ATT 1 - Resolution for IS-MND — Mountain View City Council, March 14, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

and Description has been ADDED as follows:

The project would demolish a total of 77,418 square feet of existing storage facility space including a manager’s unit to construct a new six-story (up to 70 feet to the top of roof and 80 feet to top of penthouse) residential apartment building with 108, 100 percent affordable units (excluding two manager’s units) and an above grade parking garage.

Page 2 ends

Location has been ADDED as follows:

Public Storage owns the remaining 4.3-acre majority of the site (APNs 153-15-002 and 153-15-030), which is developed with 18, single-story buildings that include drive-up storage lockers, a manager’s unit, and a rental office totaling 77,418 square feet.

Pages 8 and 10 Draft Initial Study; REPLACE Figure 3.0-1 on page 8 and REPLACE Figure

3.0-3 on page 10 as follows:

83 83
83 81,7$ ),5(3803 81,7$ 81,7$ 81,7$ 81,7$
352326('
38%/,&
6725$*(

+,*+
7(55$%(//$$9(18(
6$15$)$(/$9(18(
5 '
2)),&(

7$//
3$5.,1*
*$5$*(
2)),&( /2%%<
0$,/
5 '
2)),&(

7$//
5 '
2)),&(

7$//
5 '
2)),&(

7$//
/,*+7
,1'

7$//
/,*+7
,1'

7$//
352326('23(1,1*621$'-$&(17
38%/,&6725$*(%8,/',1*
75$6+

67$,5
67$,5
0(&+

(/(9
%/'*6725 %,.(5220
75$16)250(5
6:,7&+*($5
(/(& 75$6+
&21)(5(1&(
50

Source: Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP, December 22, 2022. 0 8’ 16’ 32’
CONCEPTUAL GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1 Source: Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP, December 22, 2022.

NORTH ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

PENTHOUSE
80’-0”
ROOF
70’-0”
6TH FLOOR
60’-0”
5TH FLOOR
50’-0”
4TH FLOOR
40’-0”
3RD FLOOR
28’-0”
2ND FLOOR
16’-0”
1ST FLOOR
0”
10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”12’-0”12’-0”16’-0”

PENTHOUSE
80’-0”
ROOF
70’-0”
6TH FLOOR
60’-0”
5TH FLOOR
50’-0”
4TH FLOOR
40’-0”
3RD FLOOR
28’-0”
2ND FLOOR
16’-0”
1ST FLOOR
0”
10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”12’-0”12’-0”16’-0”

PENTHOUSE
80’-0”
ROOF
70’-0”
6TH FLOOR
60’-0”
5TH FLOOR
50’-0”
4TH FLOOR
40’-0”
3RD FLOOR
28’-0”
2ND FLOOR
16’-0”
1ST FLOOR
0”
10’-0”10’-0”10’-0”12’-0”12’-0”16’-0”
CONCEPTUAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3

8 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 12 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The residential parking garage would be located on the San Rafael Avenue and Terra Bell a Avenue frontage, providing two levels of parking with a total of 105 96 parking stalls for the apartment units.

Page 12 ends

3.1 has been REVISED as follows:

The project proposes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the amount of residential parking on-site from 137 parking spaces required by the City under the State Density Bonus Law to 105 96 spaces.

Page 13 ends

as follows:

As mentioned above, the parking garage would provide 105 96 total parking spaces and include 49 spaces in the first level garage and 47 spaces in the second level garage. a combination of traditional surface parking spaces and mechanical parking stalls that allow for the stacking of parked cars. These mechanical lift parking stalls would provide up to two parking spaces per stall by stacking two cars vertically. The ground floor level of the parking garage would utilize six of the “puzzle stacker” arrangements to provide 25 parking spaces. The other 80 stalls would be provided as standard surface parking stalls, f F ive of which the parking spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. The garage would provide 16 electric vehicle charging stations and 89 80 (EV-ready) stalls that would be pre-wired to be converted into electric vehicle charging stations in the future.

Page 16 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The project would plant 19 replacement trees for a total project tree count of 125 135 trees (81 trees for 1040 Terra Bella and 54 trees for 1020 Terra Bella) in areas surrounding each of the buildings and in the surface parking lot for the storage facility buildings.

Page 57 ends

Section 4.4.2 has been REVISED as follows:

COA BIO-1.1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey : To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys shall be performed no more than two seven days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

9 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 59 ends

under Impact BIO-5, Tree Preservation Ordinance in Section 4.4.2 has been REVISED as follows:

As discussed in Section 3.0, the proposed project would remove two on-site trees and 15 street trees and would plant 125 135 new trees on-site (81 trees at 1040 Terra Bella and 54 trees at 1020 Terra Bella). The proposed project would implement the following City standard conditions of approval to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

City Standard Conditions of Approval

COA BIO-5.1: The project shall implement the following measures:

• Replacement: The applicant shall offset the loss of each tree with at least one 19 replacement trees, for a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1 (one removed tree: one replacement tree) total of 125 onsite trees . The project proposes to plant 135 on-site trees (81 trees for 1040 Terra Bella and 54 trees at 1020 Terra Bella). Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage replacement trees.

Page 64 ends

Section 4.5.1.2, Historic Resources has been REVISED as follows:

The project site is currently development with a single -family residence construction in 1953 and 18 single-story storage buildings constructed in 1974 1953.

Page 73 ends

in Section 4.6.2 has been REVISED as follows:

Furthermore, the project contains bicycle parking, is serviced by public transit and bicycle facilities that would promote alternative modes of transportation, which would reduce of use gasoline, and would plant 125 135 trees providing shade.

Page 90 ends

Operation in Section 4.8.2 has been REVISED as follows:

Furthermore, the project has access to public transit and bicycle facilities and proposes to plant 125 135 trees (increase of 121 131 trees compared to existing conditions) that would provide shade.

10 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 97 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The project site, located along U.S. 101, has historically been used as agricultural land. In 1953 the early 1960s, a single-family residence (which has since been converted into commercial office space), a detached garage, and a shed were constructed on the 1020 Terra Bella Avenue parcel. The existing storage facility on the 1040 Terra Bella Avenue parcel was constructed by 1974.

Page 98 ends

Contamination has been ADDED as follows:

California banned lead as a fuel additive in 1992. Due to the site’s proximity to U.S. 101, the on-site soils closet to U.S. 101 may contain aerially deposited lead (ADL) from automobiles driving along U.S. 101.

Page 98 ends

4.9.1.2 has been REVISED as follows:

The residence was built in 1953 the early 1960s and the storage facility buildings were constructed by 1974.

Page 100 ends

Groundwater in Section 4.9.2 has been ADDED as follows:

The project site soil could be contaminated with agricultural chemicals due to its historical use as agricultural land, ADL due to the site’s proximity to U.S 101, and lead due to the age of the building on-site.

Page 100 ends

has been ADDED as follows:

• Soil Management Plan: Prepare a soil and groundwater management plan for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the SCCDEH must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits. Specifically for the proposed project, the soil and groundwater management plan shall address, but not limited to, potential elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides, LBP, and ADL contamination in soils and petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater on- site.

11 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 140 ends

Section 4.14.1.2 has been ADDED as follows:

The project site is currently developed with one uninhabitable single-story residence and 77,418 square feet of commercial space including habitable one manager’s unit, therefore, the existing population on- site is approximately two residences.

Pages 140 and 141 Draft Initial Study; text in the second paragraph under Impact POP-1 in Section

4.14.2 has been REVISED as follows:

The project site currently has a General Plan designation of General Industrial, which does not allow residential development and, therefore, was not projected to accommodate any net population or housing growth at the buildout of the General Plan. The proposed project would construct a 108-unit residential building, and potentially replace the existing an additional unit for the storage facility manager in Building 1 of the proposed storage facility, which would result in 109 units and approximately 256 254 new residents more than existing conditions and what was assumed in the 2030 General Plan buildout (approximately 0.2 percent more than assumed from the General Plan buildout).
79,80 Although the project would result in an incremental increase in population beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan, the 0.2 percent increase in population would not be a substantial increase in unplanned population.

Page 141 ends

REVISED as follows:

79 The number of residents was estimated assuming a citywide average 2.3 residents per household. California Department of Finance. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, for January 1, 2021-2022. May 2022.
80 The population estimate uses the City’s average of 2.35 persons per household for all of the dwelling units, including the two manager’s units.

Page 141 ends

Impact POP-2 in Section 4.14.2 have been REVISED as follows:

As discussed in Section 4.14.1.2, there is one are no housing units or habitable manager’s unit residences on-site, which would be replaced by the project. There is also a safe parking lot located on a portion of the project site for individuals who sleep overnight in their personal vehicles and park in the surface lot overnight.

12 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 146 ends

has been REVISED as follows:

Compared to existing conditions, the net addition of up to 108109 residential units (which would generate approximately 256 254 net new residents) and expansion of the storage facility would incrementally increase demand for fire protection services in the City.

Page 146 ends

PS-2 in Section 4.15.2 have been revised as follows:

As discussed in Impact PS -1, the project would result in a n net increase of up to 108 109 residential units and approximately 254 256 net new residents. The project would also expand the existing storage facility. The addition of approximately 254 256 new residents and additional customers generated by the storage facility would result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services in Mountain View.

Page 147 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The project would develop the net addition of up to 108 109 residential units (including two manager’s units). Based on the most recently available student generation rates provided by MVWSD and MVLASD, the project would generate approximately 60 net new 61 elementary and middle school students and approximately 34 net new high school students.86

Page 147 ends

PS-3 in Section 4.15.2 has been REVISED as follows:

Therefore, the addition of 60 61 elementary and middle school students would not requir e the expansion of those schools or construction of any new school facilities.

Page 148 ends

Section 4.15.2 has been REVISED as follows:

The single library in the City currently serves the existing population of 83,864, and the addition of the approximately 254 256 project residents would result in a potential increase in patrons of less than 0.3 percent.

13 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 150 ends

1 in Section 4.16.2 has been REVISED as follows:

As discussed in Section 4.15, the proposed project would construct up to a net addition of 108 109 residential units which would result in an increase in population that would use park facilities.

Page 152 ends

follows:

The following is based, in part, on a Transportation Analysis (TA) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated November 22, 2022 January 23, 2023, and a TDM Plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard prepared in September 2022 dated January 2023. This These reports is are attached as Appendix K and Appendix L, respectively, to this Initial Study.

Page 163 ends

TRN-2 in Section 4.17.2 has been REVISED as follows:

The project would construct a 108, 100 percent affordable (excluding manager’s units ) residential building units (excluding manager’s units) and two storage facility buildings totaling of 408,964 square feet.

Page 172 ends

ADDED as follows:

The project site is currently developed with 18 storage facility buildings (including an on-site rental office and a manager’s unit) and one dilapidated, uninhabitable residence. These land uses combined have an estimated water demand of approximately 3,980 gallons per day (gpd). The existing water use is based on parcel-level demand adopted from the City’s InfoWater model developed as part of the 2010 Water Master Plan. The demand in the model was calibrated against water billing records from 2005 and 2006, as explained in the 2010 W ater Master Plan (refer to Appendix M for additional information about the modeled demand). Water is supplied to the project site by existing 12-inch water mains in Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and an eight -inch water main in Linda Vista Avenue.

14 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com

Page 175 ends

Water Supply and Demand in Section 4.19.2 has been ADDED as follows:

Water supply is analyzed cumulatively based on the buildout of the 2030 General Plan land uses and implementation of recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). The Average Daily Demand (ADD) under future cumulative conditions (2030 General Plan buildout) is estimated to be approximately 18.01 mgd. According to the Utility Impact Study conducted for this project, the project demand for potable water on-site under future cumulative conditions (2030 General Plan buildout) would be approximately 5,370 gpd. With implementation of the project , the water demand on-site would increase from approximately 5,370 to 35,438 gpd, which results in a net increase of 30,068 gpd (approximately 0.0299 mgd). Water unit duty factors used to calculate the project’s water use were developed as part of the North Bayshore Precise Plan Phase II from water meter records of recent developments throughout the City. The unit duty factors applied are representative of the proposed uses. The City does not currently have a specific water demand factor for storage buildings, therefore, the City’s closest water demand factor of Industrial was used for calculating the storage facility’s water use, consistent with studies the City completed for other similar projects (refer to Appendix M for additional information about the methodology used). The storage facility would make up 24,638 gpd (approximately 70 percent) of the water demand and the residential building would make up 10,800 gpd (approximately 30 percent) of the water demand.

Appendix B Appendix B has been REPLACED with the following:

ARBORIST REPORT

February 26, 2021
Revised August 11, 2021
Revised December 20, 2021
Revised March 7, 2022
Revised December 12, 2022
Revised December 19, 2022
5899.00

PROJECT
1020 Terra Bella Ave.

Mountain View, CA

PREPARED FOR
Alta Housing

PREPARED BY
HMH
1570 Oakland Road
San Jose, CA 95131
William Sowa
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-12270A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents 1

Introduction and Overview 2

Methodology 2

Summary of Findings 2

General Observations and Recommendations 3

Recommendations for Tree Protection During Construction 5

Maintenance Recommendations for Trees to Remain 6

Terms and Conditions 8

Exhibit A – Existing Tree Map 9

Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary 10

Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary 11

Tree Photographs 13

HMH
1 of 16
12/19/2022

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

HMH was contracted to complete a survey, assessment and arborist report for trees located within the limit of work illustrated on Exhibit A. The pro ject site encompasses parts of two adjacent parcels, totaling approximately 1 acre. One parcel is currently a Public Storage property and the other currently has a house. The 101 Freeway is to the north of the site and there are primarily commercial parcels to the east, south and west of t he site. Our scope of services includes locating, measuring DBH, assessing, and photographing the condition of all trees within the limit of work. Disposition and health recommendations are based on current site conditions. Site development/design may affect the preservation suitability.

METHODOLOGY

Our tree survey work is a deliberate and systematic methodology for cataloging trees on site:

1. Identify each tree species.

2. Note each tree’s location on a site map.

3. Measure each trunk circumference at 4.5’ above g rade per ISA standards.

4. Evaluate the health and structure of each tree u sing the following numerical standard:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amoun t of twig dieback, minor structural defects that co uld be corrected.
3 - A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and sm all branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that may that m ight be mitigated with care. 2 - A tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive d ieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold br anches and or trunk, mostly epicormic growth; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated .
0 - Tree is dead.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

HMH conducted a tree inventory of 12 trees located within the limit of work outlined in Exhibit A.

Two (2) of the trees inventoried are classified as heritage trees under the City of Mountain View Tree Removal permit. The trees were initially evaluated on 2/22/2021 and re-evaluated on 12/6/2022.

A heritage tree is:

Single Trunk - 48 inches or more in circumference at 4 ½ feet above ground; or Multi-trunk - which has major branches below fifty- four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork.; or Any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood) or Cedrus (cedar) with a circumference of 12" measured at 4 ½ feet above natural grade; or
A tree or grove of trees designated as "heritage" by the City Council.

Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary summarizes tree qua ntities by both species and size. Each species that was inventoried as part of this scope is included. This is a useful tool for analyzing the mixture of trees as part of the project. The s ize table is useful when calculating mitigation requirements in the case of tree removal as well as aiding in determining tree maturity.

HMH
2 of 16
12/19/2022
Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary lists each tree number, botanical name, common name, DBH, circumference, ordinance trees, health rating, pres ervation suitability, general notes and observations and recommendations.

See Exhibit A for Existing Tree Locations
See Table 1 for Tree Quantity Summary by species and size.

See Table 2 for Tree Evaluation Summary for sizes, notes and recommendations regarding each tree.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For tree removal justification, please see Tree Disposition Plan.

Species: Corymbia ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum)
Quantity: 2
Tree Number: 6, 8
Observations / Recommendations:

The Red Gum trees are mature specimens and are in g ood shape and are a significant canopy tree at the front of the Public Storage site. The i nternal branching structure of these trees could benefit from a structural pruning effort. These tr ees, as all along the street frontage, are under power lines that could be problematic long term if topping occurs. These trees are not good candidates for transplanting. Tree #6 is being removed due to site design.

Upon reviewing the civil plan set dated 12/12/2022 and the landscape plan set dated 9/22/2022, here are recommendations to consider for retaining Tree #8 and to lessen the impact of construction:
• Follow the City of Mountain View tree protection s pecifications. • It is best to avoid installing utility lines under neath the dripline of the tree. But it appears a storm drain line will be installed approximately 7-1/2 feet from the trunk. It is important to follow standard best practices such as avoiding mechanical trenching or excavation. The use of an air spade or hand excavation should be do ne. If root pruning is needed this should be done with a clean cut and the area around the cut should be kept moist until it can be backfilled. If there are roots larger than 2”, tunnel underneath with horizontal boring. • Avoid constructing decking/footings underneath the dripline of the tree • There is a new sidewalk approximately almost 6 fee t from the trunk. Mechanical trenching and excavation should be avoided. An air spade or hand excavation should be done to for the construction area. If root pruning is needed th is should be done with a clean cut and the area around the cut should be kept moist until it can be backfilled. • New plantings underneath the dripline of the tree should match the WUCOLS water use rating, which is low.
• It appears the new building will be further from t he tree than the existing building. Generally the root structure has probably developed to avoid this area and the new construction will not greatly affect the existing root system. The structural plans should be reviewed by the design team to see the extent of the building’s foo tings under the dripline of the tree and consider alternatives, if possible.

HMH
3 of 16
12/19/2022
Species: Magnolia grandiflora (Southern Magnolia)
Quantity: 1
Tree Number: 2
Observations / Recommendations:

The Magnolia tree is a younger specimen and is in good to moderate shape. It is located on the east site of the Public Storage site on San Rafael Avenue. Tree number two is under the powerlines which could be an issue long term if top ping occurs. As Magnolia are a moderate water use tree ensuring that adequate irrigation is being applies would help the vigor of these trees. This tree is not a good candidate for transp lanting. Tree #2 is being removed due to site design.

Species: Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache)
Quantity: 5
Tree Number: 3, 4, 9, 10, 11
Observations / Recommendations:

The Pistache trees are younger specimens and are in good shape. These trees, as all along the street frontage, are under power lines that could be problematic long term if topping occurs. These trees are not good candidates for transplanting. These trees are being removed due to site design.

Species: Platanus x hispanica (London Plane Tree)
Quantity: 1
Tree Number: 7
Observations / Recommendations:

The London Plane Tree is a mature specimen and is i n good shape. This tree is also along the street frontage, are under power lines that could be problematic long term if topping occurs. There is also some crowding with the adjacent Eucalyptus which could be a conflict for space in the future. This tree is not a good candidate for trans planting. Tree #7 is being removed due to site design.

Species: Prunus caroliniana (Carolina Laurel Cherry)
Quantity: 1
Tree Number: 5
Observations / Recommendations:

The Carolina Cherry is a volunteer multi-stem shrub / tree growing under the Red flowering gum tree. This tree does not have a proper tree struct ure and should be removed. This tree is not a good candidate for transplanting. Tree #5 is being removed due to arborist recommendation.

Species: Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear)
Quantity: 2
Tree Number: 12, 13
Observations / Recommendations:

The Pear trees are in good shape and in the front of the Public Storage office. They are younger specimens and with proper care and maintenance will continue to thrive. Pear trees are susceptible to fire blight so proper pruning practi ces should be taken into consideration to limit the spread if infected. These trees are not good ca ndidates for transplanting. These trees are being removed due to site design.

HMH
4 of 16
12/19/2022

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION

Site preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced off 10’ beyond the outside the drip line (foliar spread) of the tree. Alternatively, where this is not feasible, fence to the drip line of the tree. Where fencing is not possible, the trunk shall be protected straw waddle and orange snow fencing. The fence should be a minimum of six feet high, made of pig wire with steel stakes or any material superior in quality, such as cyclone fencing. Tree protection zone sign shall be affixed to fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. If the fence is within the drip line of the trees, the foliar fringe shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the drip line. All co ntractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the job. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment or other heavy equipment. Penalties, based on the c ost of remedial repairs and the evaluation guide published by the international society of arb oriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. Please see City of Mountain View tree protection specifications.

Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the drip line of any tree, or within the distance from the trunk as outlined in t he site preparation section above when said distance is outside the drip line, shall first be r eviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath root s, root pruning or other necessary actions to protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trun k side should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is back filled t o the original level. An arborist shall examine th e trench prior to back filling to ascertain the numbe r and size of roots cut, so as to suggest the necessary remedial repairs.

Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees, and prescribing necessary rem edial work to ensure the health and stability of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to , all arborist activities brought out in the previo us sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the "pruning standards" of the western chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be pr escribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements, and state agricultural pest cont rol laws. All specifications shall be in writing.

For pest control operations, consult the local coun ty agricultural commissioner's office for individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators.

Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shal l review all work undertaken that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arb orist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection.

HMH
5 of 16
12/19/2022

MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREES TO REMAIN

Regular maintenance, designed to promote plant heal th and vigor, ensures longevity of existing trees. Regular inspections and the necessary follow-up care of mulching, fertilizing, and pruning, can detect problems and correct them before they become damaging or fatal.

Tree Inspection: Regular inspections of mature trees at least once a year can prevent or reduce the severity of future disease, insect, and environ mental problems. During tree inspection, four characteristics of tree vigor should be examined: new leaves or buds, leaf size, twig growth, and absence of crown dieback (gradual death of the uppe r part of the tree). A reduction in the extension of shoots (new growing parts), such as buds or new leaves, is a fairly reliable cue that the tree’s health has recently changed. Growth of t he shoots over the past three years may be compared to determine whether there is a reduction in the tree’s typical growth pattern. Further signs of poor tree health are trunk decay, crown dieback, or both. These symptoms often indicate problems that began several years before. Loose bark or deformed growths, such as trunk conks (mushrooms), are common signs of stem decay. Any ab normalities found during these inspections, including insect activity and spotted, deformed, discolored, or dead leaves and twigs, should be noted and observed closely.

Mulching: Mulch, or decomposed organic material, placed over the root zone of a tree reduces environmental stress by providing a root environmen t that is cooler and contains more moisture than the surrounding soil. Mulch can also prevent mechanical damage by keeping machines such as lawn mowers and string trimmers away from the tr ee’s base. Furthermore, mulch reduces competition from surrounding weeds and turf. To be most effective, mulch should be placed 2 to 4 inches deep and cover the entire root system, which may be as far as 2 or 3 times the diameter of the branch spread of the tree. If the area and activities happening around the tree do not permit the entire area to be mulched, it is recommended th at as much of the area under the drip line of the tree is mulched as possible. When placing mulch, care should be taken not to cover the actual trunk of the tree. This mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base, is sufficient to avoid moist bark conditions and prevent trunk decay. An organi c mulch layer 2 to 4 inches deep of loosely packed shredded leaves, pine straw, peat moss, or c omposted wood chips is adequate. Plastic should not be used as it interferes with the exchange of gases between soil and air, which inhibits root growth. Thicker mulch layers, 5 to 6 inches deep or greater, may also inhibit gas exchange.

