieu fees, constructing units off-site, or making a land dedication). 665
In other words, the proposed ordinance allows rental project developers to either build affordable units on-site, or satisfy their obligations through utilizing any of the alternative means of compliance listed in the ordinance.

Therefore, for rental projects, the proposed ordinance provides a more flexible standard than ownership projects. This flexibility is provided for rental development to ensure compliance with existing state law governing inclusionary housing as set forth in the Government Code. The legal background is described below.

In 2009, in a California Court of Appeals decision in the case of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles, the court held that a city inclusionary requirement to include affordable housing (or pay a fee in lieu of doing so) violated the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. As a result of the Palmer decision, cities could not require developers to construct on-site affordable housing as part of a private development until 2018, when AB 1505 was enacted. Intended to allow for inclusionary rental housing, AB 1505 amended Government Code Section 65850 to authorize cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances for residential rental projects and indicated that any ordinance must include alternative means of compliance, such as payment of an in-lieu fee, land dedication, off-site construction, or the like.

In light of the current state law and the explicit statutory requirement from AB 1505 to provide alternatives for residential rental development, the proposed ordinance provides alternatives for rental projects in order to ensure compliance with AB 1505. The proposed ordinance allows developers to utilize any of the listed alternative means of compliance. Developers will still be incentivized to build on-site units based on potential density bonus benefits (waivers, incentives, and increased density).

For policy discussion, staff has evaluated a different set of options for rental projects to encourage on-site affordable housing construction while providing flexibility for developers. This set of options is as follows:
(A) Developer may construct 50% of required units on-site, and pay 50% of requirement in-lieu fees without City Council findings;
(B) Developer may pay 100% in in-lieu fees if the City Council makes the same findings required for ownership alternatives (i.e., fees will further the City’s low and moderate income housing goals, and result in a greater amount of affordable housing or deeper affordability or will provide other community benefits that are greater than constructing on-site units); (C) Developer may meet the requirement through land dedication or off-site construction, provided that the standards in the Affordable Housing Ordinance are met.

This approach still provides developers with alternatives to on-site construction, but limits a developer’s ability to meet the full requirement through in-lieu fee payment. This approach still likely complies with existing state law governing inclusionary housing ordinances, but is not as straightforward as the proposed language.  Section 4.00: Payment of fees in lieu of creation of affordable units Proposed language is added to clarify that calculation of in-lieu fees must be based on the total gross square footage of all dwelling units developed as part of the project, including any accessory dwelling units.  Section 4.01: Off-site projects
Proposed language is added to clarify that off-site projects must be located within the City of Milpitas. New language is also proposed that would allow developers flexibility to build off-site affordable units with a different tenure from the market rate units. The proposed change would require more square footage of affordable units off-site at an equivalent or lower income category. These proposed changes provide flexibility so developers can creatively develop more market rate and affordable housing while encouraging on-site construction.  Section 4.02: Land dedication
Proposed language is added to clarify that dedicated land must be located within City limits and be zoned and usable for the required amount of housing. Dedicating non-residentially zoned land is unacceptable, as it would require the conversion of employment lands.
 Sections 4.03, 4.04, and 7: Credit transfers
Under the existing ordinance, upon request of the applicant, the City Council may permit an applicant to apply for affordable unit credits for units constructed in excess of the number required in one project and use those 666
credits to satisfy the requirements for another project in the City. The proposed changes delete credit transfers as an alternative means of compliance. To date, this alternative has not been used and it would be very staff intensive to administer.
 Sections 6.00 and 6.02: Ownership affordability term
The proposed updates change the affordability covenant for ownership units from 45 to 55 years to be consistent with rental unit affordability and to gain a longer-term affordability. This change would apply 55 years to all affordable units created under the Affordable Housing Ordinance.  Section 6.03: Selection criteria
The current ordinance states that the City shall endeavor to make housing available for Milpitas residents and employees. Proposed language is added to broaden the criteria for preferences under the ordinance to add displaced former Milpitas residents and households with children enrolled in the Milpitas Unified School District that have inadequate housing as defined under the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

Language is also added to clarify the need to conform with state and federal fair housing laws.

Stakeholder and Community Outreach
On December 8, 2021, the City posted the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance on the City’s website. The packet of materials included a cover letter to the community and developers, policy discussion on rental inclusionary alternatives, summary of proposed changes, redlined version of proposed changes, and clean version of proposed changes.

On December 16, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Roundtable to gather input from developers and real estate professionals on the proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Eleven stakeholders attended this meeting. The Building Industry Association commented that they do not want policy changes that would discourage market rate projects or discourage development overall, and encouraged the City to adopt policy changes that help achieve the City’s upcoming Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals. Questions were addressed to clarify how accessory dwelling are considered in the ordinance.

Questions were also addressed regarding how current projects meet the existing ordinance. Developers commented that flexibility is important and the ability to pay in-lieu fees where Council deems appropriate is important, and that the City can utilize the fees collected to support potential projects.

On December 17, 2021, the City hosted a virtual community meeting to gather input from the broader community and residents on the proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Nine stakeholders attended this meeting, including SV@Home, residents, Commissioners, and Homelessness Task Force members. Attendees were very engaged with staff in active discussions and question and answer session.

Comments were overall positive with discussions around income levels, providing a range of options, balancing between fee level versus building units, different policy for ownership and rental projects, among others. The robust discussions at this meeting also helped to inform and educate about some details of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Please refer to Attachment 4 for SV@Home’s comment letter.

Residential Development
Since the Affordable Housing Ordinance took effect, six residential development projects subject to the Affordable Housing Ordinance have received approval from the City. The six residential projects consist of three rental and three ownership developments. Five of these six projects are building affordable units on-site and not using any alternative means of compliance. The sixth project, which is an ownership development, is building almost all of the required affordable units on-site but is paying a fee in-lieu of building one unit and a fractional unit. Therefore, all six residential projects developed since the Affordable Housing Ordinance was adopted in 2018 are meeting almost all of their inclusionary housing obligations by incorporating affordable units on-site within the development.

With the proposed amendments to the ordinance, the City will further encourage more on-site affordable housing construction.

Action Steps
667
To achieve Council intent to encourage more on-site affordable housing production, and to add clarity and consistency to the Affordable Housing Ordinance, staff recommends that Council move forward with the first reading and introduce the ordinance on January 18, 2022.

The second reading and ordinance adoption is scheduled to take place at the February 1, 2022 Council meeting.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative: Do not amend the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Pros: The current Affordable Housing Ordinance would remain without additional staff time.

Cons: The current Affordable Housing Ordinance would not have the benefit of the amendments for added clarify and consistency and encouraging on-site affordable housing construction.

Reason not recommended: The proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance would achieve Council intent to encourage on-site affordable units and add clarity and consistency throughout the ordinance.

Fiscal Impact:

Many of the proposed changes would facilitate administration of the Affordable Housing Ordinance and save staff time. Limiting developers’ ability to pay in-lieu fees may slow the growth of the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, but it may result in more on-site affordable units. These proposed changes have no immediate fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The introduction and adoption of this Ordinance is (1) not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)4), that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it constitutes a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; (2) statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15267 (Financial Assistance to Low or Moderate Income Housing; (3) not intended to apply to specifically identified affordable housing projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now and, moreover, they will be subject to appropriate environmental review at such time as approvals for those affordable housing project are considered; and/or (4) not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment or payment of the fees. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.