Fertilization: Trees require certain nutrients (essential elemen ts) to function and grow. Urban landscape trees may be growing in soils that do not contain sufficient available nutrients for satisfactory growth and development. In certain sit uations, it may be necessary to fertilize to improve plant vigor. Fertilizing a tree can improve growth; however, if fertilizer is not applied wisely, it may not benefit the tree at all and may even adversely affect the tree. Mature trees making satisfactory growth may not require fertilization. When considering supplemental fertilizer, it is important to consider nutrients deficiencies and how and when to amend the deficiencies.

Soil conditions, especially pH and organic matter c ontent, vary greatly, making the proper selection and use of fertilizer a somewhat complex process. To that end, it is recommended that the soil be tested for nutrient content. A soil testing laboratory and can give advice on application rates, timing, and the best blend of fertilizer for each tree and other landscape plants on site.

Mature trees have expansive root systems that exten d from 2 to 3 times the size of the leaf canopy. A major portion of actively growing roots i s located outside the tree’s drip line.

Understanding the actual size and extent of a tree’ s root system before applying fertilizer is paramount to determine quantity, type and rate at w hich to best apply fertilizer. Always follow manufacturer recommendations for use and application.

HMH
6 of 16
12/19/2022
Pruning: Pruning is often desirable or necessary to remove dead, diseased, or insect-infested branches and to improve tree structure, enhance vigor, or maintain safety. Because each cut has the potential to change the growth of (or cause damage to) a tree, no branch should be removed without reason. Removing foliage from a tree has tw o distinct effects on growth: (1) it reduces photosynthesis and, (2) it may reduce overall growt h. Pruning should always be performed sparingly. Caution must be taken not to over-prune as a tree may not be able to gather and process enough sunlight to survive. Pruning mature trees may require special equipment, training, and experience. Arborists are equipped to provide a variety of services to assist in performing the job safely and reducing risk of personal injury and property damage (See also ANSI A300 Part 1 Pruning Standards- https://www.tcia.org).

Removal: There are circumstances when removal is necessary . An arborist can help decide whether or not a tree should be removed. Profession ally trained arborists have the skills and equipment to safely and efficiently remove trees. R emoval is recommended when a tree: (1) is dead, dying, or considered irreparably hazardous; (2) is causing an obstruction or is crowding and causing harm to other trees and the situation is impossible to correct through pruning; (3) is to be replaced by a more suitable specimen, and; (4) shou ld be removed to allow for construction.

Pruning or removing trees, especially large trees, can be dangerous work. It should be performed only by those trained and equipped to work safely in trees.

HMH
7 of 16
12/19/2022

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The following terms and conditions apply to all ora l and written reports and correspondence pertaining to consultations, inspections and activities of HMH.

1. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in those reports and corresp ondence. HMH assumes no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. HMH assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tr ee or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client.

2. No tree described in this report was climbed, un less otherwise stated. HMH does not take responsibility for any defects, which could have on ly been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots was not performed u nless otherwise stated. HMH does not take responsibility for any root defects, which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.

3. HMH shall not be required to provide further doc umentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal or repo rt unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additio nal fees for such services as described by HMH or in the schedule of fees or contract.

4. HMH guarantees no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of the information contained in the reports for any reason. It is the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her case.

5. Any report and the values, observations and reco mmendations expressed therein represent the professional opinion of HMH, and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported.

6. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches or o ther graphic material included in any report, being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproductions of graphic material or the work produ ced by other persons, is intended solely for clarification and ease of reference. In clusion of said information does not constitute a representation by HMH as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information.

7. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be control led. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.

HMH
8 of 16
12/19/2022
2 345
67 13
12 11 10 9 8
SAN
RAFAE
L AVE
.

TERRA BELLA AVE.

Existing Tree Map
Exhibit A
NNN
NOTE: ALL TREE LOCATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED WITH IN FIELD SURVEY HMH
9 of 16
12/19/2022
Species Quantity % of Site
Corymbia ficifolia 2 17%
Magnolia grandiflora 1 8%
Pistacia chinensis 5 42%
Platanus x hispanica 1 8%
Prunus caroliniana 1 8%
Pyrus calleryana 2 17%
Total Trees 12 100%
Tree Quantity by Species
TABLE 1 - TREE QUANTITY SUMMARY
HMH
10 of 16
12/19/2022
Suitability for Preservation is based on the following
Health Rating
5 4
3 2
1 0
Abbreviations and Definitions
CD Codominant branches
CDB Dieback in Crown
CR CR
D Decline
DBH Diameter at Breast
Height
EG Epicormic Growth
EH Exposed Heartwood
H Hazardous
HD Headed
IB Included Bark
LC Low crotch
LN Leaning Tree
ML Multiple Leaders
PT Phototropism
S Suckers
SD Structural Defects
SE Severe
SL Slight
SR Surface Roots
ST Stress
WU Weak Union
Heritage Tree
Heritage Trees. A heritage tree is: Single Trunk - 48 inches or more in circumference at 4 ½ feet above natural grade; or Multi-trunk - The combined measurements of each trunk circumference add up to 48 inches or more, measured just below the first major trunk fork; or three species of trees: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood) or Cedrus (cedar) with a circumference of 12" measured at 4 ½ feet above natural grade; or a grove(s) of trees designated as "heritage" by the City Council.

Tree is dead.

Multiple central leaders originating below the DBH measurement site.

Tree is bounded closely by one or more of the following: structure, tree, Etc.

Naturally or secondary conditions including cavities, poor branch attachments, cracks, or decayed wood in any part of the tree that may contribute to structural failure.

Structural defect where bark is included between the branch attachment so the wood can't join. Such defect can have a higher probability of failure.

Condition where branches in the tree crown die from the tips toward the center.

Watersprouting on trunk and main leaders. Typically indicative of tree stress.

Measurement of tree diameter in inches. Measurement height varies by City and is noted above.

Weak union or fork in tree branching structure.

Roots visible at finished grade.

Environmental factor inhibiting regular tree growth. Includes drought, salty soils, nitrogen and other nutrient deficiencies in the soil.

Indicates the severity of the following term.

Indicates the mildness of the following term.

TABLE 2 - TREE EVALUATION SUMMARY
Prepared By: William Sowa ISA Certified Arborist WE-12270A A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.

A tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.

A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that may that might be mitigated with care.

Good - Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Moderate - Trees in somewhat declining health and/or exhibits structural defects that cannot be abated with treatment. Trees will require more intense management and will have a shorter lifespan than those in the 'Good' category.

Poor - Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to decline, regardless of treatment.

Date of Evaluation: 2/22/2021 and 12/6/2022
DBH MEASUREMENT HEIGHT: 54"
A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.

A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and or trunk, mostly epicormic growth; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

Shoot arising from the roots.

A tree that in it's current condition, presents a hazard.

Forked branches nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction an lacking a normal branch union.

Tree shows obvious signs of decline, which may be indicative of the presence of multiple biotic and abiotic disorders.

Tree exhibits phototropic growth habits. Reduced trunk taper, misshapen trunk and canopy growth are examples of this growth habit.

Exposure of the tree's heartwood is typically seen as an open wound that leaves a tree more susceptible to pathogens, disease or infection.

Poor pruning practice of cutting back branches. Often practiced under utility lines to limit tree height.

Tree leaning, see notes for severity.

More than one upright primary stem
HMH
11 of 16
12/19/2022
TREE # BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH
(INCHES)

CIRCUMF-
ERENCE
(INCHES)

HERITAGE TREE HEALTH PRESERVATION

SUITABILITY

ONSITE OR
ROW

REMOVE/RETAIN/

RELOCATE NOTES
2 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 5.8 18 NO 4 Moderate ROW REMOVE IB, SD, CR by powerlines 3 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 7.2 23 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE CR by powerlines 4 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 5.7 18 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE CR by powerlines 5 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel
Cherry 13.5 42 NO 3 Poor ROW REMOVE MULTI-TRUNK, CR by #6 6 Corymbia ficifolia Red Flowering
Gum 32.0 100 YES 3 Moderate ROW REMOVE MULTI-TRUNK, CD, SD, ST, sap leaking, CR by powerlines 7 Platanus x hispanica London Plane Tree 11.7 37 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE CR by powerlines 8 Corymbia ficifolia Red Flowering Gum 23.2 73 YES 3 Moderate ONSITE RETAIN LN, SD, IB, sap leaking, CR by powerlines 9 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 9.0 28 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE SD, IB, CR by powerlines 10 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 10.0 31 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE CR by powerlines 11 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 7.9 25 NO 4 Good ROW REMOVE CR by powerlines 12 Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear 9.3 29 NO 4 Good ONSITE REMOVE SD 13 Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear 7.7 24 NO 3 Good ONSITE REMOVE SD HMH
12 of 16
12/19/2022
2 3 4
HMH
13 of 16
12/19/2022
5 7
6 HMH
14 of 16
12/19/2022
8 9 10
HMH
15 of 16
12/19/2022
11 12
13 HMH
16 of 16
12/19/2022

32 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com Appendix K Appendix K has been REPLACED with the following:

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

David J. Powers & Associates
January 23, 2023
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Hexagon Job Number: 22DC05
Phone: 408.971.6100
Client Name: David J. Powers & Associates
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ i

1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1

2. Existing Transportation Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5

3. CEQA Transportation Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10

4. Multimodal Transportation Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 13

5. Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 52 Appendices
Appendix A Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B City of Mountain View Approved Project List Appendix C Tabulated Traffic Volumes
Appendix D Level of Service Calculations
Appendix E Parking Occupancy Counts
Appendix F Walk and Roll to School Maps
List of Tables
Table 1 Existing Bus Service Near the Project Site ................................ ................................ .......... 7 Table 2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimate ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 Table 3 Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ..................... 24 Table 5 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay ............... 24 Table 6 Intersection Level of Service Results ................................ ................................ ................. 26 Table 7 Queuing Analysis Summary ................................ ................................ .............................. 28 Table 8 Parking Demand (Affordable Housing) ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Table 9 Parking Requirement (Affordable Housing) ................................ ................................ ....... 41 Table 10 Parking Demand (Public Storage) ................................ ................................ ..................... 42 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................ ................................ .................. 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 Figure 5 Personal Storage Locations................................ ................................ ............................... 12 Figure 6 Project Trip Distribution ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 Figure 7 Project Trip Assignment ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Figure 8 Intersection Lane Configuration ................................ ................................ ......................... 19 Figure 9 Existing Traffic Volume ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Figure 10 Background Traffic Volume ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volume ................................ ................................ ........ 22 Figure 12 Affordable Housing Ground Level Site Plan ................................ ................................ ... 30 Figure 13 Affordable Housing Level 2 Site Plan ................................ ................................ ............. 31 Figure 14 Affordable Housing Civil Site Plan ................................ ................................ .................. 32 Figure 15 Estimated Trips at Project Driveways ................................ ................................ ............. 34 Figure 16 Public Storage Site Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

Figure 17 Public Storage Civil Site Plan ................................ ................................ ......................... 37 Figure 18 Public Storage Civil Site Plan (cont.) ................................ ................................ .............. 38 Figure 19 Proposed Intersection Improvements (San Rafael and Terra Bella) ............................... 45 Figure 20 Pedestrian Quality of Service Map ................................ ................................ ................. 46 Figure 21 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ................................ ................................ ........................ 49 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis conducted for the proposed development at 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue in Mountain View, California. The existing project site contains approximately 77,418 square feet (s.f.) of drive up storage lockers, a rental office, and a non-habitable single family home most recently used as an office. The project would redevelop the site by replacing the existing buildings on-site with 108 units of affordable housing and a 408,964 s.f. Public Storage facility. Access to the affordable housing site would be provided via a driveway on Terra Bella Avenue and a driveway on San Rafael Avenue. Access to the public storage site would be provided via driveways on Linda Vista Avenue and on San Rafael Avenue.

Transportation Analysis Scope
The transportation analysis was prepared following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Mountain View, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program’s Transportation Impact Guidelines (October 2014), and by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Transportation Analysis Scope
The CEQA transportation analysis for the project consists of a project-level VMT impact analysis that is evaluated against the City of Mountain View’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy. The City of Mountain View’s VMT Policy describes screening criteria based on a project description, characteristics, and/or locations of projects that would not exceed the CEQA thresholds of significance.

If a project meets the screening criteria, it is then presumed that the project would result in a less-than- significant VMT impact, and a VMT analysis is not required.

Multimodal Transportation Analysis Scope
The Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) includes an evaluation of weekday AM and PM peak hour operational issues (queuing, signal operations, and potential multi-modal issues) at intersections in the general vicinity of the project site, an evaluation of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and circulation, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking. Operational deficiencies identified as part of the MTA are not considered impacts per CEQA guidelines.

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | ii
CEQA VMT Analysis
Evaluation of Screening Criteria
The project consists of 108 units of affordable housing and a 408,964 s.f. Public Storage facility. Since 100% of the residential units would be affordable, the residential portion of the project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required.

Project Level VMT Analysis
There are currently 13 similar personal storage facilities in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The average distance of these facilities from the mid-point of Mountain View (assumed to be City Hall) is 2.1 miles.

The distance between the project site and the mid-point of Mountain View is 1.4 miles. Therefore, the project would reduce the average trip length for residents to access public storage facilities, and its impact to VMT would be less-than-significant.

Multimodal Transportation Analysis
Trip Generation
After applying the ITE trip rates and trip credits from existing uses, it is estimated that the project would generate 996 daily vehicle trips, with 68 trips (29 inbound and 39 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 98 trips (52 inbound and 46 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

Intersection Operations
The operations analysis shows that most of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, under background conditions and background plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/La Avenida Street currently operates at LOS F during both peak hours under background conditions, with and without the project. Since the project would not cause the critical movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection.

The intersection of Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour, with and without the project under background conditions, and would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Under background conditions, the intersection would operate at a substandard level of service during the AM peak hour. Since the addition of project generated trips would not cause the critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection during the AM peak hour. The addition of project generated trips would degrade the operating level of service from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the affordable housing portion of the project. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%. The multi- modal improvements proposed by the project would also encourage future residents to walk, bike, or use transit instead of driving. With the implementation of a TDM plan, the PM peak hour would no longer degrade to LOS E and would not have an adverse effect on traffic operations at this intersection.

P a g e | i i i
under background conditions. Under all scenarios, the Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue intersection was calculated to have insufficient storage for the southbound left-turn movement during the AM peak hour. The project would add 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left- turn movement. This equates to at most one vehicle during the heaviest cycles and would cause an adverse effect at the intersection. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%.With this reduction, the project is estimated to add 10 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left-turn movement and would not extend the 95th percentile AM peak hour queue under background conditions.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s access points with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles.

Recommended Site Access and On-Site Circulation Improvements Affordable Housing Site
• Approximately 25 feet of red curb should be painted on both sides of project driveways • Parking spaces should be assigned because the garage has dead-ends with no place to turn around.
• Trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the trash pick-up area on trash pick-up days Public Storage Site
• Red curb should be painted in the cul-de-sac on Linda Vista Avenue. • Red curb should be painted along the project frontage at the San Rafael cul-de-sac Parking Supply
Vehicle Parking
Parking occupancy counts were conducted at similar affordable housing developments, which yielded an average parking demand of 1.36 spaces per unit. The project would provide 10 units for individuals that are developmentally disabled and 27 units for rapid housing. The applicant has provided information based on similar projects, stating the parking ratios provided for these uses are .85 spaces per unit for the individuals that are developmentally disabled and .6 spaces per unit for rapid housing.

These ratios have been observed at similar developments from Alta Housing. The remaining 71 units would require 1.36 parking spaces per unit, as found in the parking occupancy count study.

Based on the parking ratios provided by the applicant and the observed parking demand at similar affordable housing developments in the region, the affordable housing component of the project would be required to provide 123 parking spaces. The project proposes to implement a TDM program to reduce the parking demand generated by the project. Based on the TDM strategies that would reduce vehicle ownership rates, the TDM program is conservatively estimated to reduce parking demand by 15% with the possibility to reduce parking demand by up to 40%. Therefore, the affordable housing component of the project should provide a minimum of 74 parking spaces.

Parking counts also were conducted at similar storage facilities. These yielded an average parking demand of 0.07 space per 1,000 square feet. Based on the observed parking demand at similar Public 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | iv
Storage facilities in the region, the proposed project should provide 29 parking spaces for the Public Storage site.

The project proposes to provide 96 parking spaces within the two-level parking garage for the affordable housing site and 66 surface parking spaces within the Public Storage site. The affordable housing site would provide 27 fewer spaces than the recommended number of parking spaces based on the parking ratios provided by the applicant and the observed parking demand at similar affordable housing developments in the region. The project proposes to implement a TDM program that would conservatively reduce parking demand by 15% and up to 40%. With the implementation of the TDM program, the proposed 96 parking spaces for the affordable housing site is adequate. The Public Storage site would provide 37 more parking spaces than the demand observed at other Public Storage facilities.

Bicycle Parking
The affordable housing site would provide a total of 108 bicycle spaces for residents and 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The proposed number of bicycle parking spaces meets the requirements specified in the City of Mountain View municipal code.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Analysis
The project proposes to upgrade the San Rafael Avenue/Terra Bella Avenue intersection with a raised intersection and install “ladder” style crosswalks along all approaches. The project also proposes to construct a new curb ramp to serve the existing crosswalk near the cul-de-sac along Linda Vista Avenue. The crosswalk will be restriped to be a high-visibility “ladder” style crosswalk.

The project would generate a small number of pedestrian trips between the project site and pedestrian generators along Shoreline Boulevard. With the anticipated improvements related to the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvement project, pedestrians would have a safe and continuous connection between the project site and Shoreline Boulevard.

The project would have an adverse effect on pedestrian operations because the project is expected to add vehicle trips to San Rafael Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, Terra Bella Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Shoreline Boulevard, which have a PQOS score of 3 or more. As described above, it is assumed that the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade existing pedestrian facilities along Shoreline Boulevard and at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue.

Additionally, the project would install several improvement features within the project vicinity, including a raised intersection, upgraded curb ramps, and restriped crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. The planned improvements by the City of Mountain View and the proposed improvements from the project would increase pedestrian comfort and safety while improving the pedestrian quality of service and is consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan.

Based on the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, the project is expected to generate between 2- 4 new bicycle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. The project would provide secure bicycle storage for residents on the ground level of the affordable housing building. Guest bicycle parking would be located along the frontages of the affordable housing building.

The project would create an adverse effect on bicycle operations because the project would add vehicle trips to Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and Moffett Boulevard, which have a BLTS score of 3 or more. The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes Class IV cycle tracks along Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard and a Class II full time bike lane along Middlefield Road. The Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade the bicycle facilities along Shoreline Boulevard between US 101 and Montecito Avenue with protected bike lanes. The planned improvements by the City of Mountain View would increase bicyclist comfort and safety while improving 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | v
the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and is consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan.

The project is expected to generate between 2-3 new transit riders during the AM and PM peak hours.

This new ridership generated by the project could be accommodated by existing services. Due to the small number of new vehicle trips generated by the project, the project would result in a minimal increase in vehicle delay at the study intersections and would not cause a noticeable change in transit travel time and vehicle delay for the bus routes in the study area. The completion of the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvement project would decrease travel time and delay for transit in the peak direction.

Transportation Demand Management
The following design features and TDM measures would be implemented by the project as part of the TDM plan:
• Transportation Management Association (TMA) Membership • On-Site Carshare
• Bicycle Parking
• Collaborative Workspace
• Pedestrian-Oriented Site Design
• Delivery-Supported Amenities (Front Desk, Food Delivery Drop-Off Area, etc) • Family TDM Amenities (Ground Level Storage for strollers, carts, etc.) • Shared Bicycles and Resource Center
• Bike Repair and Wash Station
• Bike Training and Workshops
• TDM Coordinator and Mobility Concierge
• Informational/Promotional Materials
• Pre-Tax Transportation Benefits

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis conducted for the proposed development at 1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue in Mountain View, California (see Figure 1). The existing project sites contain approximately 77,418 square feet (s.f.) of drive up storage lockers, a rental office, and a non-habitable single family home most recently used as an office. The project would redevelop the sites by replacing the existing buildings on-site with 108 units of affordable housing and a 408,964 s.f. Public Storage facility. Access to the affordable housing site would be provided via a driveway on Terra Bella Avenue and a driveway on San Rafael Avenue. Access to the public storage site would be provided via driveways on Linda Vista Avenue and on San Rafael Avenue. Figure 2 shows the project site plan for the proposed project.

Scope of Study
The purpose of the study is to identify potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development. Per California Senate Bill 743 (SB743) and CEQA Guidelines, the study includes a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. The study also includes a multimodal transportation analysis (MTA) that evaluates potential transportation effects of the project in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Mountain View and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

CEQA Transportation Analysis Scope
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The evaluation of VMT for this project is based on the City’s VMT Policy adopted on June 30, 2020.The City of Mountain View’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy describes screening criteria based on a project description, characteristics, and/or locations of projects that would not exceed the CEQA thresholds of significance. If a project meets the screening criteria, it is then presumed that the project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact, and a VMT analysis is not required.

The proposed project consists of affordable housing and a personal warehouse storage facility. The city’s VMT policy states that for mixed-use projects, each project component shall be evaluated independently by applying the most appropriate threshold of significance. The residential portion of the proposed project is 100% affordable and would meet the city’s screening criteria. The personal warehouse storage facility portion of the project is local-serving and would also meet the city’s screening criteria.

LINDA VISTA AVE
US-101 BAYSHORE FWY
7-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
BUILDING 2
4-STORY: 124,912 SF
FOOTPRINT: 31,478 SF

SAN RAFAEL AVE
18 19
20 212223
2425
27 26
1 29
32 31
30 28
EXISTING OFFSITE TREE NOTES:

1. THERE ARE NO EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE.

2. EXISTING TREE DESIGNATION SHOWN PER ARBORIST REPORT REFERENCE NU

3. FOR INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING TREES, REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT, PR CERTIFIED ARBORIST, UPDATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

EXISTING OFFSITE TREES TO REMAIN

REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT

EXISTING OFFSITE TREES TO BE

REMOVED REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT
EXIST
REMO

EXISTING OFFSITE TREE TO REMAIN

REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 4
Transit Services
Significant impacts to transit service would occur if the project:
• Creates demand for public transit services above the capacity that is provided or planned; or • Disrupts existing transit services or facilities; or
• Conflicts with an existing or planned transit facility; or • Conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Mountain View, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities in the study area.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilties
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (July 2012) describes related policies necessary to ensure pedestrian and bicycle facilities are safe and effective for City residents. Using the General Plan as a guide, significant impacts to these facilities would occur when a project or an element of the project:
• Creates a hazardous condition that does not currently exist for pedestrians and bicyclists, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas; or • Conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility; or • Conflicts with policies related to bicycle and pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Mountain View, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities in the study area.

Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) Scope
The MTA includes an analysis of the traffic operational effects of the project on the key intersections in the vicinity of the site, a freeway capacity and ramp analysis, an evaluation of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and circulation, and a review of site access and on-site circulation.

The MTA includes the evaluation of operational issues (queuing, signal operations, and potential multi- modal issues) at intersections in the general vicinity of the project site. The MTA is required by the City of Mountain View in order to assist city staff with identifying potential adverse effects on the transportation system. However, the operational deficiencies identified as part of the MTA are not considered impacts per CEQA guidelines.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing transportation system including the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including the VMT analysis methodology and applicable screening criteria. Chapter 4 describes the MTA including the method by which project traffic is estimated, intersection operations analysis methodology, any adverse intersection traffic effects caused by the project, signal warrant analysis, intersection vehicle queuing analysis, a parking analysis, a site access and on-site circulation review, and effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the transportation analysis.

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 5

2. Existing Transportation Setting
This chapter describes the existing conditions of the transportation system within the study area of the project. It describes transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101 and SR 85. Local access to the project site is provided via Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and Linda Vista Avenue. For the purposes of this study, US 101 and all parallel streets are considered to run east-west, and cross streets, such as Shoreline Boulevard, are considered to run north-south.

US 101 is a freeway that extends through and beyond the Bay Area, connecting San Francisco to San Jose. US 101 is eight lanes wide with three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides access to the study area via a full interchange at Shoreline Boulevard.

SR 85 is a freeway that begins at US 101, east of N. Shoreline Boulevard, extends south towards San Jose, and terminates at US 101 east of the Silicon Valley Boulevard/Bernal Road interchange. SR 85 is six lanes wide (two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 provides access to the project study area via an interchange at Moffett Boulevard.

Shoreline Boulevard is a north-south four-lane arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It begins near Shoreline Lake in the north and extends to El Camino Real in the south, where it becomes Miramonte Avenue. In the project vicinity, Shoreline Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Shoreline Boulevard has left-turn pockets at intersections and has bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Access to the project site from Shoreline Boulevard is provided via Terra Bella Avenue.

Middlefield Road is an east-west four-lane arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses westward through Redwood City.

Middlefield Road has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at signalized intersections and has bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street except one section on the south side of Middlefield Road over SR 85. Middlefield Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Access to the project site from Middlefield Road is via Shoreline Boulevard and Linda Vista Avenue. 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 6
Moffett Boulevard is a north-south four-lane arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It begins from R T Jones Road in the north and extends to Central Expressway in the south, where it becomes Castro Street. Moffett Boulevard has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at signalized intersections and has sidewalks on both sides of the street. Bike lanes are present from SR 85 to just north of Leong Drive. Moffett Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Access to the project site from Moffett Boulevard is via Middlefield Road.

Terra Bella Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. Terra Bella Avenue has sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the street. Terra Bella Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. A driveway along Terra Bella Avenue would provide access to the parking garage for the affordable housing site.

San Rafael Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway in the vicinity of the project site. San Rafael has sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the street. San Rafael Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. A driveway would provide access to the second level parking of the affordable housing site. A driveway at the end of San Rafael Avenue provides access to the existing and proposed public storage facility.

Linda Vista Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway in the vicinity of the project site. Linda Vista Avenue has sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the street. Linda Vista Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. A driveway at the end of Linda Vista Avenue provides access to the existing and proposed public storage facility.

Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities
The existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities in the study area are described below.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks along all the surrounding streets, including the project frontages along Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, and San Rafael Avenue.

Crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are present along the following legs at study intersections:
• North, west, and east legs of the Shoreline Boulevard/US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/La Avenida Street intersection
• West leg of the Shoreline Boulevard/US 101 Southbound Ramps intersection • All legs of the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue intersection

Additionally, crosswalks are provided at all legs of the Linda Vista Avenue/Terra Bella Avenue intersection and the north leg of the Linda Vista Avenue/Middlefield Road intersection. ADA-compliant curb ramps are located at most intersections within the project vicinity, with the exception of the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners of the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue intersection.

Pedestrian generators in the project vicinity include office buildings and bus stops along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road. Continuous sidewalks along Terra Bella Avenue and Shoreline Boulevard provide access to major pedestrian generators in the project vicinity.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
There are several bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The existing bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 3.
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 7
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes). Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Within the vicinity of the project site, striped bike lanes are present on the following roadway segments.
• Shoreline Boulevard, southern terminus to Charleston Road • Middlefield Road (part-time, open during the daytime and peak hours), within the Mountain View city limits
Stevens Creek Trail
The Stevens Creek multi-use trail system runs through the City of Mountain View and is shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and separated from motor vehicle traffic. The Stevens Creek trail in the City of Mountain View is a five-mile continuous Class I bikeway from Shoreline at Mountain View in the north to Dale/Heatherstone in the south. This trail system can be accessed via a trailhead on Middlefield Road, approximately 1-mile walking distance southeast of the project site.

Existing Transit Service
Existing transit services in the study area are provided by the Valley Transportation Authority VTA and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA). The closest bus stops serviced by the VTA and the MTMA are located along Shoreline Boulevard, approximately 1,100 feet walking distance from the project site. Figure 4 shows the existing transit services.

The project area is served by one VTA bus line and one MTMA “MVgo” shuttle. The routes that operate along Shoreline Boulevard in the project vicinity are listed in Table 1, including their route descriptions and commute hour headways.

Table 1
Existing Bus Service Near the Project Site

Transit Route Route Description Hours of Operation Headway 1 VTA Local Route 40 Foothill College - Mountain View Transit Center via North Bayshore 6:15 am - 10:30 pm 30 mins
Mvgo Shuttle Route B Shoreline, La Avenida, Crittenden 6:30 am - 10:30 am and 3:30 pm - 8:00 pm 30 mins
Notes:
1 Approximate headways during peak commute periods.

Mountain View
101
85 California StCalifornia St
Evelyn AveEvelyn Ave
Gladys AveGladys Ave
Fairchild DrFairchild Dr
Linda Linda
Vi
sta Ave
Vista Ave
California St
Evelyn Ave
Gladys Ave
Fairchild Dr
Linda Vi
sta Ave
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
= Site Location
LEGEND
St
evens Creek Trail
= Existing Class II Bike Lanes
= Existing Class III Bike Lanes
= Existing Class I Bike Paths
= Existing Class IV Protected Bikeways
= Existing Part-Time Class II Bike Lanes
Mountain View
Caltrain
Station
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Facilities

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 10

3. CEQA Transportation Analysis
This chapter describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including the VMT analysis methodology, significance criteria, and potential project impacts on VMT.

CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening Criteria
The City of Mountain View’s adopted VMT policy identifies screening criteria that determine whether a CEQA transportation analysis would be required for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, it is presumed that the project would result in a less-than-significant transportation impact and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The type of development projects that may meet the screening criteria include the following:

(1) small projects screening
(2) map-based screening
(3) transit screening
(4) affordable housing screening

Additionally, projects that meet the following criteria would be exempt from a detailed VMT analysis:

Retail Land Use Projects: A net increase in total VMT (difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact. Depending on the local context, projects determined by the City to be local-serving retail are exempt from being required to conduct a detailed CEQA VMT analysis. Retail projects larger than 50,000 square feet may be considered regional-serving and would be subject to the retail land-use threshold of significance.

Evaluation of Screening Criteria
The project consists of 108 units of affordable housing and a 408,964 s.f. Public Storage facility. Since 100% of the residential units will be affordable, the residential portion of the project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required.

VMT Analysis Methodology
The effects of the Public Storage facility on VMT were evaluated against the adopted VMT policy for the City of Mountain View. Since personal storage facilities are not a common land use described in the city’s VMT policy, the city has provided their preferred analysis methodology for personal storage 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 11
facilities. The methodology assumes that demand for personal storage facilities is constant, and the addition of a new (or redeveloping) self-storage site would redistribute existing personal storage-based trips within the City instead of creating new trips. The quantitative approach to evaluate the potential change in project-related VMT is as follows:
(1) Determine the average personal storage trip length in the immediate area by measuring the distance between existing personal storage facilities and a common point near the geographical center of Mountain View (assumed to be city hall)
(2) Measure the trip length from the project site to common point (city hall) (3) If the project trip length is less than the average personal storage trip length for existing personal storage facilities, than the project is presumed to reduce the average distance traveled for this type of use and is considered to have a less than significant VMT impact Project Level VMT Analysis
There are currently 13 similar personal storage facilities in the study area vicinity within a 3 mile radius of city hall. The average distance of these facilities and the Mountain View city hall is 2.1 miles. The distance between the project site and city hall is 1.4 miles. Therefore, the project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT because the length of travel from city hall to the project site is less than the average distance to similar personal storage facilities. Table 2 shows the list of personal storage facilities and the distance from city hall. Figure 5 shows a map of personal storage facilities and the geographic common point (city hall).

Table 2
Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimate

# Name Address
Distance to City
Hall (Miles)
1 Grape Avenue Self Storage 690 Grape Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 2.0 2 Devon Self Storage 818 W El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, CA 2.5 3 Self Storage Selo of Pastoria 833 W El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, CA 2.5 4 ULockStore 131 S Taffee Street, Sunnyvale, CA 2.8
5 Storage Corner 922 W Evelyn Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 2.2 6 Evelyn Ave Self Storage 938 W Evelyn Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 2.2 7 Public Storage 1909 Old Middlefield Way, Mountain View, CA 1.7 8 Public Storage 1987 Old Middlefield Way, Mountain View, CA 1.8 9 Public Storage 830 N Rengstorff Avenue, Mountain View, CA 1.9 10 Stoway Mini-Storage 2172 Wyandotte Street, Mountain View, CA 2.0 11 Independence Storage 877 Independence Avenue, Mountain View, CA 2.0 12 ABC Self Storage 2496 Wyandotte Street, Mountain View, CA 2.1 13 Peninsula Storage Center 2409 Leghorn Street, Mountain View, CA 2.2 Average (All sites within 3 miles of City Hall): 2.1
Project 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, Mountain View, CA 1.4
3-mile radius
Mountain
View
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Central Expy
Foothill Expy
W El Camino Real Mountain View Alviso Rd
California St Moffett Blvd
Borregas Ave
Castro St
Easy St
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
Macon Rd
Church St
S Mary Ave
Cuesta Dr
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd Ellis St
S El Monte Ave
N Shoreline Blvd
San Antonio Rd
S Bernardo Ave
N San Antonio Rd
N Mary Ave
Charleston Rd
E Evelyn Ave
W Washington Ave
Tyrella Ave
Barbara Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Almond Ave
Moorpark Way
W Dana St
E Arques Ave
Wright Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Leong DrFarley St
Shorebird Way
N Mathilda Ave
Central Expy
101
85 237
Rengstorff AveRengstorff Ave
Grape Ave Self Storage
Devon Self Storage
Self Storage Selo of Pastoria
ULockStore
Storage
Corner
Evelyn Ave
Self Storage
Public
StoragePublic
Storage
Public
Storage
Stoway
Mini-Storage
Independence
Storage
ABC Self
Storage
Peninsula
Storage
Center
= Mountain View City Hall
= Project Location
LEGEND
= Personal Storage Location
Mountain View
City Hall
Grape Ave Self Storage
Devon Self Storage
Self Storage Selo of Pastoria
ULockStore
Storage
Corner
Evelyn Ave
Self Storage
Public
StoragePublic
Storage
Public
Storage
Stoway
Mini-Storage
Independence
Storage
ABC Self
Storage
Peninsula
Storage
Center
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Figure 5
Personal Storage Locations
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 13

4. Multimodal Transportation Analysis
The MTA includes an analysis of the traffic operational effects of the project on the key intersections in the vicinity of the site, an evaluation of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and circulation, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking.

The MTA includes the evaluation of weekday AM and PM peak hour operational issues (queuing, signal operations, and potential multi-modal issues) at intersections in the general vicinity of the project site.

The MTA is required by the City of Mountain View in order to assist city staff with identifying potential adverse effects on the transportation system. However, the operational deficiencies identified as part of the MTA are not considered impacts per CEQA guidelines.

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

Trip Generation
Proposed Project Trips
Through empirical research, data have been collected that indicate the amount of traffic that can be expected to be generated by common land uses. Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate trip generation rates. The average trip generation rates for Mini-Warehouse (Land Use 151) and Affordable Housing (Land Use 223) as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) were applied to the size of the Public Storage facility and the proposed number of affordable housing units. Based on the trip generation rates and the project size, it is estimated that, prior to any trip reductions, the proposed development would generate 1,117 daily trips with 76 trips (33 inbound and 43 outbound) occurring during the AM peak-hour and 111 trips (59 inbound and 52 outbound) occurring during the PM peak-hour.
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 14
Trip credits were taken for the existing 77,418 s.f. of personal storage warehousing and the single- family home on the project site.

Net Project Trips
After applying the ITE trip rates and trip credits from existing uses, it is estimated that the project would generate 996 new daily vehicle trips, with 68 new trips (29 inbound and 39 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 98 new trips (52 inbound and 46 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 3.

Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution pattern, and Figure 7 shows the net trip assignment of project traffic on the local transportation network.

Intersection Operations Methodology
This section presents the methods used to evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, the applicable level of service standards, and the criteria defining adverse effects at the study intersections.

The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of intersections and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic. However, a potential adverse effect on a study intersection is not considered a CEQA impact metric.

Study Intersections
The study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for three signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections within the City of Mountain View. Intersections were selected in coordination with city staff.

The following study intersections were selected for analysis:

1. Shoreline Boulevard & La Avenida Street/US 101 Northbound Off-ramp

2. Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Southbound Ramps

3. Shoreline Bouelvard & Terra Bella Avenue

4. Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue (unsignalized)

5. Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road (unsignalized) Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from recent traffic studies, new traffic counts, the City of Mountain View, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:
• existing traffic volumes
• existing lane configurations
• signal timing and phasing
• approved roadway improvements
• approved project trips
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 15
Table 3
Project Trip Generation Estimates

Split Trip Split Trip
Land Use Size Rate Trip Rate In Out In Out Total Rate In Out In Out Total Proposed Land Uses
#151 - Mini-Warehouse 408,964 Square Feet 1.450 593 0.090 59% 41% 22 15 37 0.150 47% 53% 29 32 61 #223 - Affordable Housing 109 Dwelling Units 4.810 524 0.360 29% 71% 11 28 39 0.460 59% 41% 30 20 50 Total Project Trips 1,117 33 43 76 59 52 111
Existing Land Uses
#151 - Mini-Warehouse 77,418 Square Feet 1.450 112 0.090 59% 41% 4 3 7 0.150 47% 53% 6 6 12 #210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 1 Dwelling Units 9.430 9 0.700 26% 74% 0 1 1 0.940 63% 37% 1 0 1 Total Project Trips 121 4 4 8 7 6 13
Net Project Trips 996 29 39 68 52 46 98
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 2021.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline Blvd
Space Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
20%
(10%)
30%(10%)
5%(20%)
10%(10%)
15%(20%)
10%(20%)
10%(10%)
X
= Trip Distribution -
Residential(Mini-Warehouse)
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%(XX%)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 6
Project Trip Distribution
Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 7
Project Trip Assignment
4 12
5 3
Blvd
N Shoreline
Off-Ramp
US 101 SB
Ave
Bella
Rd
W Middlefield
Ave
Vista Blvd
N Shoreline
Blvd
N Shoreline
Terra
Ave
Bella
Terra
Linda
Dwy
Ave
Vista
Linda
Off-Ra
mp
US 101
NB
St
La Avenida
4(5)
3(5)
4(8)
13(13)
7(13)
5(11)
4(7)
12(24)
6(9)
20(20)
5(6)
8(16)
3(6)
3(7)
11(12)
23(21)
5(6)
12(25)
9(12)
5(6) 8(13)
5(9)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 18
Lane Configurations
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 8. The following roadway improvements are assumed to be completed under background and background plus project conditions:

• Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane Improvement Project. The project would include a reversible transit-only lane on N. Shoreline Boulevard that extends northward from Middlefield Road to Pear Avenue. The single lane would operate northbound on weekday mornings and southbound in the afternoon. On N. Shoreline Boulevard between Middlefield Road and Terra Bella Avenue, the transit lane would occupy the existing center left-turn lane. All vehicles currently using the center turn lane would perform a U-turn at either the Middlefield Road or Terra Bella Avenue intersections. The left-turn lane that provides access to the southbound SR 85 on-ramp from northbound Shoreline Boulevard would be removed and replaced with the reversible bus lane.

Traffic bound for southbound SR 85 is expected to divert to the SR 85/Moffett Boulevard interchange. The bus lane along Shoreline Boulevard would occupy the existing landscaped medians between Pear Avenue and Terra Bella Avenue.
o N. Shoreline Boulevard and US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp: The northbound left-turn lane onto the southbound SR 85 on-ramp and the associated signal phase would be removed.
o N. Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue: The signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches is expected to be modified from permitted to split phase.

Split phase operation would increase the total intersection lost time and the cycle length.

Traffic Volumes
Existing Conditions
Existing peak hour traffic volumes at all signalized study intersections were obtained from previous transportation studies in the area. For intersections where count data was more than two years old, a compounded growth factor of 1% per year was applied. At locations where count data was unavailable, counts were conducted and at adjacent intersections where count data is available. The new turning movement counts were then compared to existing counts and factored to represent pre-COVID traffic volumes. The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 9. Intersection turning- movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A.

Future Conditions
Background traffic volumes for the study intersections (see Figure 10) were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes (1) the trips generated by nearby approved projects that have not been constructed or occupied and (2) the reassigned traffic resulting from the Shoreline Boulevard bus lane improvement project. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 11).

A list of approved projects was obtained from the City of Mountain View. Hexagon considered both the location and size of the approved projects in order to eliminate those that were too far away or too small to affect traffic conditions of the study intersections. The approved projects considered for the study are listed in Appendix B. Vehicle trips from the approved projects were obtained from the project’s TIA or environmental document (initial study or EIR), if available. For projects without a traffic study, trip estimates were developed using rates published in the Trip Generation Manual. The estimated trips were assigned to the study intersections according to distributions identified in the development traffic studies, if available, or knowledge of the study area.

Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
X
= Stop Sign
= Signalized Intersection
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
STOP
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 8
Intersection Lane Configuration
4 12
5 3
Blvd
N Shoreline
Off-Ramp
US 101 SB
Ave
Bella
Rd
W Middlefield
Ave
Vista Blvd
N Shoreline
Blvd
N Shoreline
Terra
Ave
Bella
Terra
Linda
Ave
Vista
Linda
Dwy
Off-Ra
mp
US 101
NB
St
La Avenida
Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 9
Existing Traffic Volumes
4 12
5 3
Blvd
N Shoreline
Off-Ramp
US 101 SB
Ave
Bella
Rd
W Middlefield
Ave
Vista Blvd
N Shoreline
Blvd
N Shoreline
Terra
Ave
Bella
Terra
Linda
Dwy
Off-RampUS 101 NB
St
La Avenida
Ave
Vista
Linda
1219(300)
408(2040)
114(204)
47(79)
12(7)
416(439)14(0)
1327(301)
29(74)
1402(548)
651(1307)
256(82)
376(378)
4(6)
1389(565)
27(31)
232(44)
576(1533)
188(53)
26(56)
20(15)
155(131)
62(151)
15(22)
6(50)
37(16)
19(4)
30(7)
0(1)
1(4)
0(19)
7(11)
99(117)
19(5)
67(58)
21(15)
3(0)
0(3)
13(30)
38(24)
25(31)
965(506)
87(22)
37(38)
586(858)
Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 10
Background Traffic Volumes
1 Blvd
N Shoreline
Off-RampUS 101 NB
St
La Avenida
1410(407)
551(2524)
151(268)
71(119)
12(7)
433(493)14(0)
1831(469)
4 2
5 3
Off-Ramp
US 101 SB
Ave
Bella
Rd
W Middlefield
Ave
Vista Blvd
N Shoreline
Blvd
N Shoreline
Terra
Ave
Bella
Terra
Linda
Dwy
Ave
Vista
Linda
1559(631)
709(1462)
336(144)
405(422)
17(54)
1494(593)
109(66)
269(100)
626(1676)
188(53)
128(102)
24(17)
229(161)
57(138)
18(24)
11(64)
37(16)
19(4)
30(7)
0(1)
1(4)
0(19)
7(11)
99(117)
19(5)
67(58)
21(15)
3(0)
0(3)
13(30)
38(24)
25(31)
995(533)
87(22)
37(38)
683(1057)
Mountain View
Moffett Blvd
Easy St
Central Expy
Charleston Rd
Tyr
ella Ave
Sierra Vista Ave
N Whisman Rd
Rock St
Central Ave
Terra Bella Ave
Burgoyne St
E Middlefi
eld Rd
San Ramon Ave
Wright Ave
Alta Ave
La Avenida St
Plymouth St
Stierlin Rd
Huff Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
Castro
St
Walker Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Pear Ave
Shorebird Way
Joaquin Rd
San Luis Ave
Montecito Ave
Cypress Point
Dr
N Shoreline BlvdSpace Park Way
1 2
3 5
4 101
85 Linda Linda
Vista AveVista Ave
Linda Vista Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 10
Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes
1 Blvd
N Shoreline
Off-RampUS 101 NB
St
La Avenida
1414(412)
554(2529)
151(268)
71(119)
12(7)
437(501)14(0)
1831(469)
4 2
5 3
Off-Ramp
US 101 SB
Ave
Bella
Rd
W Middlefield
Ave
Vista Blvd
N Shoreline
Blvd
N Shoreline
Terra
Ave
Bella
Terra
Linda
Dwy
Ave
Vista
Linda
1572(644)
716(1475)
336(144)
410(433)
17(54)
1494(593)
113(73)
281(124)
626(1676)
188(53)
134(111)
24(17)
249(181)
57(138)
18(24)
11(64)
37(16)
24(10)
38(23)
0(1)
4(10)
3(26)
18(23)
122(138)
24(11)
79(83)
21(15)
3(0)
0(3)
22(42)
43(30)
25(31)
995(533)
95(35)
42(47)
683(1057)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 23
The Shoreline Boulevard bus lane improvement project identifies the removal of the northbound left- turn lane at the intersection of N. Shoreline Boulevard and the on-ramp to southbound US 101/SR 85.

The closure of this lane would require all vehicles bound for SR 85 to use Middlefield Road to access the Moffett Boulevard/SR 85 interchange. Therefore, all existing vehicles that are utilizing the left-turn lane were rerouted to the Moffett interchange. The proposed center transit lane would occupy the existing center turn lane on N. Shoreline Boulevard between Middlefield Road and Terra Bella Avenue.

All vehicles currently using the center turn lane would perform a U-turn at either the Middlefield Road or Terra Bella Avenue intersections. Potential traffic reduction as a result of bus lane project was not considered in the background traffic volumes.

Traffic volumes under all scenarios are tabulated in Appendix C.

Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

Signalized Intersection Level of Service
For signalized intersections, the level of service method evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection based on the methodology described the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 4 presents the level of service definitions for signalized intersections.

This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection levels of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology. Since TRAFFIX is approved by VTA as the level of service analysis software for CMP signalized intersections, the City of Mountain View employs the CMP defaults values for the analysis parameters. TRAFFIX software was used to analyze intersection operations and intersection impacts base on the increases in critical-movement delay and the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) between no-project and project scenarios.