Recommendation:

Following the reading of the title by the City Attorney, move to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce Ordinance No. 297.1 amending Milpitas Municipal Code Title XII, Chapter 1 (Affordable Housing Ordinance).

Attachments:

1. Summary of proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance

2. Ordinance No. 297.1 for introduction

3. Redline comparison showing changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance

4. SV@Home comment letter
668
Summary of Proposed Changes to the Milpitas Affordable Housing Ordinance Ordinance
Section
Proposed Change to the
Ordinance
Reason for Proposed Change
Entire
document
Minor numbering and text
changes have been made
throughout the document.

To update the numbering and to
maintain consistency. These minor
changes are highlighted in the
“redline” of the ordinance but are not
included in this summary table.

XII-1-2.01 Updated reference to Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) definition
To match changes in the Municipal
Code.

XII-1-2.02 Added definition for “Affordable
Housing Cost”
To clarify that affordable housing
cost includes utilities cost and is
determined using official HCD
income limits.

XII-1-2.04 Updated definition for an
“Affordable Unit”
To clarify that ADUs shall not be
counted as an affordable unit to
satisfy on-site affordable housing
requirements.

XII-1-2.07 Created separate definition for
“Low Income Household”
To further clarify that “Low Income
Household” is defined the same as in
state law and that state HCD income
limits apply to this program, not
federal TCAC income limits.

XII-1-2.08 Added a definition for mixed use
development.

To clarify that the ordinance applies
to both vertical and horizontal mixed
use projects.

XII-1-2.09 Created separate definition for
“Moderate Income Household”
To further clarify that “Moderate
Income Household” is defined the
same as in state law and that state
HCD income limits apply to this
program, not federal TCAC income
limits.

XII-1-2.11 Added definition for “on-site”
development of affordable housing
To further clarify that on-site
development must be within the
boundaries of the proposed
development. Otherwise it is
considered to be off-site.

XII-1-2.16 Created separate definition for
“Very Low Income Household”
To further clarify that “Very Low
Income Household” is defined the
same as in state law and that state
HCD income limits apply to this
program, not federal TCAC income
limits.

XII-1-3.00 Sometimes 15% of the total units
results in a fraction. This change
would require developers to round
up the number of affordable units
they are required to build if the
fraction is equal to or greater than

0.5. If the fraction is less, the
developer could pay an in-lieu fee
This change reduces a developer’s
ability to pay in-lieu fees for fractional
units greater than 0.5. It could result
in 1 extra affordable unit being built
on-site per project. It also clarifies
that ADUs are not factored into the
calculation of the total number of
669
for that fraction of a unit. This
change also clarifies that ADUs
shall not be included in the
calculation of the total number of
units subject to the on-site 15%
inclusionary requirement.
units subject to the 15% on-site
inclusionary requirement.

XII-1-3.02 Added mixed-use to the
“Conditions of Approval” section
and a list of documents needed for
staff to review.

To further clarify that this ordinance
applies to mixed-use projects that
include residential and to clarify key
documents that must be provided for
staff to review.

XII-1-3.03 Added language to explain how
concurrent construction of
affordable housing units must be
carried out for phased
developments before final
discretionary permits are issued. If
extenuating circumstances exist, a
developer must provide a
schedule showing how the
affordable units will be built
expeditiously and this schedule
must be approved by the City
Manager or designee.

To further clarify that affordable units
must be constructed in advance of or
concurrently with market rate units
within each phase.

XII-1-3.04 Added more specific language on
how the design and distribution of
affordable units should be
ensured.

To further clarify how the quality of
affordable units shall be reasonably
consistent with the market rate units.

Section 4A
(Ownership)
Made substantial changes to the
process for granting exceptions to
building affordable ownership
units on-site. Added more specific
findings for Council approval.

To clarify the City Council findings
required for certain exceptions to onsite construction of affordable units and to encourage the production of
more on-site ownership units.

Section 4B
(Rental)
Added text relating to rental
projects and exceptions to the onsite requirement.

To clarify that developers of rental
projects do not need City Council
approval to utilize alternative forms of
compliance as set forth in
Subsections XII-1-4.00-XII-1-4.02.

However, staff is exploring options
for an alternative approach to
providing alternatives to development
of on-site affordable units.

XII-1-4.00 Clarified how to calculate in-lieu
fees and that ADUs are included
when calculating the gross square
footage for the in-lieu fee.

The existing ordinance does not
explain how in-lieu fees are
calculated.

XII-1-4.01 Added text clarifying that off-site
projects must be located within the
City of Milpitas.

To clarify where off-site projects can
be located.

XII-1-4.01 Added new language that would
allow developers flexibility to build
off-site affordable units with a
To provide flexibility so developers
can creatively develop more market
670
different tenure from the market
rate units. The current ordinance
is silent about this. The proposed
change would require more
square footage of affordable units
off-site at an equivalent or lower
income category.
rate and affordable housing while
encouraging on-site construction.

XII-1-4.02 Added text clarifying that
dedicated land must be within the
City of Milpitas and must be zoned
and usable for the required
amount of housing.

To provide specifics on what land is
acceptable for dedication under the
ordinance. Dedicating nonresidentially zoned land is
unacceptable as it would require the
conversion of employment lands.

XII 1-4.03 Removed credit transfers as a
compliance option.

To date this option has not been
used and would be very staff
intensive to administer. As an
alternative, staff has proposed
allowing mixed tenure off-site
compliance for added flexibility.

XII-1-4.04 Removed “Transfer of square foot
equivalent” section.

No longer needed as addressed in
other sections.

XII-1-6.00 Changed affordability covenant for
ownership from 45 to 55 years.

Updated the time by which
affordable housing agreement
should be recorded to prior to the
City allowing occupancy.

To be consistent with the rental
affordability term and to gain a
longer-term affordability. To provide
reasonable timeframe for completing
affordable housing agreement.

XII-1-6.02 Changed affordability covenant for
ownership from 45 to 55 years.

To be consistent with the rental
affordability term and to gain a
longer-term affordability. The change
would apply 55 years to all affordable
units created under this ordinance.

XII-1-6.03 Updated selection criteria to
ensure that prioritization conforms
with state and federal fair housing
laws. Added broader language
about setting aside some of the
affordable units for households
that live, are employed in, or have
been displaced from Milpitas.

To clarify the need to conform with
fair housing laws and to apply local
preferences for the affordable
housing units under the ordinance.

Section 7 Removed “Affordable Unit Credits”
section.

The credits option has not been used
and would be very staff intensive to
administer. As an alternative, staff
has proposed allowing mixed tenure
off-site compliance for added
flexibility.

Section 9 Renumbered as Section 8 and
revised Affordable Housing
Ordinance Fund to Affordable
Housing Fund.

To provide consistency with the
definition in Section 2.
671
38077.01007\34698461.1
1 Ordinance No. 297.1

REGULAR
NUMBER: 297.1
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AMENDING TITLE XII, CHAPTER 1 OF THE MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MAKING CEQA EXEMPTION

FINDINGS
HISTORY: This Ordinance was introduced (first reading) by the City Council at its meeting of ______________, upon motion by_________________________ and was adopted (second reading) by the City Council at its meeting of _______________, upon motion by ____________________________. The Ordinance was duly passed and ordered published in accordance with law by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
672
38077.01007\34698461.1
2 Ordinance No. 297.1
RECITALS AND FINDINGS:

WHEREAS, the Bay Area is experiencing a severe housing crisis, especially in providing housing affordable to very low, low and moderate-income households; and WHEREAS, existing local, state and federal resources are insufficient to meet the City of Milpitas’ needs for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element provides that the City will facilitate the development of new affordable housing units, and
WHEREAS, the courts have recognized that a city can impose requirements to include that new developments include a percentage of affordable housing units as a valid exercise of the city’s police power;
WHEREAS, in 2017, the State of California enacted AB 1505, codified at California Government Code §§ 65850-65850.1, which supersedes the court’s ruling in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles, and establishes that cities can adopt ordinances requiring that rental housing development include a percentage of units affordable to very low, low or moderate income households; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 297 adding Title XII, Chapter 1 to the Milpitas Municipal Code (the Affordable Housing Ordinance) to establish inclusionary affordable housing requirements and a fee program to foster the development of affordable housing projects within the City and the region; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Affordable Housing Ordinance has been effective in furthering the City’s affordable housing goals, and has resulted in the development of additional affordable housing units within the City; and
WHEREAS, in additional to ensuring that affordable housing units are built within the City, the City Council desires to ensure that affordable housing developed within the City is integrated with new market rate housing development and not segregated to select areas of the City; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that affordable housing constructed pursuant to the Affordable Housing Ordinance is integrated into new market rate residential development to the greatest extent possible, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Affordable Housing Ordinance to incentivize and ensure on-site development of affordable housing to the extent possible, and to make other clarifying amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, consistent with Council direction, City staff prepared proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance to strengthen the City Council’s required findings before allowing alternative means of compliance for ownership housing and incentivizing developers to build affordable units on-site, while still retaining alternative means of compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance in order to maintain flexibility and ensure that the Affordable Housing Ordinance will not serve as an impediment to residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021, City staff posted the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance on the City’s website along with a written summary of the proposed changes, and City staff thereafter presented the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance to 673
38077.01007\34698461.1
3 Ordinance No. 297.1
stakeholders in the local development community as part of a Community Development Roundtable meeting on December 16, 2021, and received feedback on the proposed amendments from those stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2021, City staff hosted a virtual community meeting to gather input from the broader community and residents on proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing ordinance. City staff presented the proposed amendments at this meeting and received feedback from the members of the community; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting and considered the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance as set forth in this Ordinance, together with all other information relevant to evaluation and adoption of this Ordinance, including but not limited to the staff materials provided herewith, staff presentations and all oral and written communications received at or before the duly noticed public meeting; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan as a whole and implements the Milpitas adopted Housing Element, as well as other General Plan goals, policies and programs.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECORD AND BASIS FOR ACTION
The City Council has duly considered the full record before it, which includes but is not limited to all City staff reports, including reports presented to the City Council, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to the City Council. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are an integral part of the Council’s decision and are hereby adopted as findings and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF MILPITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE XII, CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1 of Title XII of the Milpitas Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

TITLE XII - HOUSING
CHAPTER 1 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE
Section 1 - Purpose
This Chapter shall be known as the "Affordable Housing Ordinance." XII-1-1.00 - Purpose
Purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low and moderate income.
674
38077.01007\34698461.1
4 Ordinance No. 297.1
(b) Assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.

XII-1-1.01 - Applicability
All land use entitlement applications not determined or deemed "complete" as defined in Government Code Section 65943 by the effective date of the ordinance are subject to the requirements of this Chapter.

Section 2 - Definitions
XII-1-2.00
As used in this Chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:

XII-1-2.01
“Accessory dwelling unit” shall have the meaning set forth in Section XI-10-13.8 of this Code.

XII-1-2.02
"Affordable Housing Cost" means the maximum amount that a household may be required to pay to live in an affordable unit. The City shall determine affordable housing costs for each affordable unit type within a proposed development at the time of project approval, and the affordable housing cost may be adjusted annually to reflect the current area median income for Santa Clara County.

For ownership units, Affordable Housing Cost shall be a sales price that results in annual housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of the maximum gross income level for very low, low or moderate income households as defined herein (as applicable to the affordable unit) adjusted for household size.

The City may adopt administrative guidelines to establish criteria to be utilized in calculating affordable housing cost pursuant to this Section.

XII-1-2.03
"Affordable Housing Fund" or "Fund" means a fund established pursuant to the Chapter as described in Section XII-1-8.00, et seq., and in which all fees collected through this Chapter shall be placed.

XII-1-2.04
"Affordable unit" means an ownership or rental dwelling unit, including senior housing, that is rented or sold at an affordable housing cost to households with very low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this Chapter, provided, however, that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be counted as an 675
38077.01007\34698461.1
5 Ordinance No. 297.1
affordable unit for purposes of satisfying the affordability requirements set forth in Section 3 of this Chapter.

XII-1-2.05
"Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities (including but not limited to a "developer") that seeks city real property development permits or approvals or bears any responsibility with respect to the subject real property.

XII-1-2.06
"Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.

XII-1-2.07
"Low Income Household" shall have the same definition as set forth for the term “lower income household: in California Health & Safety Code section 50079.5. The income limits for low income households in Santa Clara County are published and updated periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.

XII-1-2.08
“Mixed Use Development” means a development that includes residential and non-residential uses in a vertical or horizontal orientation. All of the provisions of this Chapter that pertain to residential development shall apply to the residential uses and all of the provisions of Section 5 of this Chapter shall apply to the non-residential uses, respectively.

XII-1-2.09
"Moderate Income Household" shall have the definition as set forth in California Health & Safety Code section 50093(b). The income limits for moderate income households in Santa Clara County are published and updated periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.

XII-1-2.10
"Non-Residential development project" means any planned district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary or non-discretionary City land use approval, which authorizes new construction of gross square feet of nonresidential space, the conversion of residential use to a nonresidential use, or the conversion of exempt space to non-exempt space, including, but not limited to, retail, hotel, motel (including motel, motor hotel, inn and auto court), office, professional office, other commercial, light industrial, data centers and warehouses.

XII-1-2.11
“On-site” means that the affordable units are provided within the boundaries of the proposed development
XII-1-2.12
676
38077.01007\34698461.1
6 Ordinance No. 297.1
"Residential Ownership Project" means any residential project that includes the creation of residential dwelling units that may be sold individually. A residential ownership project also includes condominium conversions.

XII-1-2.13
"Residential Rental Project" means a residential project or property under common ownership, or portion thereof that creates living units that cannot be sold individually.

XII-1-2.14
"Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property.

XII-1-2.15
"Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multipledwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include dwelling units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public.

XII-1-2.16
"Very Low Income Household" shall have the definition as set forth in California Health & Safety Code section 50105. The income limits for very low income households in Santa Clara County are published and updated periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.

Section 3 - Minimum Residential Development General Requirements XII-1-3.00 - 15 Percent Affordability Requirement
All new residential development projects of ten units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this Chapter. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included to calculate the total number of dwelling units that must be constructed pursuant to this section. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number of units does not change. If the 15 percent calculation results in a fractional unit that is less than 0.5 (i.e., less than half a unit), the developer may pay an in-lieu fee for that fractional unit, as more specifically outlined in Section 4 of this Chapter. A fractional unit equal to 0.5 or greater shall be rounded up, and the project must provide one affordable unit on-site to satisfy any fractional obligation where an in-lieu fee is not paid.