According to the 2030 General Plan Action Items (MOB 8.1.3), until adoption of new significance thresholds of performance indicators occurs, the City of Mountain View has interim level of service (LOS) standards based on the 1992 General Plan. The interim standard for signalized intersections is LOS D, except for CMP intersections and intersections in the Downtown and San Antonio Center planning areas, where the standard is LOS E.

Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service
Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays, and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate.

For unsignalized intersections, level of service depends on the average delay experienced by vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For side street stop-controlled intersections (two-way or T- intersections), operations are defined by the average control delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection from the stop-controlled approaches on minor streets or from left-turn approaches on major streets. For side street stop-controlled intersections, the level of service is reported based on the average delay for the worst approach. The level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 5. This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection levels of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology for unsignalized intersection.

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 24
Table 4
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay

Table 5
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2010) Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or less
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0
C
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though some vehicles may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

20.1 to 35.0
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
E
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

55.1 to 80.0
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 25
Definition of Adverse Intersection Operations Effects
Adverse operations effects on signalized intersections are based on the City of Mountain View and CMP level of service standards. The City of Mountain View has applied adverse effect criteria for unsignalized intersections. Adverse intersection operation effects are described below.

According to the City of Mountain View and CMP level of service standards, a development is said to create an adverse operations effect on traffic conditions at a study intersection if for either peak hour, either of the following conditions occurs:

1. The level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS D or better for local intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) when project traffic is added, or

2. An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under no-project conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds, and an increase in critical volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of one percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added.

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

An adverse operations effect is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection conditions to its acceptable level of service or to an average delay that is better than no-project conditions.

Intersection Operations Analysis Results
The intersection level of service analysis is summarized in Table 6. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix D.

Existing Intersection Operation Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against applicable City of Mountain View operations standards. The results of the level of service analysis show most study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on prior field observations at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/La Avenida Street, both peak hours often require vehicles to wait more than one signal cycle. The field observations indicate that the intersection currently operates at LOS F during both peak hours.

Future Intersection Operation Conditions
The operations analysis shows that most of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, under background conditions and background plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/La Avenida Street will operate at LOS F during both peak hours under background conditions, with and without the project. Since the project would not cause the critical movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection.

The intersection of Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour, with and without the project and would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the driveway (south leg) of the intersection experiences the most delay. The north leg (to which project would add trips) would also operate at LOS E with the project during the AM peak 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 26
hour). During the PM peak hour, the north leg of the intersection experiences the most delay. Under background conditions, the intersection would operate at a substandard level of service during the AM peak hour. Since the addition of project generated trips would not cause the critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection during the AM peak hour. The addition of project generated trips would degrade the operating level of service from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the affordable housing portion of the project. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%. The multi-modal improvements proposed by the project would also encourage future residents to walk, bike, or use transit instead of driving. With the implementation of a TDM plan, the PM peak hour would no longer degrade to LOS E and would not have an adverse effect on traffic operations at this intersection.

Table 6
Intersection Level of Service Results

Signal Warrant Analysis
The need for signalization of an unsignalized intersection is assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2014. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether vehicular peak hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary.

Additional analysis may include unsignalized level of service analysis and/or operational analysis such as evaluating vehicle queuing and delay. Other options such as traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable based on existing field conditions. # Intersection LOS LOS LOS
AM 80+ F2 80+ F2 80+ F2 0.1 0.000
PM 80+ F2 80+ F2 80+ F2 0.0 0.001
AM 22.3 C 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.006
PM 22.3 C 19.4 B 19.6 B 0.3 0.008
AM 20.9 C 34.2 C 35.3 D 1.5 0.013
PM 16.9 B 31.5 C 32.7 C 0.8 0.006
AM 10.5 B 10.5 B 10.8 B 0.3 0.007
PM 9.9 A 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.8 0.006
AM 34.3 D 40.8 E 42.2 E 0.6 0.121
PM 23.4 C 28.6 D 35.1 E 0.6 0.108
AM 42.1 E 0.3 0.042
PM 34.4 D 0.5 0.100
Bold indicates a substandard level of service.

Note:
2 The calculated LOS does not reflect the unmet vehicle demand that cannot get through the intersection during the peak hour. Prior field observations indicate that the intersection operates at LOS F with 80+ seconds of average delay during one or both peak hours. 1 Denotes two-way stop-controlled intersection. The worst leg delay is reported. 1 2
3 4
5 TDM Plan mitigation (-15% affordable housing trips)
Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Off-
Ramp/La Avenida Street
Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Southbound Ramps
Peak
Hour
Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road1
Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue1
Incr. in
Critical
V/C
Avg.

Delay
(sec)
Avg.

Delay
(sec)
Incr. in
Critical
Delay
(sec)
Avg.

Delay
(sec)
Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue
Existing Background
No ProjectNo Project with Project
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 27
In order to meet the peak-hour traffic signal warrant, minor streets must have a volume of at least 100 vehicles per hour. Since the minor streets at both unsignalized intersections do not meet the 100 vehicle per hour threshold, it can be concluded that neither unsignalized intersection meets the peak hour traffic warrant.

Intersection Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to left-turn movements. The queuing analysis is presented for informational purposes only, since the City of Mountain View has not defined a policy related to queuing. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:

P (x=n) = n e – ()
n!
Where:

P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
 = average # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles for a particular left-turn 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 left-turn movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles, or, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus, turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement. Vehicle queuing at unsignalized intersections are evaluated based on the delay experienced at the specific study turn movement. The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand movements at intersections (see Table 7).

The proposed project would add a substantial number of trips (10 or more) to left-turn movements at one study intersection, as described below. As shown in Table 7, the queue for the southbound left turn would exceed the storage length under existing, background conditions, and background plus project conditions.

Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue
The existing southbound left-turn storage length is approximately 150 feet. As part of the mitigation measures for a previously approved project, the left-turn storage pocket will be extended to 350 feet under background conditions. Under all scenarios, the Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue intersection was calculated to have insufficient storage for the southbound left-turn movement during the AM peak hour. The project would add 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left- turn movement. This equates to at most one vehicle during the heaviest cycles and would cause an adverse effect at the intersection. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 28
15%.With this reduction, the project is estimated to add 10 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left-turn movement and would not extend the 95th percentile AM peak hour queue under background conditions.

Table 7
Queuing Analysis Summary

Measurement AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay 1 (sec) 150 145 150 145
Volume (vphpl ) 232 44 232 44
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 15 4 15 4
95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 375 100 375 100
Storage (ft./ ln.) 150 150 150 150
Adequate (Y/N) N Y N Y
Background
Cycle/Delay 1 (sec) 160 165 160 165
Volume (vphpl ) 269 100 269 100
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 18 8 18 8
95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 450 200 450 200
Storage (ft./ ln.) 350 350 350 350
Adequate (Y/N) N Y N Y
Background Plus Project
Cycle/Delay 1 (sec) 160 165 160 165
Volume (vphpl ) 281 124 279 121
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 19 10 18 10
95th %. Queue (ft./ln) 2 475 250 450 250
Storage (ft./ ln.) 350 350 350 350
Adequate (Y/N) N Y N Y
Notes:
1 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued.

SBL = southbound left movement
Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length.

SBL
Shoreline Boulevard & Terra
Bella Avenue
SBL (with TDM)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 29
Affordable Housing Building
The evaluation of site access and circulation for the affordable housing building is based on the September 2022 site plan prepared by Van Mater Williams Pollack. The ground level site plan is shown on Figure 12. The second-floor site plan is shown on Figure 13.

Project Driveway Design
Vehicular access to the ground level parking garage would be provided via a full access driveway on Terra Bella Avenue. Vehicular access to the second level parking garage would be provided via a full access driveway on San Rafael Avenue. The driveway on Terra Bella Avenue would measure approximately 22 feet in width. The driveway on San Rafael Avenue would measure 20 feet in width.

These widths are adequate for a two-way driveway, as described in the City of Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 36.32.80(e).

Sight Distance at Project Driveways
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance per the City’s Standard Details A-22, thereby ensuring the exiting vehicles can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street. Any landscaping and signage within the pedestrian triangle and vehicle triangle at the driveway should be no taller than 3 feet and in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Tree canopies should be maintained so that they are at least 6 feet off of the ground. The posted speed limit along Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue is 25 mph. According to the City’s Standard Detail A-22, the stopping sight distance for a 25-mph roadway is 150 feet.

The project’s civil site plan (see Figure 14) shows the clear sight triangles per the City’s Standard Detail A-22. There are no roadway curvatures on Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue that would obstruct the vision of exiting drivers at either driveway. The project site plan shows trees that would be planted along both streets. The canopies of the trees should be maintained so that they do not block the vision of exiting drivers. Both streets permit on-street parking that could obstruct the vision of exiting drivers if there were cars parked next to the driveways. Approximately 25 feet of red curb should be painted on both sides of the driveways along Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. Providing red curb adjacent to a driveway would allow drivers to see along the traveled way. If red curb is not provided, a large vehicle could potentially block the line of sight along the roadway. Sight distance exhibits at the project driveways are provided in Appendix E.

Recommendation: Approximately 25 feet of red curb should be painted on both sides of the project driveways

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 12
Affordable Housing Ground Level Site Plan
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 13
Affordable Housing Level 2 Site Plan
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 14
Affordable Housing Civil Site Plan

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 33
Project Driveway Operations
Based on the number of parking spaces provided on the first and second levels, approximately 60% of vehicles would be parked at ground level, utilizing the Terra Bella Avenue driveway, and the remaining 40% would be parked on the second level, utilizing the San Rafael Avenue driveway. The estimated number of trips at each project driveway is shown on Figure 15.

The trips that are estimated to occur at the Terra Bella Avenue driveway are 18 inbound trips and 24 outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 31 inbound trips and 28 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The trips that are estimated to occur at the San Rafael Avenue driveway are 11 inbound trips and 15 outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 21 inbound trips and 18 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Due to the relatively low traffic volume along both streets, significant operational issues related to vehicle queueing and vehicle delay for inbound and outbound traffic are not expected to occur at the driveways. Vehicles turning left into the project site from either street may block the travel lane momentarily due to vehicles slowing down to turn into the driveway, but this would not have a significant effect on traffic operations. Given the small number of estimated outbound trips at each driveway, the probability of two or more outbound vehicles exiting the site at the same time would be low. The maximum queue is not expected to affect the on-site circulation.

Vehicle On-Site Circulation
The project would provide 90-degree uniform parking stalls throughout the garage areas. The project proposes an internal drive aisle of at least 26 feet width within the garage areas, which is adequate to allow vehicles to maneuver in and out of 90-degree parking spaces.

According to City’s Standard Details A-24, transition slopes should be provided at the two ends of the ramps with a minimum length of 10 feet to avoid vehicles bottoming out. The city also requires a car length (20 feet) of flat area approaching surface lots at garage exits. The slope of the parking garage ramp to the second level parking area is shown to be 20 percent with 10 percent transition slopes on either end. A minimum 20-foot flat area would be provided approaching the ground level. Therefore, the proposed parking garage ramp is adequate for vehicle access.

On-site vehicle circulation was also evaluated to identify whether there are dead-end aisles within the garage areas. Dead-end aisles are undesirable because drivers can enter the aisle, and upon discovering that there is no available parking, must back out or conduct three-point turns. Since the parking areas on both levels consist of a single drive aisle, dead ends are present at the ends of each level. Parking spaces should be assigned so that residents do not have to look for a space and turn around if there is not a space available at the end.

The project site plan shows several mechanical vehicle puzzle stackers on the ground level parking garage. Since the mechanical vehicle stackers will require knowledge of how to use them, residents assigned a space in the parking stackers should be provided instructions on how to use the lifts.

Additionally, clear signage and instructions should be posted outside of each stacker with guidance on how to operate the mechanical stackers.

Recommendation: Parking spaces should be assigned so that residents do not have to look for a space and turn around if there is not a space available at the end of the aisle.

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Figure 15
Estimated Trips at Project Driveways
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Driveway TripsXX(XX)
15(18)15(18)
24(28)24(28)
15(18)
11(21)
24(28)
18(31)
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 35
Parking Stall Dimensions
Parking spaces are shown to be 18 feet long by 8.5 feet wide for standard parking spaces and 18 feet long by 9 feet wide for accessible parking spaces. According to the City of Mountain View Zoning Code all standard parking stalls should be at least 8.5 feet in width by 17 feet in length. The proposed parking space dimensions would meet the City requirements.

Truck, Garbage, and Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicle access would be provided along Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. The site plan shows a loading space on the first level of the parking garage. This space measures 18 feet long by 9 feet wide. Since the drive aisle measures 26 feet, this space is only adequate for normal size vehicles. Large vehicles, such as delivery trucks, would have trouble accessing the garage.

The site plan shows a trash room on the ground level: one adjacent to the parking area and one located near the garage entrance on San Rafael Avenue. The site plan shows a trash pick-up staging area along San Rafael Avenue. Trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the loading zone on trash pick- up days.

Recommendation: Trash bins would need to be wheeled out to the trash pick-up area on trash pick-up days.

Public Storage Site
The evaluation of site access and circulation for the Public Storage is based on the September 2022 site plan prepared by Ware Malcomb. The project site plan is shown on Figure 16.

Project Driveway Design
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a full access driveway along Linda Vista Avenue and a full access driveway along San Rafael Avenue. The driveway to Linda Vista Avenue is existing, and the driveway to San Rafael Avenue would be new. Both driveways are located at the cul- de-sac of their respective streets, and both driveways would measure 26 feet in width. These widths are adequate for a two-way driveway, as described in the City of Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 36.32.80(e).

Sight Distance at Project Driveways
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance per the City’s Standard Details A-22, thereby ensuring the exiting vehicles can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street. Any landscaping and signage within the pedestrian triangle and vehicle triangle at the driveway should be no taller than 3 feet and in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Tree canopies should be maintained so that they are at least 6 feet off of the ground. The posted speed limit along Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue is 25 mph. According to the City’s Standard Detail A-22, the stopping sight distance for a 25-mph roadway is 150 feet.

The project’s civil site plan (see Figure 17 and 18) shows the clear sight triangles per the City’s Standard Detail A-22. There are no roadway curvatures on Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue that would obstruct the vision of exiting drivers at either driveway. As previously mentioned, both driveways are located at the cul-de-sac of both streets. A clear line of sight should be provided between a vehicle exiting the driveway and the traveled way. The project site plan shows trees that would be planted along both streets. The canopies of the trees should be maintained so that they do not block the vision of exiting drivers. Both streets permit on-street parking and could obstruct the vision of exiting drivers if there
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 16
Public Storage Site Plan

LINDA VISTA AVENUE

LINDA VISTA AVENUE
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 17
Public Storage Civil Site Plan
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 18
Public Storage Civil Site Plan (cont.)

SAN RAFAEL AVENUE

SAN RAFAEL AVENUE
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 39
were cars parked next to the driveways. The entire cul-de-sac at the end of Linda Vista Avenue should be painted with red curb to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct the vision of exiting drivers.

Similarly, half of the cul-de-sac along the project frontage on San Rafael Avenue should be painted with red curb to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct the vision of exiting drivers. Providing red curb adjacent to a driveway would allow drivers to see along the traveled way. If red curb is not provided, a large vehicle could potentially block the line of sight along the roadway.

Recommendation: Red curb should be painted in the cul-de-sac on Linda Vista Avenue Recommendation: Red curb should be painted along the project frontage at the San Rafael cul-de-sac

Project Driveway Operations
Since the leasing office would be located near the Linda Vista Avenue driveway, it is presumed most trips would occur at this driveway. In a worst-case scenario where all vehicle trips utilize one driveway, the trips that are estimated to occur are 11 inbound trips and 18 outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 30 inbound trips and 20 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Due to the relatively low traffic volume along both streets, significant operational issues related to vehicle queueing and vehicle delay for inbound and outbound traffic are not expected to occur at either driveway. Vehicles turning into the project site from either street may block the travel lane momentarily due to vehicles slowing down to turn into the driveway, but this would not have a significant effect on traffic operations. Given the small number of estimated outbound trips at each driveway, the probability of two or more outbound vehicles exiting the site at the same time would be low. The maximum queue is not expected to affect the on- site circulation.

Vehicle On-Site Circulation
The project would provide mostly 90-degree uniform parking stalls throughout the project site. Parking spaces would be located perpendicular to buildings and the northern project boundary. The project proposes internal drive aisles of at least 26 feet in width throughout the parking areas, which is adequate to allow vehicles to maneuver in and out of 90-degree parking spaces.

On-site vehicle circulation was also evaluated to identify whether there are dead-end aisles within the parking areas. There would be one dead-end within the project site located near the rear of Building 2.

The site plan shows a gate that prevents entry to the dead-end fire access road.

Parking Stall Dimensions
Parking spaces are shown to be 18 feet long by 9 feet wide for standard parking spaces. According to the City of Mountain View Zoning Code all standard parking stalls should be at least 8.5 feet in width by 17 feet in length. The proposed parking space dimensions would meet the City requirements.

Truck, Garbage, and Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicle access would be provided along Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. The site plan provides adequate circulation for trucks and emergency vehicles. The site plan shows a trash enclosure within the parking area located near Building 1. Trash collection vehicles can access the enclosure area via either project driveway.
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 40
Parking Supply
Vehicular Parking
The vehicular parking requirements for the project were calculated based on the City of Mountain View municipal code (Chapter 36.32.50). The city’s municipal code does not specifically address requirements for affordable housing. Based on the standard rate for multi-family residential developments, parking is required at a rate of 1.5 spaces per studio or one-bedroom unit under 650 s.f. and two spaces per one-bedroom over 650 s.f. and two-or-more bedroom units. Based on the proposed unit mix of 2 studios, 49 one-bedroom, 29 two-bedroom, and 28 three-bedroom units, the affordable housing building would be required to provide 191 parking spaces.

The Public Storage portion of the project is required to provide parking at 1 space per 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area and 2 spaces for any resident manager. The project proposes an option to have an on- site facility manager. Based on the proposed 408,964 s.f. of floor space for the Public Storage, the project would be required to provide 206 parking spaces (204 for the floor space and 2 for an on-site resident manager).

Parking Demand Analysis
Since residents of an affordable housing development are less likely to own multiple vehicles, a parking analysis was conducted to determine the number of spaces an affordable housing development should provide. The analysis included parking occupancy counts on a typical weekday and a Saturday at two affordable housing developments in the area. The peak parking demand for residential uses are typically in the middle of the night. Therefore, parking occupancy counts were conducted between 2:00 and 3:00 AM.

Since parking demand at a personal storage facility is expected to be less than the requirements of the City’s municipal code, a parking analysis of similar Public Storage facilities was conducted to determine parking demand. The parking analysis included parking occupancy counts at two similar Public Storage facilities on a typical weekday and a Saturday. Parking occupancy counts at the Public Storage facilities were conducted every 15 minutes from 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM. Additionally, previous parking occupancy counts for a personal storage facility were used for the analysis.

The following sites were counted for the parking analysis:

Affordable Housing:

1. Evelyn Family Apartments (779 E. Evelyn Avenue, Mountain View, CA)

2. Parkview Family Apartments (360 Meridian Avenue, San Jose, CA)* *Site contains 44 closed garages. It is assumed all 44 garages contained one parked vehicle

Public Storage:

1. Public Storage (1040 Terra Bella Avenue, Mountain View, CA)

2. Public Storage (1060 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, CA)

3. Public Storage (875 E Arques Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA) (Prior Parking Study in 2019)

4. Public Storage (317 Weddell Drive, Sunnyvale, CA) (Prior Parking Study in 2019)

5. Public Storage (5679 Santa Teresa Boulevard, San Jose, CA) (Prior Parking Study in 2019)

The parking occupancy counts can be found in Appendix E. 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 41
Table 8 shows the results of the parking occupancy counts of similar affordable housing developments on a typical weekday and a Saturday. The results show that similar affordable housing developments in the region have an average of 1.36 parked vehicles per unit and .83 parked vehicles per bedroom on a typical weekday and 1.31 parked vehicles per unit and .80 parked vehicles per bedroom on a Saturday.

Table 8
Parking Demand (Affordable Housing)

The project would provide 10 units for individuals that are developmentally disabled and 27 units for rapid housing. The applicant has provided information based on similar projects, stating the parking ratios provided for these uses are .85 spaces per unit for the individuals that are developmentally disabled and .6 spaces per unit for rapid housing. These ratios have been observed at similar developments from Alta Housing. The remaining 71 units would require 1.36 parking spaces per unit, as found in the parking occupancy count study.

Based on the parking ratios provided by the applicant and the observed parking demand at similar affordable housing developments in the region, the affordable housing component of the project would be required to provide 123 parking spaces (see Table 9). The project proposes to implement a TDM program to reduce the parking demand generated by the project. Based on the TDM strategies that would reduce vehicle ownership rates, the TDM program is conservatively estimated to reduce parking demand by 15% with the possibility to reduce parking demand by up to 40%. Therefore, the affordable housing component of the project should provide a minimum of 74 parking spaces.

Table 9
Parking Requirement (Affordable Housing)

Table 10 shows the results of the parking occupancy counts of Public Storage facilities on a typical weekday and a Saturday. The results show that Public Storage facilities in the region have an average peak parking demand of .07 parked vehicles per 1,000 s.f. on a typical weekday and on a Saturday.

The highest facility had a maximum demand of .17 parked vehicles per 1,000 s.f. and .15 parked vehicles per 1,000 s.f. on a typical weekday and a Saturday, respectively. It is recommended that the average parked vehicle rate be used to calculate the peak parking demand instead of the maximum parking demand rate to eliminate potential outliers. Based on the average peak parking demand rate for Weekday Saturday
Location
1 779 E. Evelyn Avenue 116 191 194 184 178 1.586 0.963 1.534 0.932 2 360 Meridian Avenue1 90 148 106 96 92 1.067 0.648 1.022 0.621 Weighted Average 1.36 0.83 1.31 0.80
Notes:

1. Bedroom Count is unavailable. It is assumed this site would have a similar ratio of units to bedrooms.

Saturday Demand
per Unit
per
Bedroom
Max. Observed
Parking DemandUnits
Weekday Demand
Site
#
Bed-
rooms
Parking
Spaces
Max. Observed
Parking Demand per Unit
per
Bedroom
Units Required

0.85 per unit 10 9
Rapid Housing 0.60 per bedoom 27 17
Affordable Units 1.36 per unit 71 97
Total 108 123
Transportation Demand Management (-40%) -49
Total Parking Required 74
Ratio
Individuals with Different Mental Abilities
Affordable Housing Component
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 42
Public Storage facilities, the Public Storage site should provide a minimum of 29 parking spaces (.07 parking spaces X 408,964 s.f.).

Table 10
Parking Demand (Public Storage)

Project Parking
The project proposes to provide 96 parking spaces within the two-level parking garage for the affordable housing site and 66 surface parking spaces within the Public Storage site. The affordable housing site would provide 27 fewer spaces than the recommended number of parking spaces based on the parking ratios provided by the applicant and the observed parking demand at similar affordable housing developments in the region. The project proposes to implement a TDM program that would conservatively reduce parking demand by 15% and up to 40%.With the implementation of the TDM program, the proposed 96 parking spaces for the affordable housing site is adequate. The Public Storage site would provide 37 more parking spaces than the demand observed at other Public Storage facilities.