XII-1-3.01 - Allocation of units to income levels
677
38077.01007\34698461.1
7 Ordinance No. 297.1
Affordable units provided pursuant to this Section shall be allocated to households with a minimum percentage of very low, low, and moderate income levels as follows:

Rental
Units
Ownership
Units
Very low or low income households 100% 0%
Very low, low or moderate income households 0% 100%
XII-1-3.02 - Conditions of approval
Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review approving residential or mixeduse development projects subject to this Chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the applicant's manner of compliance with this Chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. Any omission or failure to adopt conditions of approval or any of the details or other specifications regarding compliance with this Chapter shall not waive the City's rights to enforce any provision, nor relieve any applicant of its obligations to comply with, all requirements of this Chapter.

At the time of filing a planning application for a residential development subject to this article, the developer shall provide the following information in addition to information specified elsewhere for the applicable planning permit(s):

1. The number of market rate and affordable units proposed on-site, which should include the distribution of units by bedroom size (i.e., studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, etc.) for the total project, market rate units, and affordable units.

2. The tenure of the market rate and affordable units.

3. Gross square footage of building by each use including parking uses.

4. Gross square footage of project’s proposed total residential area and gross square footage of existing residential area.

5. Gross square footage of project’s proposed non-residential floor area, gross square footage of existing non-residential floor area that will remain as is, and any square footage of new or proposed to be converted non-residential floor area that is exempt from paying affordable housing impact fees pursuant to Section 5 of this Chapter.

6. Habitable square feet for residential units, and net residential square feet of the total project, affordable units and market rate units.

7. The unit sizes (net residential square feet per unit) for the total project, market rate units, and affordable units.

8. The proposed location of the market rate and affordable units by building and location on each floor of a building.

9. Any interior amenities in the affordable units that would differ from market rate units, including, but not limited to, floor coverings, appliances, plumbing and electrical fixtures.

10. The schedule for production of affordable units in phased residential development. 678
38077.01007\34698461.1
8 Ordinance No. 297.1

11. Any exceptions or alternatives proposed to comply with this article, including reasons why the findings required to approve such exceptions or alternatives can be met.

XII-1-3.03 - Concurrent construction of affordable units All affordable units in a project or phase of a project shall be constructed prior or concurrently with market-rate units, unless the City Manager or designee determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. In phased developments, the affordability requirement will be calculated on the basis of the whole development, but affordable units shall be developed in advance or concurrently with market rate units in each phase unless the City Manager or designee determines in writing that extenuating circumstances exist that make concurrent construction infeasible or impractical. If this occurs, a schedule must be developed by the applicant and approved by the City Manager to ensure that affordable units are built expeditiously and before final discretionary permits are issued. Each phase must include the required number of affordable units based on the number of market-rate units in that phase, and on-site affordable housing units must be developed concurrently with the market-rate units in each phase.

XII-1-3.04 - Design and distribution of affordable units Affordable units shall meet the following requirements:

1. The bedroom mix of the affordable units should be proportionate to the bedroom mix of market rate units, provided that the City may allow a different unit mix to meet other City goals as determined by the City Council.

2. The square footage of the affordable housing units must be reasonably consistent with the market rate units in the development although smaller unit sizes may be allowed by the Director or Building Safety and Housing if the developer provides adequate justification and reasons why the provision of small unit sizes would further the City’s housing goals and this Chapter.

3. All affordable units shall be reasonably comparable in terms of floor plan and base finish amenities to market rate units in the proposed development.

4. The quality of the exterior design, landscaping, and construction of the affordable units shall be consistent with the other units in the proposed development. When affordable units are built off-site they shall be of equivalent or of higher quality compared with the market rate units.

5. Affordable units shall have the same access to common entrances from the exterior as market rate units;

6. Affordable units shall have the same access to all project amenities and recreational facilities available to market rate units. Off-site projects shall have convenient access to equivalent project amenities and recreational facilities compared to the market rate units.

7. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and for residential structures higher than eight stories, the affordable units shall be evenly distributed throughout the bottom 60% of the floors or higher.

Section 4 - Exceptions to On-Site Development of 15 Percent Affordable Units Project applicants' projects shall construct 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units within any development as affordable units, except as provided pursuant to this Section. All exceptions to the requirement to construct affordable units on-site for a project with ownership units shall require City Council approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for development of the project.
679
38077.01007\34698461.1
9 Ordinance No. 297.1
A. Ownership Projects: The City may allow an exception to the requirement to construct on-site affordable units for a residential ownership project when the applicant contributes to the City’s affordable housing needs through one of the alternatives set forth in Subsections XII-1-4.00-XII-1-4.02, provided that prior to City Council approval to the requested exception, the City Council must make the following findings:

1. The development as proposed with the exception as provided pursuant to this Section would further the City’s low and/or moderate income housing goals as contained in the Housing Element; and

2. The development with the exception either (i) will result in at least two of the following;
a. The development of a larger number of deed-restricted affordable units than would be created under the on-site requirement;
b. The development of a larger number of deed-restricted affordable bedrooms than would be created under the on-site requirement;
c. The development of a larger amount of deed restricted affordable living area than would be created under the on-site requirement;
d. The development of deed-restricted affordable units at a lower average income target as compared to the affordable units that would be created under the on-site requirement; or (ii) will provide other community benefits that exceed the benefit of constructing on-site affordable units.

B. Rental Projects: The City may allow an exception to the requirement to construct on-site affordable units for a residential rental project if requested by the applicant, provided that as a condition of such exception that applicant shall be required to contribute to the City’s affordable housing needs through one of the alternatives set forth in Subsections XII-1-4.00-XII-1-4.02.

XII-1-4.00 - Payment of fees in lieu of creation of affordable units Upon request of the applicant and subject to the requirements of this Section 4 as set forth above, the City Council may permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing the affordable units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to this Chapter. In-lieu fees shall also be paid for requirements to construct fractional units of less than 0.5 units as set forth in Section XII-1-

3.00. The City shall adopt, by resolution, current affordable housing in-lieu fee levels as well as administrative guidelines necessary for the implementation of this Chapter.

The in-lieu fee shall be calculated based on the gross square footage constructed for each new residential use, taking into account any fee credits that would be applicable based on existing building area. While accessory dwelling units are not counted towards either calculating or meeting the 15% on-site affordable housing requirement pursuant to Section XII-1-3.00, any payment of in-lieu fees must be based on the total gross square footage of all dwelling units developed as part of the project, including any accessory dwelling units.

Unless otherwise specified by resolution of the City Council or amendment to this Chapter, every July 1, or the following business day, if applicable, the City will adjust the affordable housing fees for 680
38077.01007\34698461.1
10 Ordinance No. 297.1
inflation using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index for San Francisco. If this index ceases to exist, the Director of Building Safety and Housing shall substitute another construction cost index, which in his/her judgment is as nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.

XII-1-4.01 - Off-site projects
Upon request of the applicant, the City Council may permit an applicant to comply with the requirements of this Chapter by constructing the affordable units not physically within the development but within the City of Milpitas in lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the development, with the approval of the City Council, if the City Council finds that:

1. Construction of the units off-site in lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with the Chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low, low and moderate income households.

2. The units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section XII-1-3.04 above.

3. It would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site.

4. Conditions of approval for the project require that the off-site affordable units would be governed by the terms of a deed restriction and, if applicable, rental restrictions similar to that used for the on-site affordable units.

5. The conditions of approval for the project, or other security such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, are adequate to require the construction of the off-site affordable units prior or concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development.

Affordable units can be built off-site using a different tenure than the subject development (i.e., rental affordable units for an ownership residential project) provided that the square footage of livable space of affordable units provided off-site is greater than what would be required on-site. In this case, the above requirements shall be met and the income-category shall be equivalent to or lower than what would be required for affordable units with the same tenure. The term of the affordable housing and/or resale restrictions shall be determined by the tenure of the affordable units and shall be consistent with sections XII-1-6.00 through XII-1-6.02 of this Chapter as applicable.