Bicycle Parking
The bicycle parking requirements for the project were calculated based on the City of Mountain View municipal code. Since parking requirements for affordable housing are not specifically addressed, it is assumed bicycle parking is required at the same rate as multi-family dwellings. According to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards (Chapter 36.32.50), bicycle parking for the proposed project is required at a rate of one secure bicycle parking space per unit for residents and one short-term space per 10 units for guests. The City’s Bicycle Parking Standards do not require any bicycle parking spaces for personal storage facilities.

Based on the City’s bicycle parking requirements, the project would be required to provide a total of 108 secure bicycle parking spaces and 11 short-term bicycle parking spaces for guests. The City’s definition of long-term and short-term bicycle parking is described below.

The affordable housing site would provide a total of 108 bicycle spaces for residents and 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The site plan for the public storage facility shows two short-term bike racks near the leasing office. The project meets the required number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces. The site plan shows a secure bicycle storage room and bike repair station on the ground level of the residential building. Short-term bike racks for guests are shown near the entrance to the lobby and near the entrance to the bicycle storage room.

City of Mountain View Classification of Bicycle Parking Facilities Class I facilities. Intended for long-term parking (e.g., for employees); protects against theft of entire bicycle and of its components and accessories. The facility shall also protect the bicycles from Weekday Saturday
Location
1 1040 Terra Bella Ave, Mt. View 52,610 9 8 0.171 0.152 2 1060 Stewart Dr, Sunnyvale 293,455 12 15 0.041 0.051
3 875 E. Arques Ave, Sunnyvale 216,607 13 14 0.060 0.065 4 317 Weddell Dr, Sunnyvale 47,796 4 4 0.084 0.084
5 5679 Santa Teresa Blvd, San Jose 70,278 7 6 0.100 0.085 Weighted Average 0.07 0.07
Maximum Observed 0.17 0.15
Saturday
per 1,000
GSF
Max. Observed
Parking Demand
Weekday
Site
#
Gross
Square
Feet (GSF)
Max. Observed
Parking Demand
per 1,000
GSF
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 43
inclement weather, including wind-driven rain. Three (3) design alternatives for Class I facilities are as follows:
(a) Bicycle locker. A fully enclosed, weather-resistant space accessible only by the owner or operator of the bicycle. Bicycle lockers may be premanufactured or designed for individual sites.

All bicycle lockers shall be fitted with key locking mechanisms. This is the preferred Class I facility;

(b) Restricted access. Class III bicycle parking facilities located within an interior locked room or locked enclosure accessible by key only to the owners or operators of the bicycles parked within. The maximum capacity of each restricted room or enclosure shall be ten (10) bicycles; and

(c) Enclosed cages. An exterior enclosure for individual bicycles, where contents are visible from the sides but the top is covered, and which can be securely locked by a user-provided lock. This type of facility is only to be used for retail and service uses and multiple-family development.

(d) Other. Class I facilities other than lockers, restricted access rooms or enclosed cages, but providing the same level of security, may be approved by the zoning administrator. A written building management policy of permitting bicycles to be stored in private offices or multi-family dwellings (including apartments, townhomes and condominiums), or in designated areas within the structure where adequate security is provided, may be approved by the zoning administrator as an alternative to Class I facilities.

Class II and Class III facilities. Intended for short term parking (e.g., for shoppers, visitors). A stationary object to which the user can lock the frame and both wheels. Should be protected from weather whenever possible. The zoning administrator may require either a Class II or Class III facility depending on where the facilities are to be located.

(a) Class II. Class II facilities are designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault and therefore the facility need not be within constant visual range. A Class II rack shall accept padlocks and high security, U-shaped locks.

(b) Class III. Class III facilities are less secure and, therefore, shall be within constant visual range of persons within the adjacent structure or located in well-traveled pedestrian areas.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Assessment
The following describes the existing and future transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities that serve the site and evaluates whether appropriate bicycle and pedestrian access and transit service are provided between the site and nearby destinations.

Pedestrian Transportation
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Pedestrian access to the project site is provided via sidewalks on Terra Bella Avenue, San Rafael Avenue and Linda Vista Avenue. The affordable housing building would reconstruct the sidewalks along the project frontage and provide walkways and a pedestrian plaza to and from the sidewalk to building entrances. Similarly, the public storage facility would reconstruct the sidewalks along its frontage and provide walkways throughout the project site. The project proposes to upgrade the San Rafael Avenue/Terra Bella Avenue intersection with a raised intersection and install “ladder” style 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 44
crosswalks along all approaches (see Figure 19). A raised crosswalk would reduce vehicle speeds approaching the intersection, decreasing the likelihood of vehicle and pedestrian collisions. A new curb ramp is proposed at the northwest corner in front of the proposed project. Curb ramps at the remaining three corners would be reconstructed to accommodate the new raised intersection. The project also proposes to construct a new curb ramp to serve the existing crosswalk near the cul-de-sac along Linda Vista Avenue. The crosswalk will be restriped to be a high-visibility “ladder” style crosswalk.

Pedestrian Infrastructure, Safety, and User Experience
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. A complete network of sidewalks is present along all of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all of the signalized study intersections in the study area.

According to the 2015 General Plan, a neighborhood is walkable when people can travel comfortably and safely on foot to many destinations. Convenient walking distance is considered to be a half mile to a mile, a walk that would take 10 to 20 minutes. Within a mile of the project site, there are a few restaurants and a grocery store (along Shoreline Boulevard at Montecito Avenue) and bus stops along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road. Other pedestrian generators include San Veron Park and the Stevens Creek multi-use trail.

As part of the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements, the Shoreline Boulevard/Middlefield Road intersection will be upgraded to include a protected intersection design, which will include a pedestrian refuge area that is highly visible to drivers and will reduce the crossing distance across the wide major arterials of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road. Additionally, the sidewalks and curb ramps at the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue intersection will be reconstructed and new bus stops added at the intersection servicing the dedicated bus lane.

ADA Access
ADA curb ramps are present at the Linda Vista Avenue/Terra Bella Avenue intersection, which connect the project sites to pedestrian generators along Shoreline Boulevard. As previously described in Chapter 2, ADA curb ramps are missing along the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners of the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue intersection and the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners of the Shoreline Boulevard/Middlefield Road intersection. It is assumed that the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements will reconstruct the curb ramps described above to be ADA-compliant curb ramps. With these improvements continuous ADA-compliant pedestrian facilities would connect the project sites to pedestrian generators along Shoreline Boulevard.

Pedestrian Quality of Service
Pedestrian quality of service (PQOS) identifies the level of comfort for pedestrians on any given roadway. Mountain View’s Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV), published in May 2021, includes a PQOS map (see Figure 20) that shows continuity or gaps in the pedestrian facilities as indicated with a PQOS score ranging from 1 to 5. A higher PQOS score indicates a low quality of service. The PQOS metric in the AccessMV document covers the following factors:
• Proximity to a variety of destinations and amenities
• Street connectivity and directness of routes to destinations • Presence of a continuous network of pedestrian facilities • Motor vehicle traffic speed; and
• Street width and intersection conditions

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Figure 19
Proposed Intersection Improvements (San Rafael Ave and Terra Bella Ave) Terra Bella Ave
San Rafael Ave
Figure 20
Pedestrian Quality of Service
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Source: Access MV, City of Mountain View, 2021
Site Location
85 237
101
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 47
Based on the PQOS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a PQOS greater than 2, which is not desirable:
• Terra Bella Avenue (PQOS 3)
• Linda Vista Avenue (north of San Ardo Way) (PQOS 3)
• Linda Vista Avenue (south of San Ardo Way (PQOS 5)
• San Rafael Avenue (PQOS 4)
• Middlefield Road (between Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard) (PQOS 4&5) • Shoreline Boulevard (north of Middlefield Road (PQOS 5) The project would have an adverse effect on pedestrian operations because the project is expected to add vehicle trips to San Rafael Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, Terra Bella Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Shoreline Boulevard, which have a PQOS score of 3 or more. As described above, it is assumed that the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade existing pedestrian facilities along Shoreline Boulevard and at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue.

Additionally, the project would install several improvement features within the project vicinity, including a raised intersection, upgraded curb ramps, and restriped crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. The planned improvements by the City of Mountain View and the proposed improvements from the project would increase pedestrian comfort and safety while improving the pedestrian quality of service and are consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan.

Bicycle Assessment
Bicycle Access and Circulation
Bicycle access to the project site is via Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. There are bike lanes on Shoreline Boulevard that connect bicyclists from the North Bayshore area and downtown Mountain View to Terra Bella Avenue and the project area. Terra Bella Avenue carries low traffic, which is conducive to bicycle riders. Part-time bike lanes along Middlefield Road connect the project area to the Whisman area.

As part of the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements, the Shoreline Boulevard/Middlefield Road intersection will be upgraded to include a protected intersection design, which will include a refuge area that is highly visible to drivers and provides a dedicated crosswalk for bicyclists. Additionally, the bike lanes along Shoreline Boulevard, between Middlefield Road and the US 101 Overcrossing, will be upgraded to a protected bike lane with a 2-foot buffer between the bike lanes and vehicular traffic. The North Bayshore Precise Plan also identifies a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing along Shoreline Boulevard over US 101. The overcrossing would provide a safe connection for bicyclists between the project site and the North Bayshore area.

The project would provide secure bicycle storage for residents on the ground level of the affordable housing building. A locked access door located along Terra Bella Avenue would provide direct access to the bicycle storage room. Additionally, short-term bicycle parking spaces for guests would be located on the project frontage along Terra Bella Avenue. The public storage site would provide two short-term bike racks near the leasing office.

Bicycle Infrastructure, Safety, and User Experience
The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update evaluates the quality of the bicycle network in the City in terms of connectivity gaps and low stress gaps. The plan identifies spot gaps and quality gaps along Middlefield Road. Spot gaps refer to point-specific locations lacking dedicated bicycle facilities or other treatments to accommodate safe and comfortable bicycle travel; while quality gaps are links of an existing bikeway that are deficient or have operational shortcomings. The plan also identifies the low 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 48
stress bicycle network. Low stress segments include Class I separated paths and streets with low traffic volumes, low traffic speeds, and bike facilities such as a protected bike lane or a bike boulevard. These are facilities where people feel most comfortable biking because they typically have the least interaction with motor-vehicles. The planned bicycle improvements along Shoreline Boulevard would increase bicyclist comfort.

It is expected that residents of the affordable housing would generate some bicycle trips, which could utilize the existing bike lanes and proposed upgraded protected bike lanes along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road to get to Downtown Mountain View, the Mountain View Transit Center, and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and Whisman areas. According to the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, the proportion of Mountain View residents that bicycle to work is about 6.5 percent, which equates to 2-4 new bicycle trips during the AM and PM peak hours for the project.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
The City’s AccessMV report includes a bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) map (see Figure 21) to identify the perceived comfort and safety of existing roads and bikeway facilities from the perspective of cyclists, as indicated with a BLTS score ranging from 1 to 4. A higher BLTS score indicates that the bikeway is comfortable for a more confident adult. A BLTS score of 1 is comfortable for all ages and abilities, a BLTS score of 2 is comfortable for an average adult, while a BLTS score of 4 indicates that the streets are comfortable only for highly confident riders. The metric (ranging from 1 to 4) in the AccessMV document covers the following factors:
• Number of through lanes or street width
• Posted speed limit or prevailing vehicle speed
• Presence and type of bicycle facilities
• Presence of traffic signals

Based on the BLTS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a BLTS greater than 2, which is undesirable:
• Shoreline Boulevard (BLTS 3)
• Middlefield Road (BLTS 3)
• Moffett Boulevard (BLTS 4)

The project would create an adverse effect on bicycle operations because the project would add vehicle trips to Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and Moffett Boulevard, which have a BLTS score of 3 or more. The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes Class IV cycle tracks along Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard and a Class II full time bike lane along Middlefield Road. The Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade the bicycle facilities along Shoreline Boulevard, between US 101 and Montecito Avenue with protected bike lanes. The planned improvements by the City of Mountain View would increase bicyclist comfort and safety while improving the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and are consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan.

The AccessMV report also includes a BLTS map considering the planned bicycle facilities listed in the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018), the VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018), the City of Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan (2015), the Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan (2008), and several area precise plans. With the planned improvements identified in these documents, Middlefield Road is expected to continue to have a BLTS score of 3. All other streets in the project area would have a BLTS score of 2 or lower.

Figure 21
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue TransportaƟon Analysis
Source: Access MV, City of Mountain View, 2021
Site Location
85 237
101
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 50
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Schools
The project site is located within the boundary of Theuerkauf Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School, which are about 0.8 mile southwest, 0.6 mile west, and 4.3 miles south of the project site, respectively. Some elementary and middle school students may wish to walk or bike to school. Walking and Biking Suggested Routes to School Maps for these schools can be found in Appendix F. Pedestrians and bicyclists could walk or bike from the project site to the elementary school via Shoreline Boulevard and Montecito Avenue. Pedestrians could walk from the project site to the middle school via Terra Bella Avenue. Bicyclists from the project site could utilize bike lanes along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road to reach the middle school.

Transit Assessment
Transit Facilities, Service, and Access
The project site is served by VTA Route 40 and MvGo Shuttle B with bus stops located along Shoreline Boulevard, approximately ¼ -mile west of the project site.

As part of the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements, sidewalks and curb ramps at the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue intersection will be reconstructed, and four new bus stops will be constructed at the intersection servicing the dedicated bus lane. Transit operations at the Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue stops will be improved in the peak hour direction since buses will utilize the dedicated bus lane and bus stops.

Transit Operations
It is expected that the residents of the affordable housing would generate some transit trips to get to the North Bayshore area, the downtown area, or to other destinations. According to the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, approximately 5.1 percent of Mountain View residents use public transit to get to work. Applying the 5.1 percent transit mode share equates to 2-3 new transit riders during the AM and PM peak hours. This new ridership generated by the project could be accommodated by existing services.

Due to the small number of new vehicle trips generated by the project, the project would result in a minimal increase in vehicle delay at the study intersections and would not cause a noticeable change in transit travel time and vehicle delay for the bus routes in the study area. The completion of the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvement project will decrease travel time and delay for transit in the peak direction.

Transportation Demand Management
The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%. The project also proposes multi-modal infrastructure improvements that could encourage the use of alternative transportation and reduce vehicle trips. These improvements include restriping crosswalks, installing a raised intersection, and installing accessible bicycle storage from the project’s frontage along Terra Bella Avenue. The proposed TDM measures and design features would encourage use of alternative transportation modes (walking, bicycle, and transit) and reduce the likelihood of vehicle ownership. A TDM plan was prepared in September 2022 by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. The following design features and TDM measures would be implemented as part of the TDM plan:
• Transportation Management Association (TMA) Membership • On-Site Carshare
1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 51
• Bicycle Parking
• Collaborative Workspace
• Pedestrian-Oriented Site Design
• Delivery-Supported Amenities (Front Desk, Food Delivery Drop-Off Area, etc) • Family TDM Amenities (Ground Level Storage for strollers, carts, etc.) • Shared Bicycles and Resource Center
• Bike Repair and Wash Station
• Bike Training and Workshops
• TDM Coordinator and Mobility Concierge
• Informational/Promotional Materials
• Pre-Tax Transportation Benefits

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 52

5. Conclusions
The transportation analysis of the project was evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Mountain View, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program’s Transportation Impact Guidelines (October 2014), and by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA VMT Analysis
Evaluation of Screening Criteria
The project consists of 108 units of affordable housing and a 408,964 s.f. Public Storage facility. Since 100% of the residential units would be affordable, the residential portion of the project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required.

Intersection Operations
The operations analysis shows that most of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, under background conditions and background plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Shoreline Boulevard & US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp/La Avenida Street currently operates at LOS F during both peak hours under background 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Transportation Analysis January 23, 2023

P a g e | 53
conditions, with and without the project. Since the project would not cause the critical movement delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection.

The intersection of Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour, with and without the project under background conditions, and would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Under background conditions, the intersection would operate at a substandard level of service during the AM peak hour. Since the addition of project generated trips would not cause the critical delay to increase by 4 or more seconds, the project would not have an adverse effect at the intersection during the AM peak hour. The addition of project generated trips would degrade the operating level of service from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the affordable housing portion of the project. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%.The multi- modal improvements proposed by the project would also encourage future residents to walk, bike, or use transit instead of driving. With the implementation of a TDM plan, the PM peak hour would no longer degrade to LOS E and would not have an adverse effect on traffic operations at this intersection.

Intersection Queuing Analysis
Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue
The existing southbound left-turn storage length is approximately 150 feet. As part of the mitigation measures for a previously approved project, the left-turn storage pocket will be extended to 350 feet under background conditions. Under all scenarios, the Shoreline Boulevard & Terra Bella Avenue intersection was calculated to have insufficient storage for the southbound left-turn movement during the AM peak hour. The project would add 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left- turn movement. This equates to at most one vehicle during the heaviest cycles and would cause an adverse effect at the intersection. Based on the calculations described in the TDM plan, the implementation of a TDM program is estimated to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project by 15%.With this reduction, the project is estimated to add 10 vehicles during the AM peak hour to the southbound left-turn movement and would not extend the 95th percentile AM peak hour queue under background conditions.

P a g e | 54
Parking Supply
Vehicle Parking
Parking occupancy counts were conducted at similar affordable housing developments, which yielded an average parking demand of 1.36 spaces per unit. The project would provide 10 units for individuals that are developmentally disabled and 27 units for rapid housing. The applicant has provided information based on similar projects, stating the parking ratios provided for these uses are .85 spaces per unit for the individuals that are developmentally disabled and .6 spaces per unit for rapid housing.

These ratios have been observed at similar developments from Alta Housing. The remaining 71 units would require 1.36 parking spaces per unit, as found in the parking occupancy count study.

Parking counts also were conducted at similar storage facilities. These yielded an average parking demand of 0.07 space per 1,000 square feet. Based on the observed parking demand at similar Public Storage facilities in the region, the proposed project should provide 29 parking spaces for the Public Storage site.

The project proposes to provide 96 parking spaces within the two-level parking garage for the affordable housing site and 66 surface parking spaces within the Public Storage site. The affordable housing site would provide 27 fewer spaces than the recommended number of parking spaces based on the parking ratios provided by the applicant and the observed parking demand at similar affordable housing developments in the region. The project proposes to implement a TDM program that would conservatively reduce parking demand by 15% and up to 40%.With the implementation of the TDM program, the proposed 96 parking spaces for the affordable housing site is adequate. The Public Storage site would provide 37 more parking spaces than the demand observed at other Public Storage facilities.

P a g e | 55
Shoreline Boulevard, which have a PQOS score of 3 or more. As described above, it is assumed that the Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade existing pedestrian facilities along Shoreline Boulevard and at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard/Terra Bella Avenue.

The project would create an adverse effect on bicycle operations because the project would add vehicle trips to Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and Moffett Boulevard, which have a BLTS score of 3 or more. The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes Class IV cycle tracks along Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard and a Class II full time bike lane along Middlefield Road. The Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements would upgrade the bicycle facilities along Shoreline Boulevard between US 101 and Montecito Avenue with protected bike lanes. The planned improvements by the City of Mountain View would increase bicyclist comfort and safety while improving the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and is consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan.

The project is expected to generate between 2-3 new transit riders during the AM and PM peak hours.

1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Transportation Analysis
Technical Appendices