XII-1-4.02 - Land dedication
Upon request of the applicant, the City Council may permit an applicant to dedicate land within the City of Milpitas to the City or a City-designated local non-profit housing developer in lieu of construction of some or all of the required affordable units, if the Council finds that:

1. Dedication of land in lieu of constructing units is consistent with the Chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low, low and moderate income households.

2. The dedicated land is zoned and useable for its intended purpose, is free of toxic substances and contaminated soils, and is fully improved, with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, grading, and all development-impact fees paid, including development-impact fees required by the Milpitas Unified School District but excluding any affordable housing ordinance fees.

3. The proposed land dedication property includes a minimum of _0.75 acres of developable area, and is of sufficient size and value to meet the following requirements:
681
38077.01007\34698461.1
11 Ordinance No. 297.1
a. The dedication property includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section XII-1-3.00 based on (i) the size of lots in the subdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation if the applicant’s project is an ownership project, or (ii) the size of the parcel needed to construct the required number of affordable units if the applicant’s project is a rental project and assuming the affordable rental units are of comparable size to the market rate units; and
b. In addition, the dedication property includes additional land the market value for which is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 1200-square foot for-sale unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an affordable moderate income unit (which amount shall be set forth in a resolution adopted from time to time by the City Council) times the number of on-site affordable units that would otherwise be required for the development.

XII-1-4.03 - Waiver of requirements
As part of the development application, the applicant may request and the City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this Chapter and approve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, either (1) that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter and the Council can make the findings for such alternative methods as set forth in Section 4.A of this Chapter; or (2) that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed development and the contested requirement or that applying the requirements of this Chapter would take property in violation of the United States Constitution or California Constitution or would result in any other unconstitutional result.

Section 5 - Non-Residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee XII-1-5.01 - Applicability
Any non-residential development, applicable under the definition set forth in Section XII-1-2.05, is subject to payment of a non-residential affordable housing impact fee. The City shall adopt, by resolution, current non-residential affordable housing impact fee levels. Every July 1, or the following business day, if applicable, the City will adjust affordable housing fees for inflation annually using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index for San Francisco. If this index ceases to exist, the Director of Building Safety and Housing shall substitute another construction cost index, which in his/her judgment is as nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.

The applicant shall pay the non-residential impact fees prior to issuance of the building permit.

Applicable fees will be determined at time of payment. All payment of fees made to the City under this Chapter shall be deposited into the City Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund.

XII-1-5.03 - Exemptions
The following non-residential uses that will be exempt from the fee include:
682
38077.01007\34698461.1
12 Ordinance No. 297.1
a. New construction of non-residential uses of less than 5,000 square feet. b. Additions to existing non-residential uses where the square footage increase is less than 5,000 square feet.
c. Assembly uses.
d. Day care, nursery and school facilities.
e. Hospitals.
f. Other non-residential uses not listed above, but which the City Council determines will have a minimal impact upon the demand for affordable housing and to be exempt pursuant to City Council resolution.

Section 6 - General Procedures for Implementing Affordable Housing Requirements XII-1-6.00 - Agreements
Prior to the City allowing occupancy for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and the applicant, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager or designee, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's successors. Covenants on the affordable units shall not be less than 55 years.

The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.

XII-1-6.02 - Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Purchase Option Agreements for ownership units shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household. Ownership units will have a 55-year resale restriction covenant with a purchase option to the City. Homeowners will be subject to the City's monitoring program for owner-occupancy.

XII-1-6.03 - Selection criteria
No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this Chapter to be affordable unless the City Manager or designee has approved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the median combined household income statistics for Santa Clara County published periodically by the California 683
38077.01007\34698461.1
13 Ordinance No. 297.1
Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The applicant shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this Chapter and subject to approval by the City. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. Subject to the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws and regulations, the City shall endeavor to make housing available for Milpitas residents, former Milpitas residents who have been displaced, households with children enrolled in the Milpitas Unified School District that have inadequate housing as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and employees employed within the boundaries City of Milpitas, and may develop selection criteria to implement these goals. The applicant will pursue active marketing, conduct affordable housing workshops, extensive advertising and other measures to ensure that residents and employees are informed and educated about the availability of affordable units.

To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Milpitas," the person shall currently be employed within the City of Milpitas or have been offered employment for a job within the City of Milpitas.

Section 7 - Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units XII-1-7.00
Applicants shall receive incentives as specified in this Section 8 to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units. If an applicant provides affordable units in excess of 20 percent of the total number of units in the project the City will provide the following incentives to include:

A. Planning Waivers. In addition to waivers, incentives and/or concessions that may be provided pursuant to density bonus law as outlined in Section XI-10-54.15 in the Milpitas Municipal Code if the applicant provides affordable units in excess of 20 percent of the total number of units in the development, the Director of Planning shall grant up to two of the waivers listed below in this Section that help increase the feasibility of the construction of affordable units. The applicant will receive an additional two waivers from the list below for every additional five percent of affordable units provided above the 20 percent. The applicant may choose from the following waivers:

1. Priority processing.

2. Reduced setback requirements not to exceed 50 percent of the minimum required setback.

3. Greater floor area ratio (FAR) not to exceed 50 percent of the maximum FAR for commercial space in mixed use zoning.

4. Reduced landscaping requirements.

5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities.

6. A maximum 20 percent reduction in parking requirements. 684
38077.01007\34698461.1
14 Ordinance No. 297.1

7. Height restriction waivers not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum zoning height limitations and in no event to exceed the general plan height limitations.

B. Fee Deferral.

1. Development Processing Fees. The City Manager may approve deferred payment of City processing fees applicable to the review and processing of the project. The terms and payment schedule of the deferred fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager.

Section 8 - Affordable Housing Fund
XII-1-8.00 - Affordable Housing Fund
In lieu fees shall be deposited into a fund known as the "Affordable Housing Fund" ("Fund").

XII-1-8.01 - Use of Funds
All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing very low, low , and moderate income ownership or rental housing in the City of Milpitas.

Section 9 - Violations
XII-1-9.00
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Chapter. In addition to other fines, penalties or other remedies provided by State municipal law, including without limitation, those provided in Title I, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, the City may revoke or suspend any permit issued to an applicant, owner or any other party who violates this Chapter, as set forth in Section XII-I-11.00. The City's right to take action pursuant to this section shall exist in addition to, and independent of, any other rights and remedies available to the City and shall exist notwithstanding the existence or lack thereof of any condition of approval imposed on an individual development project.

Section 10 - Enforcement
XII-1-10.00 - General
The City Manager shall enforce this Chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this Chapter. No land use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any development unless in compliance with this Chapter or unless expressly exempted by action of the City Council. Not in limitation of any other authorization, right or remedy, the City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings 685
38077.01007\34698461.1
15 Ordinance No. 297.1
necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.

XII-1-10.01 - Excessive rents/legal action
If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed by operation of this Chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged.