Appendix A
Turning Movement Counts

N SHORELINE BLVD N SHORELINE BLVDTERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:1 N SHORELINE BLVD & TERRA BELLA AVE AMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:07:45 AM - 08:45 AMPeak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 787 931124153845548691930.96NSEW0.910.890.970.88(2,494)(2,016)(308)(402)(460)(176)(2,309)(1,453)167391891520224430052611796380TERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE N SHORELINE BLVDN SHORELINE BLVD 181158NSEW923210835
6000411240001102NSEW240004200000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn7:00 AM 0 4 91 1 12 810 3 2 0 4 2 244 0 0 0 01,2681 13 5 257:15 AM 0 1 117 0 14 910 3 1 0 3 1 266 2 2 1 11,4850 16 5 147:30 AM 0 0 134 1 16 1090 4 1 0 4 0 308 0 3 1 11,6922 14 8 157:45 AM 0 2 180 0 15 1550 9 6 0 6 2 450 2 1 0 11,8251 20 8 468:00 AM 0 2 194 0 24 1410 9 5 0 7 5 461 2 1 1 111,8220 23 8 438:15 AM 0 2 220 0 21 1210 15 8 0 4 5 473 1 4 3 41,7990 23 8 468:30 AM 0 5 202 3 31 1090 10 5 0 3 3 441 3 5 1 21,7471 23 14 328:45 AM 0 9 219 2 21 1150 8 5 0 5 2 447 2 1 0 21,7903 18 7 339:00 AM 0 3 227 2 16 1060 12 4 0 5 3 438 1 3 4 01,7192 13 9 369:15 AM 0 4 187 1 19 1190 7 4 0 6 2 421 1 2 2 15 17 12 389:30 AM 0 5 220 1 35 1240 11 3 0 7 4 484 1 3 0 05 22 14 339:45 AM 0 4 171 3 24 971 13 4 0 8 3 376 0 1 0 23 12 8 25Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 5 0 0 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0Lights 11 786 38 91 516 16742 24 2 20 14 89 1,8030 0 0 3Mediums 0 5 0 0 9 01 0 0 0 1 0 160 0 0 0Total 43 24 2 20 15 89 11 796 38 91 526 167 1,8250 0 0 3 LINDA VISTA AVE LINDA VISTA AVETERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:2 LINDA VISTA AVE & TERRA BELLA AVE AMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:07:30 AM - 08:30 AMPeak 15-Minutes:08:00 AM - 08:15 AM 1 247265582072940.89NSEW0.630.820.750.71(66)(7)(137)(203)(196)(219)(150)(48)00006751445110212513200TERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE LINDA VISTA AVELINDA VISTA AVE 1117NSEW01100125
0000003211001300NSEW000000000000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn7:00 AM 0 5 2 0 0 02 4 4 0 0 4 30 0 0 0 11625 0 4 07:15 AM 0 4 2 0 0 10 0 10 0 2 12 35 0 0 1 01893 0 1 07:30 AM 0 3 3 0 0 01 3 14 0 3 13 47 0 0 0 02033 0 4 07:45 AM 0 10 4 0 0 11 5 8 0 1 14 50 1 0 1 01992 0 4 08:00 AM 0 7 2 0 0 00 2 12 0 0 22 57 2 1 0 11664 0 8 08:15 AM 0 5 4 0 0 00 1 11 0 1 18 49 4 0 0 01515 0 4 08:30 AM 0 0 5 0 0 00 3 17 0 1 13 43 4 0 0 01553 1 0 08:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 00 2 6 0 0 6 17 1 0 2 01700 0 0 09:00 AM 0 10 2 0 0 10 0 12 0 0 4 42 2 0 1 01852 0 10 19:15 AM 0 6 1 0 0 00 2 16 0 2 12 53 5 0 0 04 0 9 19:30 AM 0 10 3 0 0 00 8 22 0 0 8 58 6 0 2 01 0 4 29:45 AM 0 2 2 0 0 00 2 16 0 0 0 32 2 1 2 53 0 7 0Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0Lights 25 13 19 0 1 011 45 14 5 66 0 2012 0 0 0Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0Total 11 45 14 5 67 0 25 13 20 0 1 0 2032 0 0 0 LINDA VISTA AVE LINDA VISTA AVEMIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:3 LINDA VISTA AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD AMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:07:45 AM - 08:45 AMPeak 15-Minutes:08:00 AM - 08:15 AM 35 84728422204216800.80NSEW0.730.780.500.85(217)(73)(1,694)(909)(1,535)(892)(2)()260959652003962517002000MIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD LINDA VISTA AVELINDA VISTA AVE 8061NSEW00423501
110012320000001702NSEW100001110000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 00 2 33 3 0 61 115 0 0 0 16710 10 0 37:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 00 2 30 1 0 77 120 1 0 1 19280 6 0 37:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 00 2 49 6 0 80 153 0 0 2 31,1090 13 0 17:45 AM 0 1 0 0 2 00 4 79 3 0 168 283 0 0 2 31,1860 16 0 108:00 AM 0 1 0 0 3 00 6 122 5 0 218 372 1 0 3 11,1520 11 0 68:15 AM 0 0 0 0 4 00 7 121 6 0 144 301 0 0 1 39910 14 0 58:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 8 74 3 0 122 230 0 0 0 19130 18 0 58:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 00 8 88 6 0 128 249 0 0 0 28850 16 0 29:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 3 62 4 0 116 211 0 0 0 68380 23 0 39:15 AM 0 0 0 0 5 00 1 71 3 0 125 223 0 0 1 40 14 0 49:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 00 4 58 3 0 117 202 0 0 0 00 13 0 59:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 6 52 4 0 127 202 0 0 0 00 10 0 3Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0Lights 2 0 0 9 0 2624 394 0 0 650 58 1,1800 17 0 0Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 01 2 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0Total 25 396 0 0 652 59 2 0 0 9 0 26 1,1860 17 0 0 N SHORELINE BLVD N SHORELINE BLVDTERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:1 N SHORELINE BLVD & TERRA BELLA AVE PMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:04:45 PM - 05:45 PMPeak 15-Minutes:05:15 PM - 05:30 PM 937 90017973632939207430.98NSEW0.940.800.920.85(2,444)(2,458)(471)(199)(116)(545)(1,736)(2,451)266431361033449154008627604210TERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE N SHORELINE BLVDN SHORELINE BLVD 2435NSEW13211150
0000400120020157NSEW002013700000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn4:00 PM 0 4 138 1 10 1510 40 0 0 12 2 413 1 0 0 01,7315 39 8 34:15 PM 0 3 148 1 6 1760 30 1 0 7 1 412 1 0 1 01,7915 21 5 84:30 PM 0 0 129 2 4 1740 58 2 0 9 0 418 0 0 0 11,8777 24 6 34:45 PM 0 1 162 1 11 2160 31 2 0 7 1 488 0 0 0 01,95510 28 8 105:00 PM 0 0 152 2 13 1910 45 4 0 5 2 473 0 2 1 11,91213 37 4 55:15 PM 0 4 142 3 6 2350 45 1 0 11 3 498 2 1 1 01,86010 27 4 75:30 PM 0 2 148 0 13 2200 33 2 0 10 4 496 3 1 1 11,76511 44 5 45:45 PM 0 1 107 1 10 2270 35 0 0 8 3 445 1 1 1 01,67312 32 6 36:00 PM 0 1 150 0 7 1840 24 1 0 6 3 421 1 1 0 01,5676 31 5 36:15 PM 0 2 145 0 5 1490 46 2 0 4 2 403 3 0 0 14 25 5 146:30 PM 0 0 136 1 10 1820 26 1 0 9 4 404 3 0 0 02 19 7 76:45 PM 0 2 92 0 21 1540 24 0 0 12 0 339 0 1 1 27 19 4 4Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 1 1 00 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0Lights 7 598 20 42 858 26154 9 44 33 10 132 1,9390 0 0 6Mediums 0 6 1 0 3 00 0 0 0 0 2 120 0 0 0Total 154 9 44 33 10 136 7 604 21 43 862 26 1,9550 0 0 6 LINDA VISTA AVE LINDA VISTA AVETERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:2 LINDA VISTA AVE & TERRA BELLA AVE PMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PMPeak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 18 594492022581140.90NSEW0.670.840.550.81(39)(45)(223)(110)(282)(161)(73)(71)140108681143202312350TERRA BELLA AVE TERRA BELLA AVE LINDA VISTA AVELINDA VISTA AVE 2100NSEW01001100
0000001200110411NSEW000100100000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn4:00 PM 0 5 2 0 1 00 1 8 0 1 26 51 0 0 4 01516 0 0 14:15 PM 0 2 3 0 0 00 2 5 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 01512 0 1 04:30 PM 0 5 0 0 0 30 2 7 0 0 6 33 0 1 2 21666 1 1 24:45 PM 0 4 0 0 0 00 1 6 0 0 18 39 0 0 0 01865 0 3 25:00 PM 0 2 1 0 0 00 1 13 0 1 25 51 0 0 0 11904 0 2 25:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 8 0 3 17 43 0 1 0 01781 0 1 85:30 PM 0 3 1 0 0 10 1 13 0 2 26 53 0 0 0 11821 0 2 35:45 PM 0 5 1 0 1 10 0 9 0 2 18 43 0 0 0 01615 0 0 16:00 PM 0 1 1 0 0 20 1 6 0 1 16 39 0 0 0 01612 0 3 66:15 PM 0 4 8 0 0 00 4 4 0 4 16 47 0 0 0 03 0 2 26:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 00 5 3 0 1 12 32 0 1 0 04 0 0 66:45 PM 0 6 0 0 0 10 2 10 0 0 14 43 0 0 1 08 0 1 1Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 1 0 20 0 0 0Lights 12 3 5 1 3 132 43 10 8 85 0 1872 0 0 0Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0Total 2 43 11 8 86 0 12 3 5 1 3 14 1902 0 0 0 LINDA VISTA AVE LINDA VISTA AVEMIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD (303) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:3 LINDA VISTA AVE & MIDDLEFIELD RD PMWednesday, June 1, 2022Date:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:04:45 PM - 05:45 PMPeak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 40 43411678206593910.90NSEW0.640.870.500.92(151)(117)(1,167)(1,659)(1,103)(1,626)(4)(1)1802216372006312723100020MIDDLEFIELD RD MIDDLEFIELD RD LINDA VISTA AVELINDA VISTA AVE 8020NSEW00204400
210000180000001502NSEW020000200000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 5 00 9 108 7 0 89 231 1 1 0 69810 8 0 44:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 01 4 131 7 0 81 239 0 0 0 01,0190 9 0 44:30 PM 0 0 0 0 11 01 9 112 10 0 85 240 0 0 0 51,0420 3 0 94:45 PM 0 0 0 0 5 00 12 147 6 0 95 271 0 0 0 01,1120 3 0 35:00 PM 0 0 0 0 7 00 6 146 7 0 89 269 0 0 0 41,1080 4 1 95:15 PM 0 0 0 0 5 01 4 162 5 0 80 262 0 0 2 21,0910 3 0 25:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 00 5 176 5 0 108 310 0 0 0 21,0460 6 1 45:45 PM 0 0 0 0 7 00 7 162 2 0 85 267 0 0 1 48910 1 0 36:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 00 6 135 6 0 90 252 0 0 2 48251 7 0 56:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 00 10 97 7 0 84 217 0 0 3 20 11 0 56:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 00 9 64 3 0 74 155 0 0 1 40 2 0 06:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 00 10 91 1 0 81 201 0 0 2 10 3 1 10Vehicle TypeLeftThruRightEastboundU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundTotalLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0Lights 0 0 2 22 0 1827 631 0 0 370 16 1,1101 23 0 0Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0Total 27 631 0 0 372 16 0 0 2 22 0 18 1,1121 23 0 0

Appendix B
City of Mountain View Approved Project List

Mountain View Background Projects
Sr. No. Address Applicant Project Description Status
1 1255 Pear Avenue The Sobrato Organization 231,210 s.f. office and 635 multi-family residential Approved
2 1100 La Avenida Street Eden Housing 100 affordable units Approved 3 555 W Middlefield Road Avalon Bay Communities 323 unit residential apartment Approved 4 2000 N Shoreline Boulevard
(Charleston East) Google Inc. 595,000 s.f. office Under Construction 5 1001 N Shoreline Boulevard Sares Regis Group of Northern California 203 unit residential apartment, 100 unit
condominium building, and six-level parkin
structure
Under Construction
6 777 W Middlefield Road Fortbay 716 unit residential apartment (including 144 affordable) Under Construction
7 1860-2159 Landings Drive, 1014-
1058 Huff Avenue, 900 Alta Avenue,
2000 N Shoreline Boulevard (Google
Landings)
Google Inc. 800,000 s.f. office Under Construction
8 2600 Marine Way (Intuit) Intuit 364,000 s.f. office Under Construction 9 Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) Robert Green Company 120,000 s.f. hotel with ground floor commercial and 52,000 s.f. mixed use building Approved

Appendix C
Tabulated Traffic Volumes

1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & La Avenida Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach Southeast Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 0 408 0 12 47 114 0 1219 0 1327 14 416 3557 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 76 0 0 12 19 0 75 0 91 0 0 273
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 12 18 0 5 0 5 0 0 40
555 W Middlefield Road 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7
Charleston East 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 312 0 0 379
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 6 23
777 W Middlefield Road 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 16
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
Google Landings 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 80 0 0 139
2600 Marine Way 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 0 0 36
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 143 0 0 24 37 0 191 0 504 0 17 273 Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background Conditions 0 551 0 12 71 151 0 1410 0 1831 14 433 4473 Project Trips 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 11
Existing + Project 0 411 0 12 47 114 0 1223 0 1327 14 420 3568 Background + Project 0 554 0 12 71 151 0 1414 0 1831 14 437 4484 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 0 651 0 0 0 0 0 1402 29 376 0 256 2714 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 52 94
1100 La Avenida Street 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 9
555 W Middlefield Road 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7
Charleston East 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 26
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 10 0 0 51 777 W Middlefield Road 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 8 0 0 47
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Google Landings 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 24 53
2600 Marine Way 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 18
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 0 16 Total Approved Trips0 58 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 29 0 80 94
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -29 0 0 0 -29 Background Conditions 0 709 0 0 0 0 0 1559 0 405 0 336 3009 Project Trips 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 5 0 0 25
Existing + Project 0 658 0 0 0 0 0 1415 29 381 0 256 2739 Background + Project 0 716 0 0 0 0 0 1572 0 410 0 336 3034 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Movements
08/05/22
09/25/18
Movements
08/05/22
09/25/18
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
AM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes
1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 188 576 232 155 20 26 27 1389 4 6 15 62 2700 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 42
1100 La Avenida Street 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
555 W Middlefield Road 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7
Charleston East 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 26
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 -15 37 86 4 90 82 -28 0 0 3 0 259 777 W Middlefield Road 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 38 1 0 0 0 58
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 10
Google Landings 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 29
2600 Marine Way 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 18
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 Total Approved Trips0 50 37 86 4 90 82 117 1 0 3 0 42
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 -12 0 12 0 -12 12 5 0 -5 0 Background Conditions 188 626 269 229 24 128 109 1494 17 11 18 57 3170 Project Trips 0 0 12 20 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 42
Existing + Project 188 576 244 175 20 32 31 1389 4 6 15 62 2742 Background + Project 188 626 281 249 24 134 113 1494 17 11 18 57 3212 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 0 1 0 0 99 7 30 19 37 21 67 19 300 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charleston East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
777 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Google Landings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2600 Marine Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background Conditions 0 1 0 0 99 7 30 19 37 21 67 19 300 Project Trips 3 3 0 0 23 11 8 5 0 0 12 5 70
Existing + Project 3 4 0 0 122 18 38 24 37 21 79 24 370 Background + Project 3 4 0 0 122 18 38 24 37 21 79 24 370 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022. 08/05/22
09/25/18
Movements
08/05/22
06/01/22
Movements
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
AM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes
1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 38 0 13 87 965 25 0 0 3 0 586 37 1754 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 16
Charleston East 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12
777 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 17
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7
Google Landings 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2600 Marine Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 Background Conditions 38 0 13 87 995 25 0 0 3 0 683 37 1881 Project Trips 5 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 27
Existing + Project 43 0 22 95 965 25 0 0 3 0 586 42 1781 Background + Project 43 0 22 95 995 25 0 0 3 0 683 42 1908 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022. 08/05/22
06/01/22
Movements
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
AM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes
1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & La Avenida Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach Southeast Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 0 2040 0 7 79 204 0 300 0 301 0 439 3370 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 61 0 0 33 53 0 69 0 84 0 0 300
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 7 11 0 16 0 15 0 0 49
555 W Middlefield Road 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9
Charleston East 0 302 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 64 0 0 371
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 24 36
777 W Middlefield Road 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 21 31
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9
Google Landings 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 77
2600 Marine Way 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 35
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 484 0 0 40 64 0 107 0 168 0 54 300 Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background Conditions 0 2524 0 7 119 268 0 407 0 469 0 493 4287 Project Trips 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 18
Existing + Project 0 2045 0 7 79 204 0 305 0 301 0 447 3388 Background + Project 0 2529 0 7 119 268 0 412 0 469 0 501 4305 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 0 1307 0 0 0 0 0 548 74 378 0 82 2389 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 48 96
1100 La Avenida Street 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 18
555 W Middlefield Road 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9
Charleston East 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 25
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 16 0 0 62 777 W Middlefield Road 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 21 0 0 68
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Google Landings 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 22
2600 Marine Way 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 7 0 0 18 Total Approved Trips0 155 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 44 0 62 96
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -74 0 0 0 -74 Background Conditions 0 1462 0 0 0 0 0 631 0 422 0 144 2659 Project Trips 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 11 0 0 37
Existing + Project 0 1320 0 0 0 0 0 561 74 389 0 82 2426 Background + Project 0 1475 0 0 0 0 0 644 0 433 0 144 2696 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Movements
08/05/22
09/25/18
Movements
08/05/22
09/25/18
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
PM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes
1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 53 1533 44 131 15 56 31 565 6 50 22 151 2657 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 48
1100 La Avenida Street 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6
555 W Middlefield Road 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9
Charleston East 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 25
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 -9 56 36 2 40 35 -5 0 0 2 0 157 777 W Middlefield Road 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 1 0 0 77
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 14
Google Landings 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20
2600 Marine Way 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 18 Total Approved Trips0 143 56 36 2 40 35 75 1 1 2 0 48
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 -6 0 6 0 -47 47 13 0 -13 0 Background Conditions 53 1676 100 161 17 102 66 593 54 64 24 138 3048 Project Trips 0 0 24 20 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 60
Existing + Project 53 1533 68 151 15 65 38 565 6 50 22 151 2717 Background + Project 53 1676 124 181 17 111 73 593 54 64 24 138 3108 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022.

Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 19 4 1 0 117 11 7 4 16 15 58 5 257 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charleston East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
777 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Google Landings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2600 Marine Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background Conditions 19 4 1 0 117 11 7 4 16 15 58 5 257 Project Trips 7 6 0 0 21 12 16 6 0 0 25 6 99
Existing + Project 26 10 1 0 138 23 23 10 16 15 83 11 356 Background + Project 26 10 1 0 138 23 23 10 16 15 83 11 356 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022. 08/05/22
09/25/18
Movements
08/05/22
06/01/22
Movements
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
PM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes
1020 1040 Terra Bella Avenue - PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions1 24 0 30 22 506 31 3 0 0 0 858 38 1512 Approved Project Trips
1255 Pear Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1100 La Avenida Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 23
Charleston East 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7
1001 N Shoreline Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
777 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 42
1555 W Middlefield Road 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10
Google Landings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
2600 Marine Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hope Street Lots (City Lots 4 and 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Approved Trips0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0
Shoreline Bus Lane Improvement Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 0 134 Background Conditions 24 0 30 22 533 31 3 0 0 0 1057 38 1738 Project Trips 6 0 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 40
Existing + Project 30 0 42 35 506 31 3 0 0 0 858 47 1552 Background + Project 30 0 42 35 533 31 3 0 0 0 1057 47 1778 1 Existing Volumes include a 1%/year growth rate from Count Date to Year 2022. 08/05/22
06/01/22
Movements
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
8/29/2022
PM
1040 Terra Bella Avenue Volumes