SECTION 3. CEQA- EXEMPTION. The City Council finds and determines the adoption of this Ordinance is (1) not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)4), that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it constitutes a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; (2) statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15267 (Financial Assistance to Low or Moderate Income Housing; (3) not intended to apply to specifically identified affordable housing projects and as such it is speculative to evaluate any such future project now and, moreover, they will be subject to appropriate environmental review at such time as approvals for those affordable housing project are considered; and/or (4) not intended to, nor does it, provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere establishment or payment of the fees. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and, when viewed collectively, provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are separable, and the invalidity of any phrase, clause, provision or part shall not affect the validity of the remainder.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING
In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Milpitas shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance is enacted to serve the public interest and is necessary to protect the health, safety and/or welfare of the citizens of Milpitas and is enacted pursuant to the California Constitution, the City’s General Plan, specific plan and other land use plans, policies and ordinances.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to make nonsubstantive, technical conforming changes (essentially correction of typographical and clerical errors), including omnibus cross-referencing conforming changes throughout the City Municipal Code, prior to formal publication of this Ordinance in the Milpitas Municipal Code.

SECTION 8. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. 686
Chapter 1 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE
Section 1 - Purpose
This Chapter shall be known as the "Affordable Housing Ordinance." XII-1-1.00 - Purpose
Purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low and moderate income.
(b) Assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs.

Section 2 - Definitions
XII-1-2.00
As used in this Chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:

XII-1-2.01
“Accessory dwelling unit” shall have the meaning set forth in Section XI-10-13.8 of this Code.

For rental units, Affordable Housing Cost shall be an annual rent amount, inclusive of an allowance for tenant payment of utilities, that does not exceed 30% of maximum gross income level for very low or low income households as defined herein (as applicable to the affordable unit), adjusted for household size.
687
For ownership units, Affordable Housing Cost shall be a sales price that results in annual housing expenses that do not exceed 35% of the maximum gross income level for very low, low or moderate income households as defined herein (as applicable to the affordable unit) adjusted for household size.

The City may adopt administrative guidelines to establish criteria to be utilized in calculating affordable housing cost pursuant to this Section.

XII-1-2.03
"Affordable Housing Fund" or "Fund" means a fund established pursuant to the Chapter as described in Section XII-1-9.001-8.00, et seq., and in which all fees collected through this Chapter shall be placed.

XII-1-2.021-2.04
"Affordable unit" means an ownership or rental-housingrental dwelling unit, including senior housing, that is rented or sold at an affordable housing cost to households with very-lowvery low, low, or moderate incomes as defined in this Chapter, provided, however, that an accessory dwelling unit shall not be counted as an affordable unit for purposes of satisfying the affordability requirements set forth in Section 3 of this Chapter.

1. Rental units are deemed affordable units if the annual rent does not exceed 30% of maximum income level for very low-, low- and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below.

2. Ownership units are deemed affordable units if the sales price results in annual housing expenses that do not exceed 35 percent of the maximum income level for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, adjusted for household size and as defined below.

XII-1-2.031-2.05
"Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities (including but not limited to a "developer") that seeks city real property development permits or approvals or bears any responsibility with respect to the subject real property.

XII-1-2.041-2.06
"Dwelling unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.

XII-1-2.051-2.07
"Very-Low, Low-, and Moderate-income levels" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development based on Santa Clara County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other 688
sources of household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and state and federal housing law. For purposes of this Chapter, "Very-Low" shall include income and eligibility levels identified as "Extremely Low" by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as described in the foregoing sentence.
"Low Income Household" shall have the same definition as set forth for the term “lower income household: in California Health & Safety Code section 50079.5. The income limits for low income households in Santa Clara County are published and updated periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.

XII-1-2.061-2.08
“Mixed Use Development” means a development that includes residential and non-residential uses in a vertical or horizontal orientation. All of the provisions of this Chapter that pertain to residential development shall apply to the residential uses and all of the provisions of Section 5 of this Chapter shall apply to the non-residential uses, respectively.

XII-1-2.071-2.11
“On-site” means that the affordable units are provided within the boundaries of the proposed development
XII-1-2.12
"Residential Ownership Project" means any residential project that includes the creation of residential dwelling units that may be sold individually. A residential ownership project also includes condominium conversions.

XII-1-2.081-2.13
689
"Residential Rental Project" means a residential project or property under common ownership, or portion thereof that creates living units that cannot be sold individually.

XII-1-2.091-2.14
"Resale controls and/or rent restrictions" means legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very-low-very low, low-, or moderate-incomemoderate income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 55 years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner-occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property.

XII-1-2.101-2.15
"Residential development" includes, without limitation, detached single-family dwellings, multipledwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housingdwelling units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public.

Section 3 - Minimum Residential Development General Requirements XII-1-3.00 - 15 Percent Affordability Requirement
All new residential development projects of ten units or more designed and intended for permanent occupancy shall construct 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units, except as otherwise provided by this Chapter. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included to calculate the total number of dwelling units that must be constructed pursuant to this section. The foregoing requirement shall be applied no more than once to an approved development (and generally at the tentative map stage), regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the development, provided the total number of units does not change. In applying and calculating the affordability requirement, any decimal fraction will be required to pay the appropriate impact fee for the fractional unit.If the 15 percent calculation results in a fractional unit that is less than 0.5 (i.e., less than half a unit), the developer may pay an in-lieu fee for that fractional unit, as more specifically outlined in Section 4 of this Chapter. A fractional unit equal to

0.5 or greater shall be rounded up, and the project must provide one affordable unit on-site to satisfy any fractional obligation where an in-lieu fee is not paid.

XII-1-3.01 - Allocation of units to income levels
690
Affordable units provided pursuant to this Section shall be allocated to households with a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-incomemoderate income levels as follows:

Rental
Units
Ownership
Units
Very low- or low-incomelow income households 100% 0%
Very low-, low- or moderate-incomemoderate income
households
0% 100%
XII-1-3.02 - Conditions of approval
Any tentative map, conditional use permit, or site development review approving residential or mixed-use development projects subject to this Chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. Such conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the applicant's manner of compliance with this Chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. Any omission or failure to adopt conditions of approval or any of the details or other specifications regarding compliance with this Chapter shall not waive the City's rights to enforce any provision, nor relieve any applicant of its obligations to comply with, all requirements of this Chapter.

2. The tenure of the market rate and affordable units.

3. Gross square footage of building by each use including parking uses.

4. Gross square footage of project’s proposed total residential area and gross square footage of existing residential area.

6. Habitable square feet for residential units, and net residential square feet of the total project, affordable units and market rate units.

7. The unit sizes (net residential square feet per unit) for the total project, market rate units, and affordable units.

8. The proposed location of the market rate and affordable units by building and location on each floor of a building.
691

9. Any interior amenities in the affordable units that would differ from market rate units, including, but not limited to, floor coverings, appliances, plumbing and electrical fixtures.

10. The schedule for production of affordable units in phased residential development.

11. Any exceptions or alternatives proposed to comply with this article, including reasons why the findings required to approve such exceptions or alternatives can be met.

XII-1-3.04 - Design and distribution of affordable units All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole and shall not be distinguished by exterior design, construction, or materials. Affordable units may be of smaller size than the units in the project and may have fewer amenities than the market rate units in the project. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project.

Affordable units shall meet the following requirements:

3. All affordable units shall be reasonably comparable in terms of floor plan and base finish amenities to market rate units in the proposed development.

5. Affordable units shall have the same access to common entrances from the exterior as market rate units;

Section 4 - Exceptions to On-Site Development of 15 Percent Affordable Units
Project applicants' projects shall construct 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units within any development as affordable units, unless subject to an exception obtained in accordance with the procedures set forth inexcept as provided pursuant to this Section. All exceptions to the requirement to construct affordable units on-site for a project with ownership units shall require City Council approval, which shall be obtained at or prior to the last discretionary approval for development of the project. Second family units as defined in Section XI-10-13.0 of the Milpitas Municipal Code are exempt from this requirement.