Appendix D
Level of Service Calculations

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Existing AM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Existing AM
Geometry: Existing AM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: No Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.848 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.6 Optimal Cycle: 93 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 12 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 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 12 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 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1219 0 0 408 0 416 14 1327 114 47 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 0.81 0.88 0.81 0.89 0.97 0.70 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.94 0.06 2.00 1.45 0.55 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2975 100 3067 2450 1010 2677 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.43 0.05 0.05 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.08 Uniform Del: 0.0 45.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 22.3 22.3 33.8 74.9 74.9 71.8 IncremntDel: 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 28.2 28.2 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 22.3 22.3 37.3 103.2 103 72.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 50.4 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 22.3 22.3 37.3 103.2 103 72.0 LOS by Move: A D A A C A C C D F F E HCM2kAvgQ: 0 29 0 0 4 0 6 6 32 6 6 0 ********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.411 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.3 Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 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: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 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: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 29 1402 0 0 651 0 256 0 376 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.79 1.00 0.70 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1663 5700 0 0 3800 0 2992 0 2677 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 68.1 16.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 35.6 0.0 37.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 70.1 16.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 70.1 16.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: E B A A B A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 11 0 0 8 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.613 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.9 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 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: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 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: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 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: 4 1389 27 232 576 188 62 15 6 26 20 155 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.88 0.96 0.89 0.64 0.70 0.78 0.73 0.79 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.48 0.52 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3710 72 1663 2702 882 1000 242 1488 809 622 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.01 0.61 0.61 0.23 0.83 0.83 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.32 Uniform Del: 73.8 18.1 18.1 52.0 2.8 2.8 64.6 64.6 59.6 62.6 62.6 37.7 IncremntDel: 8.6 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 8.6 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 82.4 18.6 18.6 54.9 2.8 2.8 73.2 73.2 59.7 63.9 63.9 38.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 82.4 18.6 18.6 54.9 2.8 2.8 73.2 73.2 59.7 63.9 63.9 38.1 LOS by Move: F B B D A A E E E E E D HCM2kAvgQ: 0 20 20 11 4 4 5 5 0 2 2 6 ********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.5] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 37 19 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 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 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 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 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 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 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 37 19 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 xxxxx 6.5 xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx 4.0 xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 229 229 78 xxxx 239 xxxxx 99 xxxx xxxxx 88 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 730 675 989 xxxx 666 xxxxx 1507 xxxx xxxxx 1520 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 720 663 989 xxxx 654 xxxxx 1507 xxxx xxxxx 1520 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.03 0.03 xxxx 0.00 xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.5 xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * B * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 779 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * A * * ApproachDel: 10.2 10.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:14 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 34.3] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 586 0 25 965 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 586 0 25 965 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 586 0 25 965 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 586 0 25 965 87 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 586 0 25 965 87 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1193 xxxx xxxxx 1426 1719 526 1052 xxxx xxxxx 586 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 145 xxxx xxxxx 98 91 502 669 xxxx xxxxx 999 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 126 xxxx xxxxx 92 83 502 669 xxxx xxxxx 999 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.06 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 34.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.7 xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: D * * * * * B * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 234 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 24.6 xxxxx 10.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * C * B * * * * * ApproachDel: 34.3 24.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: D C * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Existing PM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Existing PM
Geometry: Existing PM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: No Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.627 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.5 Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 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: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 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: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 300 0 0 2040 0 439 0 301 204 79 7 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 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 0.79 1.00 0.70 0.89 0.97 0.78 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2992 0 2677 2490 964 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.13 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.48 0.63 0.63 0.04 Uniform Del: 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 48.1 0.0 46.3 57.6 57.6 53.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.6 2.8 2.8 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 49.9 0.0 46.9 60.4 60.4 53.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 49.9 0.0 46.9 60.4 60.4 53.2 LOS by Move: A B A A C A D A D E E D HCM2kAvgQ: 0 3 0 0 19 0 11 0 7 7 7 0 ********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 145 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.565 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.5 Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 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: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 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: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 74 548 0 0 1307 0 82 0 378 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 64.4 7.8 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 41.9 0.0 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 70.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 42.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 70.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 42.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: E A A A B A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 3 0 0 17 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 125 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.614 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.9 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 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: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 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: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 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: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 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: 6 565 31 44 1533 53 151 22 50 56 15 131 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.99 0.91 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.62 0.67 0.78 0.58 0.63 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.93 0.07 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3558 195 1663 3644 126 1038 151 1488 886 237 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.26 Uniform Del: 62.0 12.3 12.3 52.1 10.7 10.7 42.6 42.6 37.1 38.9 38.9 30.3 IncremntDel: 80.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.4 4.0 4.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 142.5 12.4 12.4 53.0 11.1 11.1 46.6 46.6 37.3 39.4 39.4 30.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 142.5 12.4 12.4 53.0 11.1 11.1 46.6 46.6 37.3 39.4 39.4 30.5 LOS by Move: F B B D B B D D D D D C HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 5 2 17 17 7 7 2 3 3 4 ********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.9] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 16 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 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 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 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 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 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 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 16 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 226 215 66 220 222 117 117 xxxx xxxxx 73 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 734 687 1004 740 680 941 1484 xxxx xxxxx 1540 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 710 679 1004 726 673 941 1484 xxxx xxxxx 1540 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 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 763 xxxxx xxxx 872 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 9.9 xxxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * A * * A * * * * A * * ApproachDel: 9.9 9.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Existing PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:18 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 23.4] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 858 0 31 506 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 858 0 31 506 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 858 0 31 506 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 858 0 31 506 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 858 0 31 506 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 429 1084 1513 264 528 xxxx xxxxx 858 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 580 174 121 741 1049 xxxx xxxxx 791 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 580 163 112 741 1049 xxxx xxxxx 791 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.04 xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 11.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx 9.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * A * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 250 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 23.4 xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * C * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 11.2 23.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B C * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Background AM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Background AM
Geometry: Background AM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: No Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.097 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 85.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 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 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 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 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 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 0.80 0.87 0.80 0.89 0.97 0.78 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.94 0.06 2.00 1.40 0.60 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2961 96 3049 2362 1110 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.06 0.06 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.06 0.06 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.27 0.27 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.14 Uniform Del: 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 19.2 19.2 36.2 75.3 75.3 71.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 91.7 91.7 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 109 0.0 0.0 38.9 0.0 19.2 19.2 88.2 167.0 167 72.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 109 0.0 0.0 38.9 0.0 19.2 19.2 88.2 167.0 167 72.3 LOS by Move: A F A A D A B B F F F E HCM2kAvgQ: 0 45 0 0 6 0 6 6 62 10 10 1 ********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.597 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.9 Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.79 1.00 0.70 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 3800 0 2992 0 2677 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 47.5 0.0 50.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 47.5 0.0 50.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A B A A A A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 19 0 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.782 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.2 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 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: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 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: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 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: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 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: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.96 0.78 0.88 0.96 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.51 0.49 0.77 0.23 1.00 0.85 0.15 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3486 254 1663 2765 830 1306 412 1488 1433 269 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.15 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.55 0.55 0.21 0.72 0.72 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.31 0.31 0.78 0.78 0.08 0.78 0.78 0.48 Uniform Del: 75.6 28.6 28.6 60.0 8.0 8.0 74.6 74.6 67.0 68.9 68.9 43.6 IncremntDel: 3.3 2.0 2.0 11.1 0.1 0.1 33.0 33.0 0.3 18.3 18.3 0.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 78.9 30.6 30.6 71.1 8.0 8.0 107.6 108 67.2 87.3 87.3 44.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 78.9 30.6 30.6 71.1 8.0 8.0 107.6 108 67.2 87.3 87.3 44.3 LOS by Move: E C C E A A F F E F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 1 32 32 15 7 7 6 6 1 10 10 10 ********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.5] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Background AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:22 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 40.8] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1305 xxxx xxxxx 1504 1846 541 1082 xxxx xxxxx 683 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 120 xxxx xxxxx 85 76 491 652 xxxx xxxxx 919 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 103 xxxx xxxxx 80 69 491 652 xxxx xxxxx 919 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.06 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 40.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.9 xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: E * * * * * B * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 212 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.9 xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 27.2 xxxxx 10.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * D * B * * * * * ApproachDel: 40.8 27.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: E D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Background PM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Background PM
Geometry: Background PM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: No Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.780 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.5 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 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: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 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: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 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 0.79 1.00 0.70 0.89 0.97 0.78 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2992 0 2677 2402 1067 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.14 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.03 Uniform Del: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 50.4 0.0 51.0 57.9 57.9 51.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.5 7.8 7.8 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 54.6 0.0 57.5 65.6 65.6 51.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 54.6 0.0 57.5 65.6 65.6 51.7 LOS by Move: A B A A C A D A E E E D HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 29 0 13 0 13 10 10 0 ********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 145 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.578 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.4 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 40.3 0.0 45.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 40.4 0.0 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 40.4 0.0 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A B A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 5 0 0 17 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 165 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.708 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.5 Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 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: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 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: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 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: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 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: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.99 0.91 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.88 0.96 0.78 0.88 0.96 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.78 0.22 1.00 1.93 0.07 0.86 0.14 1.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3339 372 1663 3655 116 1447 252 1488 1455 242 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.52 0.52 0.18 0.65 0.65 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.24 0.71 0.71 0.39 Uniform Del: 77.6 23.3 23.3 59.7 18.9 18.9 68.3 68.3 57.9 72.0 72.0 48.7 IncremntDel: 26.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 9.8 9.8 0.5 13.0 13.0 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 103.9 23.4 23.4 60.4 19.9 19.9 78.1 78.1 58.3 85.0 85.0 49.3 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: 103.9 23.4 23.4 60.4 19.9 19.9 78.1 78.1 58.3 85.0 85.0 49.3 LOS by Move: F C C E B B E E E F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 9 9 5 28 28 10 10 3 8 8 7 ********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.9] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Background PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:26 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 28.6] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 529 1211 1739 278 555 xxxx xxxxx 1057 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 500 141 88 726 1026 xxxx xxxxx 667 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 500 131 81 726 1026 xxxx xxxxx 667 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.03 0.04 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 12.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx 10.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * A * * B * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 206 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.0 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 28.6 xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * D * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 12.2 28.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B D * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:30 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Background+P AM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Background AM
Geometry: Background AM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Project AM
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:30 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.098 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 85.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 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 1410 0 0 551 0 433 14 1831 151 71 12 Added Vol: 0 4 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1414 0 0 554 0 437 14 1831 151 71 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1414 0 0 554 0 437 14 1831 151 71 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1414 0 0 554 0 437 14 1831 151 71 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1414 0 0 554 0 437 14 1831 151 71 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 0.80 0.87 0.80 0.89 0.97 0.78 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.94 0.06 2.00 1.40 0.60 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2965 95 3052 2362 1110 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.06 0.06 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.06 0.06 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.27 0.27 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.14 Uniform Del: 0.0 52.9 0.0 0.0 38.7 0.0 19.3 19.3 36.3 75.3 75.3 71.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 56.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.2 91.8 91.8 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 109 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 19.3 19.3 88.4 167.2 167 72.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 109 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 19.3 19.3 88.4 167.2 167 72.3 LOS by Move: A F A A D A B B F F F E HCM2kAvgQ: 0 46 0 0 6 0 6 6 62 10 10 1 ********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:30 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:30 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.0 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1559 0 0 709 0 336 0 405 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1572 0 0 716 0 336 0 410 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1572 0 0 716 0 336 0 410 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1572 0 0 716 0 336 0 410 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1572 0 0 716 0 336 0 410 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 47.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 47.4 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 47.4 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A B A A A A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 19 0 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:31 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:31 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.795 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 35.3 Optimal Cycle: 86 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 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: 17 1494 109 269 626 188 57 18 11 128 24 229 Added Vol: 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 20 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 17 1494 113 281 626 188 57 18 11 134 24 249 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: 17 1494 113 281 626 188 57 18 11 134 24 249 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 1494 113 281 626 188 57 18 11 134 24 249 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: 17 1494 113 281 626 188 57 18 11 134 24 249 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.99 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.96 0.78 0.88 0.96 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.85 0.15 1.00 1.51 0.49 0.77 0.23 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3477 263 1663 2765 830 1306 412 1488 1441 258 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.31 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.31 0.31 0.80 0.80 0.08 0.80 0.80 0.51 Uniform Del: 75.7 29.6 29.6 59.7 8.1 8.1 74.7 74.7 67.1 68.8 68.8 43.2 IncremntDel: 3.3 2.3 2.3 11.8 0.1 0.1 35.9 35.9 0.3 19.5 19.5 0.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 79.0 31.9 31.9 71.5 8.1 8.1 110.6 111 67.4 88.3 88.3 44.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 79.0 31.9 31.9 71.5 8.1 8.1 110.6 111 67.4 88.3 88.3 44.1 LOS by Move: E C C E A A F F E F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 1 32 32 16 7 7 6 6 1 10 10 11 ********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:31 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:31 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.8] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 37 19 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 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 30 0 1 0 19 67 21 7 99 0 Added Vol: 0 5 8 0 3 3 5 12 0 11 23 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 37 24 38 0 4 3 24 79 21 18 122 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 24 38 0 4 3 24 79 21 18 122 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 37 24 38 0 4 3 24 79 21 18 122 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 299 296 90 xxxx 306 122 122 xxxx xxxxx 100 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 657 619 974 xxxx 611 935 1478 xxxx xxxxx 1505 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 638 602 974 xxxx 594 935 1478 xxxx xxxxx 1505 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.04 0.04 xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 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 723 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 704 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 10.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * B * * * A * * ApproachDel: 10.8 10.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P AM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:31 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 42.2] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 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: 3 0 0 13 0 38 37 683 0 25 995 87 Added Vol: 0 0 0 9 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 8 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 0 22 0 43 42 683 0 25 995 95 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 3 0 0 22 0 43 42 683 0 25 995 95 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 0 0 22 0 43 42 683 0 25 995 95 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1315 xxxx xxxxx 1518 1860 545 1090 xxxx xxxxx 683 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 118 xxxx xxxxx 83 74 488 648 xxxx xxxxx 919 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 100 xxxx xxxxx 77 67 488 648 xxxx xxxxx 919 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx 0.28 0.00 0.09 0.06 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 42.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.9 xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: E * * * * * B * * A * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 175 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.6 xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 37.4 xxxxx 10.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * E * B * * * * * ApproachDel: 42.2 37.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: E E * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:34 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report
Scenario: Background+P PM

Command: Default Command
Volume: Background PM
Geometry: Background PM
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Project PM
Trip Distribution: Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: Default Configuration

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp/La Avenida St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.781 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.6 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 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: 0 407 0 0 2524 0 493 0 469 268 119 7 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 412 0 0 2529 0 501 0 469 268 119 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 412 0 0 2529 0 501 0 469 268 119 7 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 412 0 0 2529 0 501 0 469 268 119 7 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 412 0 0 2529 0 501 0 469 268 119 7 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| 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 0.79 1.00 0.70 0.89 0.97 0.78 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 5700 0 2992 0 2677 2402 1067 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.14 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.03 Uniform Del: 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 50.6 0.0 51.1 57.9 57.9 51.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 6.5 7.8 7.8 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 55.2 0.0 57.6 65.7 65.7 51.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 55.2 0.0 57.6 65.7 65.7 51.7 LOS by Move: A B A A C A E A E E E D HCM2kAvgQ: 0 4 0 0 29 0 13 0 13 10 10 0 ********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 2-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Shoreline Blvd & US 101 SB Ramp
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 145 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.586 Loss Time (sec): 9 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.6 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 631 0 0 1462 0 144 0 422 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 644 0 0 1475 0 144 0 433 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 644 0 0 1475 0 144 0 433 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 644 0 0 1475 0 144 0 433 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 644 0 0 1475 0 144 0 433 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 39.9 0.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 40.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 40.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A B A A B A D A D A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 0 6 0 0 18 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 ********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 3-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Shoreline Blvd & Terra Bella Avenue
******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 165 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.714 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.7 Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 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: 54 593 66 100 1676 53 138 24 64 102 17 161 Added Vol: 0 0 7 24 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 20 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 54 593 73 124 1676 53 138 24 64 111 17 181 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: 54 593 73 124 1676 53 138 24 64 111 17 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 593 73 124 1676 53 138 24 64 111 17 181 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: 54 593 73 124 1676 53 138 24 64 111 17 181 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.98 0.91 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.88 0.96 0.78 0.88 0.96 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.93 0.07 0.86 0.14 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 Final Sat.: 1663 3298 406 1663 3655 116 1447 252 1488 1469 225 1488 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.24 0.71 0.71 0.40 Uniform Del: 77.7 26.6 26.6 56.8 19.5 19.5 68.5 68.5 58.1 71.4 71.4 45.0 IncremntDel: 27.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 10.3 10.3 0.5 12.7 12.7 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 105.1 26.7 26.7 57.5 20.5 20.5 78.7 78.7 58.6 84.1 84.1 45.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 105.1 26.7 26.7 57.5 20.5 20.5 78.7 78.7 58.6 84.1 84.1 45.6 LOS by Move: F C C E C C E E E F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 10 10 6 29 29 10 10 3 8 8 8 ********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 4-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Linda Vista Avenue & Terra Bella Avenue ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 16 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 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 4 7 1 4 19 5 58 15 11 117 0 Added Vol: 0 6 16 0 6 7 6 25 0 12 21 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 16 10 23 1 10 26 11 83 15 23 138 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 10 23 1 10 26 11 83 15 23 138 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 16 10 23 1 10 26 11 83 15 23 138 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: 315 297 91 313 304 138 138 xxxx xxxxx 98 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 642 618 973 643 613 916 1458 xxxx xxxxx 1508 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 605 604 973 610 599 916 1458 xxxx xxxxx 1508 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 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 735 xxxxx xxxx 792 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * A * * * * A * * ApproachDel: 10.2 9.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B A * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Background+P PM Thu Aug 25, 2022 16:41:35 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Linda Vista Avenue & Middlefield Road
******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 35.1] ******************************************************************************** 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 Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 3 30 0 24 38 1057 0 31 533 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 12 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 13 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 3 42 0 30 47 1057 0 31 533 35 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 3 42 0 30 47 1057 0 31 533 35 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 3 42 0 30 47 1057 0 31 533 35 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx 529 1235 1764 284 568 xxxx xxxxx 1057 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx 500 135 85 719 1014 xxxx xxxxx 667 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx 500 125 77 719 1014 xxxx xxxxx 667 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.05 xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 12.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx 10.7 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * A * * B * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 190 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.6 xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 35.1 xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * E * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 12.2 35.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B E * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************

Appendix E
Parking Occupancy Counts

AUTO CENSUS
Date: Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Counter: Kathy, Matt, Jo, Mike 7536 Lighthouse Drive
Intersection Name: PS and Family View Apts. Stockton, CA 95219 Weather: Fair Phone: 408-533-3398
Sat.
7/23/22
Tues.
7/26/22
Sat.
7/30/22
Thurs.
7/28/22
6:00 am 0 1 0 0
6:15 am 0 0 0 1
6:30 am 1 2 0 0
6:45 am 1 2 0 0
7:00 am 2 4 1 2 48 52
7:15 am 1 2 0 4
7:30 am 4 4 1 5
7:45 am 5 5 0 6
8:00 am 9 6 1 2
8:15 am 6 9 1 3
8:30 am 9 9 3 4
8:45 am 8 7 1 5
9:00 am 10 6 2 6 178 184
9:15 am 9 5 4 7
9:30 am 11 8 5 6
9:45 am 11 9 5 7
10:00 am 12 9 6 9
10:15 am 12 9 6 8
10:30 am 10 11 5 9
10:45 am 11 10 6 9
11:00 am 10 6 5 3
11:15 am 9 5 5 6
11:30 am 10 4 8 7
11:45 am 14 5 7 6
12:00 pm 15 6 7 1
12:15 pm 14 6 4 3
12:30 pm 14 7 4 3
12:45 pm 13 10 3 6
1:00 pm 12 11 3 8
1:15 pm 9 12 5 7
1:30 pm 9 12 3 8
1:45 pm 11 11 3 6
2:00 pm 13 10 3 6
2:15 pm 15 8 3 7
2:30 pm 14 7 4 6
2:45 pm 13 7 6 5
3:00 pm 9 4 7 4
3:15 pm 10 4 4 6
3:30 pm 9 6 4 5
3:45 pm 10 3 2 4
4:00 pm 8 4 2 1
4:15 pm 11 9 3 3
4:30 pm 7 11 3 2
4:45 pm 6 8 7 3
5:00 pm 2 7 3 2
5:15 pm 1 6 2 1
5:30 pm 0 4 3 1
5:45 pm 0 3 4 1
6:00 pm 0 2 2 1
6:15 pm 0 2 1 2
6:30 pm 0 0 1 2
6:45 pm 0 0 1 1
7:00 pm 0 0 1 0
7:15 pm 0 0 2 0
7:30 pm 0 0 2 1
7:45 pm 0 0 2 1
8:00 pm 0 0 1 0
8:15 pm 0 0 1 1
8:30 pm 0 0 0 1
8:45 pm 0 0 0 0
9:00 pm 0 0 0 0
Occupacy
Occupacy
Evelyn Family
Apartments
Sunday
8/10/22
Thursday
8/14/22
Total Spaces 194
Park View Family
Apartments
Sunday
8/14/22
Thursday
8/16/22
Total Spaces 62
Total Garages 44
Parking Occupancy Counts- 22DC05 (MV,SV,SJ)
7/16/2022
Stewart Terra Bella

Appendix F
Walk and Roll to School Maps

StevensCreek N SHORELINE BLVDPARMAND AVESTEVENS CREEK TRAILPERMANENTE CREEK TRAILTheuerkauf& StevensonElementarySchoolsPermanenteCreek

THEUERKAUF&STEVENSONELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
LEGEND
StevensCreekN SHORELINE BLVDALTA AVE
PARSONS AVEDE FRANCE AVESTEVENS CREEK TRAILHUFF AVEJOAQUIN RDARMAND AVECrittendenMiddleSchoolPermanenteCreek

CRITTENDENMIDDLE SCHOOL
LEGEND
MountainViewHighSchoolte

GRANT RDOAKHURST AVEMIRAMONTE AVECARMEL TERRGRANT RDDIERICX DR TRUMAN AVESHADY SRINGS LNHARWALT DRRAVENSWOOD DRBROWER AVEYORKTON DRFRANKLIN AVETYLER PARK WAY ALKWAL EIL

MOUNTAIN VIEWHIGH SCHOOL
LEGEND

176
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com Appendix L Appendix L has been REPLACED with the following:

Alta Housing
Terra Bella TDM Plan
January 2023
Terra Bella [TDM PLAN]
[Client Logo or Client Name] i

Table of Contents
Page
1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 3 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Proximity to Transit Services ....................................................................................................................... 3 Proximity to Active Transportation Facilities ......................................................................................... 5 Proximity to Daily Needs & Amenities .................................................................................................... 6 2 Proposed TDM Plan.......................................................................................................... 7 TMA Membership ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Site Plan Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Operational TDM Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 9 Parking Rationale ...........................................................................................................................................11 TDM Monitoring & Results ........................................................................................................................17 3 Appendix: Summary of Parking Data from Alta Housing Sites ................................. 18

Figures and Tables
Table 1 Bus route near Terra Bella .......................................................................................................... 3 Table 2 Bicycle Parking Standards for Multifamily Housing (EWPP, pg. 90)........................... 8 Table 3 Recommended Baseline Parking Demand Ratios ...........................................................12 Table 4 TDM Strategies in the Proposed Terra Bella TDM Plan ................................................14 Table 5 TDM Functional Categories .....................................................................................................16 Table 6 Total and By-Category Parking Reduction Estimates ....................................................16

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2
This TDM Plan is presented to satisfy the Residential TDM Standards, as outlined in Section 3.9.2. of the East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP). Accordingly, it is organized as follows:
 Project Background – An overview of the project and its surrounding development and transportation context.
 Proposed TDM Plan – As proposed for the project, organized according to the requirements presented in the EWPP, as follows:
− TMA Requirement – As a new residential development of at least 100 units, the property will comply with the requirement to establish and maintain membership with the Mountain View Transportation TMA.
− Site Plan Requirements – Site Design TDM strategies, as required and as proposed for the development.
− TDM Plan Operational Requirements – Operational TDM strategies, as required and as proposed for the development
− Parking Rationale – Demonstration of how the TDM Plan will ensure that the parking provided at Terra Bella will be sufficient to meet all the parking needs of the development.
− TDM Monitoring & Results – A statement on commitment to comply with all monitoring and results related requirements.

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Description
Terra Bella, an affordable housing development proposed by Alta Housing, will be in the City of Mountain View at 1020 Terra Bella Avenue -- south of US-101 and west of SR-85. The project will have 108 apartments, including a combination of 30% and 60% Area Median Income (AMI) units for persons with disabilities (I/DD), and Rapid Rehousing. To meet the City’s Conditions of Approval, Alta Housing submits the following Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Additionally, this TDM Plan includes a set of TDM strategies selected to reduce on-site parking demand to align with the proposed parking supply of 96 spaces.

Proximity to Transit Services
Valley Transportation Authority
Fixed-Route Service
Table 1 Bus route near Terra Bella
Bus Route Description Days of
the Week
Span of
Service
Frequency Bus Stop
Location
40 Foothill College - Mountain View
Transit Center via North
Bayshore
Mon-Sun 6:14 a.m.
– 10:30
p.m.
30 mins
(weekdays)
~50 minutes
(weekends/holidays)
Shoreline
Blvd. & Terra
Bella Ave
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates a fixed-route local bus service throughout the City of Mountain View. Terra Bella is 0.3 miles (5-minute walk) from VTA’s Route 40 northbound and southbound bus stops. The route runs seven days a week at 30-minute frequencies on weekdays and 50-minute frequencies on weekends. The Mountain View Transit Center is a 15-minute bus ride, connecting riders to other local routes and regional transportation options, including Caltrain.1 A single ride is $2.50.

Paratransit Service
VTA ACCESS paratransit service is available to eligible individuals with disabilities who cannot use conventional fixed-route and light-rail services due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities.

1 Valley Transportation Authority (2022). Foothill College – Mountain View Transit Center via North Bayshore. Retrieved from https://www.vta.org/go/routes/40

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
Eligible riders can reserve trips up to three days in advance. One-way standard trips are $4.00, premium trips (outside the service area) are $16, and same-day trips are $16.2 MVgo Shuttles
Mountain View’s MVGo Shuttles are fare-free public service that provides a first and last-mile transit connections from the Mountain View Transit Center to various locations throughout the city. Terra Bella is on Route B which will provide future residents direct access to amenities along Shoreline Boulevard, looping through the transit center and traveling along Moffet Boulevard and W.

Middlefield Road. The Shuttle is two blocks from the site and runs every 30-minutes between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and then in the afternoons, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. MVgo shuttle buses are wheelchair accessible and equipped with bike racks and real-time tracking equipment to provide riders with shuttle arrival predictions. 3
Bus route near Terra Bella (Map)

Mountain View Community Shuttle
In addition to MVgo shuttles, the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA), in partnership with the City, runs the Mountain View Community Shuttle. The Community Shuttle fill

2 Valley Transportation Authority (2022). VTA Access Paratransit. Retrieved from https://www.vta.org/go/paratransit#accordion-fares
3 MVGo Shuttles (2022). Route B – Shoreline, La Avenida, Crittenden. Retrieved from https://mvgo.org/routes/b/

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
gaps in mid-day and evening service. There are two routes -- the red route (clockwise) and grey route (counterclockwise) – which both run seven day a week. Weekday service is every 30-minutes between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and weekend service is every 60-minutes between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.4 Both routes are a 1-minute walk from the site at Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard.

Proximity to Active Transportation Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Terra Bella is within two blocks of a Class II bike lane along Shoreline Boulevard and is a 10-minute bike ride to the Stevens Creek Trail – a 20-mile Class I multi-use path that runs between Shoreline Park and Dale and Heatherstone.5
The City of Mountain View is planning Class IV protected bike lane improvements to the existing Class II bike lane on Shoreline Boulevard, between Middlefield Road and Terra Bella Avenue. A Class I multi-use path is also planned on Shoreline Boulevard, between Shorebird Way and Terra Bella Avenue.

As noted in the City of Mountain View’s Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Corridor Study and prioritized in the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue will receive bicycle improvements, such as physical barriers to separate bicycles and vehicles, distinct high-visibility crosswalks, and pavement markings to clearly define the route.

Additional bike facility improvements include .66 miles of Class I trail/shared-use path improvements on Shoreline Boulevard, between Shorebird Way and Terra Bella Avenue.67 Pedestrian Access
Terra Bella will be built in an industrial area that is adjacent to familiar technology firms and campuses, including Google. The nearest walk to a grocery store and pharmacy is a 15-minute walk along Shoreline Boulevard, a four-lane corridor. While Shoreline Boulevard has sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled lighting, there is room for improvement. The Shoreline Bus Lane project includes

4Mountain View Community Shuttle (2022). Retrieved from https://mvcommunityshuttle.com/ 5 City of Mountain View (2015) Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. Retrieved form https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=18294 6 City of Mountain View and Nelson\Nygaard (2014). Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study. Retrieved from https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15441 7 City of Mountain View (2015). Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. Retrieved from https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=18294

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6
plans to build protected intersections at Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard and to add wider sidewalks between Plymouth Street and the Mountain View Transit Center.8 Proximity to Daily Needs & Amenities
The Terra Bella site is within a four-minute bike ride, 10-minute transit trip, or a 10 to 15-minute walk to many basic goods, services, and amenities, most of which are located along Shoreline Boulevard.

Nearby basic amenities include pharmacies, grocery stores, public vehicle charging stations, post- office, and banks.

The site also is located within a five-minute bike ride or 10 to 15-minute walk to various parks, trails, and recreation centers, including Stevens Creek Trail, Creekside Park, San Veron Park, Whisman Park, Crittenden sports fields, and the Whisman Sports Center. There are four schools near the site:

Stevenson Elementary, Theuerkauf Elementary, and Crittenden Middle. There are a variety of entertainment options and venues near the site for residents to enjoy. These include, but are not limited to, the Shoreline Amphitheater, Shoreline Park, Stevens Creek Trail, Century Cinema 16, the Pear Theatre, and Theatre You.

8 City of Mountain View (2022). City Project Highlights. Retrieved from https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/projects/highlights.asp

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
2 PROPOSED TDM PLAN
TDM strategies work together to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and parking demand by expanding mobility options to encourage residents and visitors to use of non-driving modes. This TDM Plan is presented to satisfy the Residential TDM Standards, as outlined in Section 3.9.2. of the East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP). Accordingly, it is organized as follows:
 TMA Requirement – As a new residential development of at least 100 units, the property will comply with the requirement to establish and maintain membership with the Mountain View Transportation TMA.
 Site Plan Requirements – Site Design TDM strategies, as required and as proposed for the development.
 TDM Plan Operational Requirements – Operational TDM strategies, as required and as proposed for the development
 Parking Rationale – Demonstration of how the TDM Plan will ensure that the parking provided at Terra Bella will be sufficient to meet all the parking needs of the development.  TDM Monitoring & Results – A statement on commitment to comply with all monitoring and results related requirements.

Measures that are required for TDM Plan in the East Whisman Precise Plan are indicated via underlined text.

TMA Membership
As a new residential development of at least 100 units, Terra Bella will comply with the requirement to establish and maintain membership with the Mountain View TMA.

Site Plan Strategies
Designated Carshare Parking
Guided by the EWPP, Alta Housing will maintain two spaces, in a highly visible location accessible to both building users and the general public, to remain available to residents who participate in peer- to-peer car-sharing, as an incentive for participation, on a “right of first refusal” basis. At times when one or both spaces are not claimed by car-share participants, these spaces will be made available as general, resident parking spaces.

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
Bicycle Parking
Per the EWPP, Alta Housing will provide ample, convenient, and secure bicycle parking to support and increase bicycling for transportation. Per the city’s parking standards9, Alta Housing will allocate:

Table 2 Bicycle Parking Standards for Multifamily Housing (EWPP, pg. 90) Land Use Short-Term Parking Long-Term Parking Showers
Multi-Family Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit None Required Short-term bicycle parking is for guests and will include inverted-U bicycle racks in well-lit and highly accessible locations near building entrances. Long-term bicycle parking will be secure to protect against theft. Bicycle lockers, enclosed cages or other restricted interior areas are typical types of long-term bicycle parking.

Collaborative Workspace
A business services room can help encourage and facilitate working from home, which can have a direct impact on reducing trips to and from the site. Such an amenity is a typical part of large residential buildings, though the size and specific services included vary. The workspace is likely to include a rentable work room that can be reserved, video conferencing equipment, high-speed internet connections, basic office supplies, and printing, scanning, and faxing services. For residents interested in using this workspace long term, dedicated mailboxes for businesses could be set aside and located nearby.

Site Design/Pedestrian Oriented
The site will comply with the city’s pedestrian-oriented design standards. Alta Housing will construct the site with 7’ city standard concrete sidewalks, flower gardens and thematic plantings, gathering areas, bollard lights along the sidewalk, and accent pavers to delineate the location of the bike plaza. The site will be landscaped to improve traffic safety.

Secure Storage
Delivery Service Partnerships
The property manager will partner with online personal service providers (i.e., Instacart, Postmates, DoorDash, etc.) to facilitate efficient delivery, and space to hold deliveries, including a refrigerator for perishable deliveries. for residents to pick up. These partnerships reduce the need for a personal vehicle ownership and the frequency of one-stop trips.

9 City of Mountain View (2022). Parking and Loading. Retrieved from https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTXPALO_ DIV6BIPAST

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Family TDM Amenities
Providing secure storage space for personal car seats, strollers, athletic or other extracurricular gear, and other large equipment can address challenges residents have while traveling. Moreover, Alta Housing will plan to locate the space near car share parking spaces to make it easier for families to travel without feeling a personal vehicle is necessary. If this measure is implemented without a dedicated employee, residents will be able to access the space with an access code or key card.

Operational TDM Strategies
Shared Bicycles and Resource Center
Loaner bicycles, helmets, and lights will be provided for resident use to facilitate non-driving access to neighborhood goods, services, and amenities. These bicycles will be provided as part of a bicycle resource center – dedicated space for residents to get information about bicycling and use shared tools for bicycle repairs and maintenance. A dedicated space contributes to social acceptance of bicycling and reduces maintenance costs, one key barrier associated with owning a bicycle.

Information Distribution
Marketing Materials, Promotional Events and Activities.

The TDM coordinator will oversee the active management of the TDM program through the distribution of marketing materials. Content will include a welcome packet detailing the TDM program, incentives, and upcoming events.

Mobility Concierge
The TDM coordinator will be a mobility concierge to residents and visitors. Beyond facilitating the abovementioned strategies, the TDM coordinator will share information about the nearest mobility services and liaise with residents to understand which strategies are the most effective and which strategies should be eliminated, revised, or added. The TDM coordinator will meet with residents at move-in to have one-on-conversations about the site’s mobility services, provide information about tax benefits, and talk through nearby transit options.

Sustainable Travel Pledge
A sustainable travel pledge is a commitment to sustainable modes of transportation site wide. This can take many forms including residents’ and employees’ signing that underscores their individual and household commitment to reducing their impact on the environment. Pledges can be a part of the site’s programming and an opportunity to bring people together around a common goal and initiative.

Safe Routes to School Promotion
As stated in the EWPP, the site needs to support Safe Routes to School programs (SR2S). At Terra Bella, the Transportation Coordinator/Property Manager will manage this requirement as part of their

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
role. The coordinator will promote SR2S by posting materials to analog and digital bulletin boards, notify families during move-in, coordinate a bicycle train and/or walking school bus for families with school aged children, and be available to coordinate with residents to facilitate events at Terra Bella and in the broader neighborhood.

Monetary Incentives
Pre-Tax Transportation Benefits
The federal tax code includes tax-free transportation fringe benefits. For 2022, the monthly subsidy limit is $280 per month for transit and parking. The Terra Bella residential coordinator will publish information about the tax benefit in the welcome packet and on the site’s online web portal and further support residents through the process during one-on-one concierge services.

Unbundled Parking
Unbundled parking separates the cost of leasing a parking space from the cost of renting or purchasing a residential unit. Separating the cost of a parking space from the sale or lease of a housing unit saves money for households that do not wish to park a vehicle. This policy recognizes the cost of parking for residents and helps them determine if it is a worthwhile expense, as opposed to it being incorporated into the overall price of renting or buying a home regardless of whether the resident owns a vehicle.

Because the proposed development is Tax Credit funded, including the cost of the on-site parking, charging residents for the parking will be prohibited.

Free Loaner Bicycles
Loaner bicycles, helmets, and lights will be provided for resident use to facilitate non-driving access to neighborhood goods, services, and amenities. These bicycles will be provided as part of a bicycle resource center – dedicated space for residents to get information about bicycling and use shared tools for bicycle repairs and maintenance.

Free or Subsidized Public Bicycle and Scooter Share
When available in the City, the TDM coordinator will partner with public bicycle and scooter share providers to coordinate free or subsidized membership for all residents who use these services.

Public bicycle and scooter share parking shall be conveniently located near building entrances. Free or subsidized membership will also be provided to all residents who meet the eligibility criteria (e.g., over 18 years). Loaner helmets will also be made available to all residents free of charge.

Additional Measures to Reduce Parking Needs
Peer to Peer Carshare
The TDM coordinator will facilitate the implementation of a peer-to-peer carshare program available to the residents of Terra Bella and neighboring sites, including Linda Vista. Residents will lead the program -- making decisions about whether carshare will be managed by resident liaisons or by a

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
third-party vendor, like Getaround or Turo. The peer-to-peer carshare strategy will take time to develop, but while there are gaps in the existing transit network, it will be a practical alternative transportation option.

Bike Trainings and Workshops
Organizing safety, repairs, maintenance, and other training sessions and workshops can increase bike ownership confidence and enthusiasm and generate a sense of connection within the biking community. The property owner/TDM coordinator will coordinate with a resident liaison team and local CBOs to set up bike training workshops throughout a given year.

CSA or Farmers’ Market Partnership
Partnering with local community-supported agriculture (CSA) organizations has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emission and vehicle-trips by providing residents convenient access to locally sourced food, reducing the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled by both vendors and consumers. This measure could also have marketing benefits and reinforce the site's overall message about sustainability. Program elements will include pickup and delivery accommodations, on-site markets, and discount and membership benefits. The TDM coordinator will seek to further coordinate with the city’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to support residents and adjacent neighbors who need reliable access to affordable food source.

Note: This TDM plan is a living document that will be revised once the site is at full occupancy.

Residents must have ownership of their mobility plan, working with the TDM coordinator to facilitate conversations regarding which TDM strategies will best improve mobility and access to essential services. Moreover, TDM strategies are subject to change based on market fluctuations. For example, new consumer facing commuter-related services (i.e., scooters, bike share, etc.) enter and exit the market with frequency. If strategies need to be swapped out, the TDM coordinator will work with residents and the broader Alta Housing team to identify replacements that to achieve an equivalent parking reduction. Furthermore, TDM items marked as “Required” will not be changed without written approval from the City of Mountainview Public Works Director or designee.

Parking Rationale
Parking Demand Analysis
Baseline Parking Demand Projection
The development is proposed as a residential-only property, to consist of a mix of the following housing-unit types:
 Independent, Developmentally Disabled
 Rapid Rehousing
 Affordable Housing

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12
Parking demands for Rapid Housing and for independent, developmentally disabled units are based on comparable Alta Housing project. Parking demand for the remaining units was calculated using the parking analysis conducted by the City. These are outlined below, followed by the recommended parking supply.

Factoring for Hexagon Traffic Analysis Report Findings
City of Mountain View staff have provided a copy of the Transportation Analysis report, completed for the City by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in August 2022. This report includes a section on Parking Supply, in which projections of parking demand for the proposed development are presented, based on findings from parking occupancy counts, completed at “similar sites in the region”. The report states that these findings suggest that “…affordable housing developments have an average parking demand of 1.36 spaces per unit…”(page 44). This, the report notes, suggests that a supply of 147 spaces should be provided for the proposed housing units.

The southbound left turn impact noted in the Hexagon report will be addressed through the trip- reduction effects of this proposed TDM plan. Since the property will be 100% residential in nature, and the TDM Plan is projected to reduce parking demand by 15%, this translates to 15% fewer vehicles making trips from the property to impact the intersection of concern here. This reduction in the number of resident vehicles making trips from the property will eliminate 2-3 vehicles from the left turn lane. Thereby, not causing the anticipated impact. Further, there are several strategies that incentive non-driving modes, further contributing to less vehicle trips.

Recommended Ratios
The ratios developed from comparable Alta Housing properties are recommended as the best fit option for the I/DD and Rapid Rehousing units. For the Affordable Units, the ratio developed based on the parking analysis in the Hexagon report – 1.36 spaces per unit – is recommended. This combination of ratios results in a projected supply need of 123 spaces.

Table 3 Recommended Baseline Parking Demand Ratios
Unit Type Total Units
Demand-
Generation Rate (Spaces/
Unit)
Total
Demand (Spaces)
I/DD 10 0.85 9
Rapid Rehousing 27 0.6 17
Affordable Units 71 1.36 97
All Units 108 N/A 123
Factoring For TDM
As the term “baseline” suggests, however, these projections are estimates based on parking-demand ratios that do not assume any intentional efforts to reduce resident parking demand rates, through site planning and design or operational/programmatic TDM strategies. Therefore, to provide a more accurate projection of the parking needs for the proposed development, this section refines the above baseline projections, factoring for the strategies proposed in the TDM Plan outlined above.

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13
The strategies listed in the TDM Program include several well-researched and documented measures that can be anticipated to reduce residential parking demand from the baseline estimate outlined in the able above. The fact that many of these strategies are required for residential developments in the EWPP underscores the demonstrated effectiveness in reducing residents’ reliance on personal auto travel and ownership. The proposed TDM Plan includes measures beyond those required in the EWPP, to ensure meaningful reduction in on-site parking needs, and to that will improve residents’ access to and from key destinations by non-driving modes. The supply reduction that this will allow will also significantly reduce the cost of the overall development, allowing Alta Housing to reduce the cost of the critically needed housing units it will provide.

The proposed TDM Plan would reduce peak parking demand by at least 15%, and up to 40% -- reducing the estimated total demand identified in Table 3 above (123 spaces) to no more than 105 spaces, and to as low as 74 spaces Given the affordable-housing nature of the proposed project, we believe that the strategies in the TDM Plan will be more than sufficient in their effectiveness to ensure that resident parking demand can be accommodated via the proposed supply of 96 spaces. As such, Alta is requesting a concession from the City of Mountainview to approve the proposed supply of 96 spaces.

The section below outlines our methodology for estimating the effectiveness of the TDM Plan .

TDM Impact Analysis
Impact of Individual TDM Strategies
The most prominent and well-documented source for measuring the effectiveness of TDM strategies is a set of reports published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA).

Both its 2010 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures” and 2021 “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity” compile extensive research and findings from an expansive literature review. These reports summarize research-based findings on demand-reduction impacts from an extensive list of common TDM measures, and detail assumptions and limitations of each measure. While this measure can be a good proxy for reducing trips for office and commercial land uses, it is much less reliable in projecting potential reductions in residential parking demand.10 To address these limitations, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates conducted its own research into available literature on documented TDM effectiveness in reducing resident parking demand (vehicle ownership rates). Published sources reviewed include San Francisco’s ‘SF Shift’ TDM program and efforts led by regional planning agencies including the Valley Transportation Authority’s VMT Calculator, and San Diego Association of Government’s Mobility Management Toolkit. These new

10 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021). Retrieved from
https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14
sources more accurately calculate demand reductions (in terms of parking supply) expected from common TDM measures, specific to residential developments.

Table 4 TDM Strategies in the Proposed Terra Bella TDM Plan TDM Measures Source of Reduction Impact Estimate

Projected Parking
Demand Reduction
Range
Low

High

TMA Membership North Bayshore TDM Guidelines: Trip
Reduction Marketing (grouped, includes TMA,
website with real-time transit info, TDM
coordinator, sustainable incentives), 4%
1% 4%

On-Site Carshare Jain et al. (2021) - One in three households reduced car ownership, and most reductions
occurred in the year prior to joining car share.

Fleet-based car share members reported a
larger reduction in car ownership compared to
peer-to-peer car share members.

Cervero (2007) - 7 cars shed for every 100
carshare members; 24.2% reduced vehicle
ownership by 1 or more; NET 3 cars are do
owners + non owners; but reduction still useful
for residential onsite
Klincevius (2014) - 40 to 60% of households
with membership are carless; increase of 20%
of members who were carless after joining; 9-
13 cars removed for every 1 shared car (those
who removed a car or gave up a car)
2% 16%
Bicycle Parking CAPCOA: SDT-7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects (grouped with
LUT-9 Improve Design of Development, 3-

21.3%)

SF Shift: ACTIVE-2 Bike Parking, 1-4%
1% 4%
Collaborative Workspace CAPCOA: TRT-6 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
1% 2%
Site Design/Pedestrian
Oriented (Required)
CAPCOA: SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements, 0-2% and LUT-9, Improve
Design of Development 3% - 21.13%
1% 5%
Delivery-Supported
Amenities
SF Shift: DELIVERY-1 Delivery Supportive
Amenities, 1%
1% 2%

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15
Family TDM Amenities SF Shift: FAMILY-1 Family TDM Amenities, 1- 2%
1% 2%
Shared Bicycles and
Resource Center
SF Shift: Tailored Transportation Marketing 1% 4%
Bike Repair/Wash
Stations
SF Shift: ACTIVE-5 Bike Repair
Station/Maintenance Services, 1%
1% 1%
Bike Trainings &
Workshops
SF Shift: Tailored Transportation Marketing, 1-
4%

San Jose / SANDAG: Community Based
Travel Planning, 0-2%
1% 4%
TDM Coordinator/Mobility
Concierge
San Jose / SANDAG: Community Based
Travel Planning, 0-2%
1% 2 %
Informational/Promotional
Materials
CAPCOA: TRT-7 CTR Marketing

SF Shift: INFO-3 Tailored Transportation
Marketing

San Jose / SANDAG: Community Based
Travel Planning
1% 4%
Pre-Tax Transportation
Benefit
CAPCOA: TRT-4 Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program, 0.3-20%
1% 1%
Collective Effect of TDM Plan
The effect of the above measures, implemented together in accordance with the proposed TDM Plan, cannot accurately be projected by simply adding the low-end or high-end effectiveness measure of each strategy. Strategies work together to complement and amplify their effectiveness. A set of complementary TDM measures will be more effective than the sum of its strategies’ estimated effectiveness. However, many TDM measures can also compete with each other, producing a collective effect when implemented together than their individual effectiveness estimates would suggest.

Our analysis addresses these factors by organizing TDM measures into functional categories and defining a limit on how much demand reduction should be estimated for measures within each – see table below.

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16
Table 5 TDM Functional Categories
Category Description
Maximum
Reduction
Calculation for this
Category
Parking
Management
Measures
These measures focus on pricing and other regulatory tools for incentivizing alternatives to personal vehicle parking. 20% Program &
Services
These measures include benefits and services that incentivize use of non-driving travel options. 25%
Physical
Features
These measures reflect urban design strategies to incentivize non- driving modes, such as improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, traffic calming measures, transit stop improvements, delivery lockers, key land-use complements, and other similar on-site and contextual factors
10%
Promotions &
Activities
These are measures that focus on increasing the awareness, appeal, and use of the TDM measures included in the other categories 5% The caps on estimated effectiveness for each category of measures ensures against overestimating the impact of measures that are more competitive than complementary.

Calculated Reduction
As shown in the table below, applying the cap to these categories, and referencing the estimated range of demand-reduction impacts in Table 4, the proposed TDM Plan is projected to reduce parking demand by between 15% and 40%.

Table 6 Total and By-Category Parking Reduction Estimates TDM Measure Categories Estimated Demand Reduction Impact Low High
Reduction from Parking Policy and Pricing 1% 1%
Reduction from Programs and Services 4% 24%
Reduction from Physical Features 7% 10%
Reduction from Promotional Resources and Activities 3% 5% Total Reduction 15% 40%
Comparing to Impacts on Trip Reduction
The analysis above is focused on TDM impacts on parking demand generated by the project.

Because the nature of the proposed property is 100% residential, reducing parking demand is achieved solely through TDM strategies that can be lined to reduced resident vehicle ownership rates. As such, our TDM analysis relied on several sources documenting the reduction effectiveness of the selected TDM measures, with limited reliance on CAPCOA as a source (which focuses most consistently on VMT-reduction measures).

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17
While our analysis is focused on projecting reductions to the project’s parking demand, the fact that the calculated reduction of 15 - 40% equates to 15 - 40% fewer vehicles maintained on the property suggests that the TDM Plan should reduce trips and VMT by at least 15%.

TDM Monitoring & Results
It is critical to establish a system to monitor the performance of TDM strategies. By observing how travel behavior changes over time, Alta Housing will have the tools to determine the proper time to implement TDM measures, gauge their effectiveness, and make updates accordingly. The property owner, or tenant, shall prepare an annual TDM report one-year following building Occupancy, and submit it to the City’s TDM Coordinator as proven effectiveness of its TDM program. The City may assess the property owner a penalty for noncompliance with its TDM project conditions of approval.

The TDM report, prepared by an onsite TDM Coordinator, will include a survey of commute travel methods taken by all building occupants. Driveway traffic counts shall also be conducted during the peak periods by an independent, approved consultant and paid for by the property owner or tenant.

The driveway counts and resulting data shall be included in the TDM report to determine compliance with trip reduction goals and provided to the City’s TDM Coordinator.

The following metrics will be considered for the annual analysis:
 Residential mode split (all trips and all modes, including differentiating between driving along and carpool/rideshare)
 Parking utilization throughout the day
 Vehicle ownership at the residential development
 TDM program awareness
 Participation in individual TDM programs
 Cost-effectiveness of the TDM program
 Resident survey of travel behavior
If Terra Bella’s parking is constrained and vehicle trips increase, Alta housing will submit a revised TDM Plan to the City that identifies new programs or strategies to meet requirements. Moreover, Alta Housing is prepared to pay a financial penalty for non-compliance.

TERRA BELLA TDM PLAN
Alta Housing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18
3 APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF

PARKING DATA FROM ALTA

HOUSING SITES
The following properties were used as comparable housing developments, with their measures of parking demand, relative to the number of Rapid Rehousing units, used to inform the parking- demand ratio used for those units in the TDM Plan’s parking analysis. All the units in both properties are Rapid Rehousing units, each with a population profile at both, in terms of developmental challenges, similar to that of the population who will occupy those units at Terra Bella.

Site 1: Eagle Park
This property consists of 67 units, including 62 studio apartments and five one-bedroom units.

Parking details:
 Supply Ratio: 0.4 spaces/ unit
− The number of on-site parking spaces: 27 Spaces including 2 for disabled persons & 2 for electric vehicle charging.
 Demand Ratio: 0.4 spaces/ unit
− Current Occupancy: 100%
− Parking eligibility: Tenants are given one space per unit − The property sometimes maintains a waitlist for parking, depending on the needs of our current residents.

Site 2: Fair Oaks Commons
This property consists of 67 units, including 61 studio apartments and six one-bedroom units.

Parking details:
 Supply Ratio: 0.76 spaces/ unit
− The number of on-site parking spaces: 51
 Demand Ratio: 0.5 spaces/unit
− Current Occupancy: 69% (35 vehicles for 51 spaces)
− Parking eligibility: Tenants are offered one space per unit

ATTACHMENT A: DTSC COMMENT LETTER

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
December 22, 2022
Mr. Edgar Maravilla
City of Mountain View
500 Castrol Street, PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 9403907540
[email protected]

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TERRA BELLA PUBLIC STORAGE & ALTA HOUSING PROJECT – DATED NOVEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022110590)
Dear Mr. Maravilla:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Terra Bella Public Storage & ALTA Housing Project (Project).

The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

The MND references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies that may provide oversight to hazardous waste facilities and sites in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites for a county, city, or a specific Mr. Edgar Maravilla
December 22, 2022

Page 2 ends

Mountain View City CouncilMarch 14, 2023

Mountain View City Council
March 14, 2023