PriorA. Ownership Projects: The City may allow an exception to the requirement to construct onsite affordable units for a residential ownership project when the applicant contributes to the City’s affordable housing needs through one of the alternatives set forth in Subsections XII-1-4.00-XII-1-

4.02, provided that prior to City Council approval to the requested exception, affirmative findings tothe City Council must make the following must be madefindings:

1.The exception requested exceeds the minimum affordable requirements; and

1. The development as proposed with the exception as provided pursuant to this Section would further the City’s low and/or moderate income housing goals as contained in the Housing Element; and

2. The project is better serveddevelopment with the exception either (i) will result in at least two of the following; or
a. The development of a larger number of deed-restricted affordable units than would be created under the on-site requirement;
b. The development of a larger number of deed-restricted affordable bedrooms than would be created under the on-site requirement; c. The development of a larger amount of deed restricted affordable living area than would be created under the on-site requirement; d. The development of deed-restricted affordable units at a lower average income target as compared to the affordable units that would be created under the on-site requirement;

3. Theor (ii) will provide other community benefits that exceed the project benefitsbenefit of constructing on-site affordable units.

Exceptions the applicant may request include:

B. Rental Projects: The City may allow an exception to the requirement to construct on-site affordable units for a residential rental project if requested by the applicant, provided that as a 693
condition of such exception that applicant shall be required to contribute to the City’s affordable housing needs through one of the alternatives set forth in Subsections XII-1-4.00-XII-1-4.02.

To the extent State law may require, applicants for development of rental units will not require the approval of City Council for the payment of in-lieu fees, but shall otherwise be subject to all requirements herein.

Fees paid in-lieu of constructing affordable units must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project, and fees shall be deposited into the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated based on the gross square footage constructed for each new residential use, taking into account any fee credits that would be applicable based on existing building area. While accessory dwelling units are not counted towards either calculating or meeting the 15% on-site affordable housing requirement pursuant to Section XII-1-3.00, any payment of in-lieu fees must be based on the total gross square footage of all dwelling units developed as part of the project, including any accessory dwelling units.

Unless otherwise specified by resolution of the City Council or amendment to this Chapter, every July 1, or the following business day, if applicable, the City will adjust the affordable housing fees for inflation using the Engineering NewNews Record McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly Building Cost Index for San Francisco. If this index ceases to exist, the Director of Building Safety and Housing shall substitute another construction cost index, which in his/her judgment is as nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.

The applicant shall pay any in-lieu fees authorized pursuant to this Chapter prior to issuance of the building permit. Applicable fees will be determined at time of payment. All payment of in-lieu fees and other penalties and payments made to the City under this Chapter shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund.

2. The units to be constructed off site are consistent with Section XII-1-3.04 above.

3. It would be infeasible or impractical to construct affordable units on-site. 694

1. Dedication of land in lieu of constructing units is consistent with the Chapter's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very low-, low- and moderateincomemoderate income households.

3. The proposed land dedication property includes a minimum of _0.75 acres of developable area, and is of sufficient size and value to meet the following requirements:
a. The dedication property includes land sufficient to construct the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section XII-1-3.00 based on (i) the size of lots in the subdivision for which the applicant is meeting its obligation; and if the applicant’s project is an ownership project, or (ii) the size of the parcel needed to construct the required number of affordable units if the applicant’s project is a rental project and assuming the affordable rental units are of comparable size to the market rate units; and b. In addition, the dedication property includes such additional land the market value for which is equal to or exceeds the difference between the value of a market-rate, 1200-square foot for-sale unit and the price at which such a unit could be sold as an affordable moderate income unit (which amount shall be set forth in a resolution adopted from time to time by the City Council) times the number of on-site affordable units that would otherwise be required for the development.
 XII-1-4.03 - Credit transfers
695
An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of XII-1-3.00 through the use of transfer credits created pursuant to XII-1-7.00. Credit certificates shall be presented to the Director of Building Safety and Housing, who shall note at the time of project approval the credit certificate by number. Credit certificates may only be used to satisfy the requirements for inclusionary units for the income category (i.e., very low, low, or moderate) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued.
 XII-1-4.04 - Transfer of square foot equivalent
The applicant may choose to provide more units in an overall development; however the gross square footage of the proposed affordable units cannot be less than the square footage of the required affordable units.

XII-1-4.051-4.03 - Waiver of requirements
As part of the development application, the applicant may request and the City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this Chapter and approve alternate methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, either (1) that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter and the Council can make the findings for such alternative methods as set forth in Section 4.A of this Chapter; or (2) that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed development and the contested requirement or that applying the requirements of this Chapter would take property in violation of the United States Constitution or California Constitution or would result in any other unconstitutional result.

Section 5 - Non-Residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee XII-1-5.01 - Applicability
Any non-residential development, applicable under the definition set forth in Section XII-1-2.05, is subject to payment of a non-residential affordable housing impact fee. The City shall adopt, by resolution, current non-residential affordable housing impact fee levels. Every July 1, or the following business day, if applicable, the City will adjust affordable housing fees for inflation annually using the Engineering NewNews Record McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly Building Cost Index for San Francisco. If this index ceases to exist, the Director of Building Safety and Housing shall substitute another construction cost index, which in his/her judgment is as nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.

The applicant shall pay the non-residential impact fees prior to issuance of the building permit.

Applicable fees will be determined at time of payment. All payment of fees made to the City under this Chapter shall be deposited into the City Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund.

XII-1-5.02 - Calculation of impact fee
The impact fee will be calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. The formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the housing impact fee: (Gross square feet of total non-residential floor area) minus (square feet of existing non-residential floor area) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals (total housing impact fee). 696
XII-1-5.03 - Exemptions
The following non-residential uses that will be exempt from the fee include:
a. New construction of non-residential uses of less than 5,000 square feet. b. Additions to existing non-residential uses where the square footage increase is less than 5,000 square feet.
c. Assembly uses.
d. Day care, nursery and school facilities.
e. Hospitals.
f. Other non-residential uses not listed above, but which the City Council determines will have a minimal impact upon the demand for affordable housing and to be exempt pursuant to City Council resolution.

Section 6 - General Procedures for Implementing Inclusionary ZoningAffordable Housing Requirements
XII-1-6.00 - Agreements
Prior to the issuance of a building permitCity allowing occupancy for an affordable unit, resale restrictions or rental controls, or both, as the case may be, shall be set forth in an agreement between the City and the applicant, which agreement shall be recorded against the property containing the affordable units. The agreement shall be executed by the City Manager or designee, and its requirements shall run with the land and bind the applicant's successors.

Covenants on the affordable rental units shall not be less than 55 years.

XII-1-6.01 - Rental units; occupancy; annual report
Agreements involving rental units shall require the owner of the affordable units to ensure that the units are occupied by tenants whose monthly income levels do not exceed very low-, low-, or moderate income levels, as the case may be, and shall preclude tenants from subletting or subleasing the unit. The agreement shall also require the owner of the affordable unit to submit an annual report to the City Manager, in a format approved by the City. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following information: an identification of the affordable units within the project; the monthly rents charged and proposed to be charged; vacancy information for the prior year; and the monthly income for tenants of each affordable unit throughout the prior year.

XII-1-6.02 - Ownership Units; Occupancy; City's Purchase Option 697
Agreements for ownership units shall specify that the inclusionary units must be occupied by the owner or owners and may not be leased or rented without the written approval of the City. The resale restrictions shall provide that in the event of the sale of an affordable unit, the City shall have the right to purchase any affordable owner-occupant unit at the maximum price that could be charged to an eligible household. Ownership units will have a 4555-year resale restriction covenant with a purchase option to the City. Homeowners will be subject to the City's monitoring program for owner-occupancy.

XII-1-6.03 - Selection criteria
No household shall be permitted to occupy a unit that is required under this Chapter to be affordable unless the City Manager or designee has approved the household's eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of affordable units will be qualified on the basis of household income, the median combined household income statistics for Santa Clara County published periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, all sources of household income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of available units, and any further criteria required by law. The applicant shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this Chapter and subject to approval by the City. The selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children. TheSubject to the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws and regulations, the City shall endeavor to make housing available for Milpitas residents and employees., former Milpitas residents who have been displaced, households with children enrolled in the Milpitas Unified School District that have inadequate housing as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and employees employed within the boundaries City of Milpitas, and may develop selection criteria to implement these goals. The applicant will pursue active marketing, conduct affordable housing workshops, extensive advertising and other measures to ensure that residents and employees are informed and educated about the availability of affordable units.

To qualify as "Employed within the boundaries of the City of Milpitas," the person shall have beencurrently be employed within the City of Milpitas for at least six monthsor have been offered employment for a job within the City of Milpitas.

To qualify as a "Milpitas resident," the person shall have been a resident of the City of Milpitas for at least a one-year period prior to the eligibility determination. Residency may be demonstrated by providing a rent or utility bill, or similar documentation.  Section 7 - Affordable Unit Credits
 XII-1-7.00 - Creation
An applicant may apply to the City affordable unit credits, which may be granted by the City Council, in its discretion. One affordable unit credit certificate shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section XII-1-3.00. The certificate shall designate a specific income category (i.e., verylow, low, or moderate income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued.  XII-1-7.01 - Ownership and use of credits
698
If granted, affordable unit credit certificates are issued to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this Chapter for another project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall first obtain the consent of the City Manager or designee, who will document the transfer by certificate number.

Section 87 - Incentives to Encourage On-Site Construction of Affordable Units
XII-1-8.001-7.00
Applicants shall receive incentives as specified in this Section 8 to encourage the on-site construction of affordable units. If an applicant provides affordable units in excess of 20 percent of the total number of units in the project the City will provide the following incentives to include:

1. Priority processing.

2. Reduced setback requirements not to exceed 50 percent of the minimum required setback.

3. Greater floor area ratio (FAR) not to exceed 50 percent of the maximum FAR for commercial space in mixed use zoning.

4. Reduced landscaping requirements.

5. Reduced interior or exterior amenities.

6. A maximum 20 percent reduction in parking requirements.

7. Height restriction waivers not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum zoning height limitations and in no event to exceed the general plan height limitations.

B. Fee Deferral.

2. Development Impact Fees. The City Manager may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the affordable units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the Applicant that the deferral increases the project's feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of such fees. 699
Section 98 - Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund
XII-1-9.001-8.00 - Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund
In lieu fees shall be deposited into a fund known as the "Affordable Housing Ordinance Fund" ("Fund").

XII-1-9.011-8.01 - Use of Funds
All monies in the Fund, together with any interest earnings on such monies less reasonable administrative charges, shall be used or committed to use by the City for the purpose of providing very-lowvery low, low- , and moderate-incomemoderate income ownership or rental housing in the City of Milpitas.

Section 109 - Violations
XII-1-10.001-9.00
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Chapter. In addition to other fines, penalties or other remedies provided by State municipal law, including without limitation, those provided in Title I, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, the City may revoke or suspend any permit issued to an applicant, owner or any other party who violates this Chapter, as set forth in Section XII-I-11.00.

The City's right to take action pursuant to this section shall exist in addition to, and independent of, any other rights and remedies available to the City and shall exist notwithstanding the existence or lack thereof of any condition of approval imposed on an individual development project.

Section 1110 - Enforcement
XII-1-11.001-10.00 - General
The City Manager shall enforce this Chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City Manager may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this Chapter. No land use approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any development unless in compliance with this Chapter or unless expressly exempted by action of the City Council. Not in limitation of any other authorization, right or remedy, the City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.

XII-1-11.011-10.01 - Excessive rents/legal action
If the City Manager determines that rents in excess of those allowed by operation of this Chapter have been charged to a tenant residing in an affordable unit, the City may take appropriate legal action to recover, and the project owner shall be obligated to pay to the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents charged. 700
1 Sharon Goei
From: Rick Gosalvez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:34 PM
To: Rich Tran; Carmen Montano; Evelyn Chua; Karina Dominguez; Anthony Phan; Housing Cc: City Clerk; Mathew Reed; Sharon Goei
Subject: SV@Home Comment RE: Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Updates Attachments: SV@Home RE AHO Updates.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Dear Mayor Tran, Vice Mayor Montano, and Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, and Phan, On behalf of our members, we write today to provide comments regarding proposed changes to the rental inclusionary alternatives as part of the Affordable Housing Ordinance adopted by Council on June 19, 2018 (Ordinance No. 297).

SV@Home supports staff’s recommendation to clarify language and definitions, as well as increase the number of alternative options developers can explore to help achieve and incentivize the creation of inclusionary rental housing on-site.

Offering additional options for new residential and mixed-use developments seeking to build more than 10- units, affords flexibility and improves a developer’s ability to be responsive to the city’s interests and priorities.

We support staff recommending ownership project standards that incentivize compliance with the affordable housing program as intended and encourage the city to clarify the acceptable mix of affordability as to not exceed 80% AMI. Creating such mechanisms will help ensure that applicants are able to submit compliant applications based on clearly defined and achievable objective standards. Crafting a viable mix of inclusionary options will help ensure that residents of Milpitas can have affordable housing choices throughout the city for years to come.

We would like to thank city staff for their extensive outreach to stakeholders and for working to bring this proposed ordinance before you. We would also like to thank the Council for your leadership on housing issues and look forward to working with you to address the housing crisis facing Milpitas and the surrounding community.

Sincerely,
Rick Gosalvez
Housing Production Senior Assoc.
350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110
408.840.3169 | Website | Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter | Become a Member 701
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
www.svathome.org • [email protected]
January 7, 2022
Mayor Tran and City Councilmembers
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
Dear Mayor Tran, Vice Mayor Montano, and Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, and Phan,
RE: Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Updates
On behalf of our members, we write today to provide comments regarding proposed changes to the rental inclusionary alternatives as part of the Affordable Housing Ordinance adopted by Council on June 19, 2018 (Ordinance No. 297).

Offering additional options for new residential and mixed-use developments seeking to build more than 10-units, affords flexibility and improves a developer’s ability to be responsive to the city’s interests and priorities.

Sincerely,
Mathew Reed
Director of Policy
Board of Directors
Kevin Zwick, Chair
United Way Bar Area
Gina Dalma, Vice Chair
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Candice Gonzalez, Secretary
Sand Hill Property Company
Andrea Osgood, Treasurer
Eden Housing
Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern CA
Ron Gonzales
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Valley
Javier Gonzalez
Google
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community
Service
Janice Jensen
Habitat for Humanity
East Bay/Silicon Valley
Janikke Klem
Jan LIndenthal
MidPen Housing
Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home
Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting
Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
702

Milpitas City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Milpitas City Council
January 18, 2022