Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, December 8, 2022 (part 9 of 13)

Executive Summary
Project Description
Phase 1 of City Place Santa Clara would provide a mix of uses, including residential / serviced apartment, hotel, retail, and office uses within the southern portion of the overall Project site. Phase 1 program will be confined to the area referred to in the EIR as “Parcel 5”, bounded by Stars and Stripes Drive, Tasman Drive, Avenue A and Avenue C. Table ES.1 summarizes the development program for Phase 1.

Table ES.1: Phase 1 Land Use Program
Parcel Land Use Program Notes
5 Office 440 ksf
Hotel 480 rooms
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
200 units
Retail 21.4 ksf
Restaurants 29.6 ksf 6.2 ksf Fast Casual

23.4 ksf Quality Dining
Trip Generation and Trip Reductions
The trip generation for Phase 1 has been estimated using the trip rates as described below, including a mixed-use reduction based on the MXD tool developed by Fehr & Peers, and a public transit reduction. This trip generation methodology adopted for this DAP Phase 1 is fully consistent with the EIR.

Table ES.2 compares the EIR and Phase 1 trips. The Phase 1 program is expected to generate between 190 and 310 fewer vehicle trips during the peak hours, compared to those evaluated in the EIR.

Table ES.2: EIR and Phase 1 Program Peak Hour Trip Comparison Trip Generation Daily AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
EIR – Enhanced
Open Space Program 16,660 660 270 930 560 740 1,300
Phase 1 13,000 570 170 740 390 600 990
Difference -3,660 -90 -100 -190 -170 -140 -310

Page 2 ends

Phase 1 Internal Streets Summary and Findings
The Phase 1 traffic assessment analyzes the internal City Center intersections that will be constructed and operational during Phase 1, and existing intersections located along Great America Parkway (between SR 237 and Tasman Drive) and Tasman Drive (between Great America Parkway and Calle del Sol). All study area intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours with the Phase 1 DAP development.

Queuing analysis for the left-turn movements was completed for each existing signalized intersection within the study. The average and 95th percentile queue lengths were evaluated.

For the average queue length, three intersections have queues in the AM or PM peak hour that exceed the current storage length. At these intersections there are four left-turn movements that exceed the storage capacity. However, of these movements only one movement has Phase 1 project related trips assigned to the movement. The westbound left-turn movement at Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive exceeds storage length by 35ft.

For the 95th percentile queue length, four intersections have queues in the AM or PM peak hour that exceed the current storage length. At these intersections there are seven left-turn movements that exceed the storage capacity. However, of these movements only one movement has Phase 1 project related trips assigned to the movement. The westbound left-turn movement at Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive exceeds storage length by 152ft.

For the one movement where Phase 1 project trips contribute to the increase in storage length of the left-turn movements, the following mitigation is identified. It is noted that additional development phases may require further mitigation and should be considered as part of those applications. • Intersection #8 – Provide a total of 655ft of storage capacity for the westbound left-turn movement to meet the 95th percentile queue length.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan
The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program identifies mitigation TRA-1.1:

Vehicle Trip Reduction with TDM that requires the project to implement a TDM plan that supports the reduction of project office traffic by 4 percent daily and 10 percent in the peak hours. For residential trips, the TDM plan will need to identify measures to reduce daily traffic by 2 percent and peak hour traffic by a minimum of 4 percent.

Page 3 ends

Overall, the planned Phase 1 program will generate fewer peak hour trips than the estimated EIR vehicle trip threshold. This is due in part to the reduction in the commercial (retail and restaurant) program that was planned for Parcel 5. Table ES.3 provides a summary of the total vehicle trip thresholds for Phase 1.

Table ES.3: Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Thresholds
Daily AM In AM Out
Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Estimates 13,000 740 990
Phase 1 TDM Reduction Target -220 -50 -50
Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Threshold 12,780 690 940

Page 4 ends

1 Introduction
This report has been prepared to provide the results and findings of the traffic analysis of the internal street network for the City Center Phase 1 for City Place, Santa Clara, and performance of signalized intersections along Great America Parkway (between Old Mountain View-Alviso Road and Tasman Drive) and Tasman Drive (between Great America Parkway and Calle del Sol).

1.1 Project Description
Phase 1 of City Place Santa Clara would provide a mix of uses, including residential / serviced apartment, hotel, retail, and office uses within the southern portion of the overall Project site. Table 1.1 summarizes the program by land use for Phase 1.

Phase 1 program will be confined to the area referred to in the EIR as “Parcel 5”, bounded by Stars and Stripes Drive, Tasman Drive, Avenue A and Avenue C.

Phase 1 will include modification / construction of new roadways to support the development and include:
• Realignment of the existing Stars and Stripes Drive (moved north) • Avenue A – north-south connection between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive
• Centennial Boulevard – realigned and extended between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive
• Avenue C – north-south connection between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive and continuing to the connection of Station Road. A temporary two-lane roadway will also be constructed from Station Road that will connect to Great America Parkway (along the same alignment as the future City Place Parkway)
• Tasman Eastbound Slip Ramp - new one-way roadway to provide connection from eastbound Tasman Drive to Stars and Stripes Drive, providing connection to the Great America Station and Phase 1 below grade parking / service access.

Figure 1.1 provides a summary of the site plan, development blocks and roadways to be constructed during Phase 1.
5A 5B

TASMAN DRIVE

STATION ROAD
5C
Legend
Notes
Block to be developed in later Phases

1. Temporary 2 lane roadway to be constructued
during Phase 1
Roadway to be constructed in later
Phases
Block developed during Phase 1
See Note 1
5A 5B 5C
Figure 1.1
Phase 1 Block Development and Constructed Roadways
City Place, Santa Clara
N
C)
ARUP

Page 6 ends

The proposed development program for Phase 1 is outlined in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Phase 1 Land Use Program
Parcel Land Use Program Notes
5 Office 440 ksf
Hotel 480 rooms
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
200 units
Retail 21.4 ksf
Restaurants 29.6 ksf 6.2 ksf Fast Casual

23.4 ksf Quality Dining

1.2 Study Area
Phase 1 will include construction of the following new roadways to provide access and circulation to the project:
• Avenue A: New roadway connecting from Tasman Drive (existing) to Stars and Stripes Drive
• Centennial Boulevard: Reconfiguration between Tasman Drive and Stars and Stripes Drive
• Avenue C: New roadway connecting from Tasman Drive (existing) to City Place Parkway (Temp Road)
• Stars and Stripes Drive: realignment of existing Stars and Stripes Drive north between Avenue A and Avenue C
• City Place Parkway (Temp Road): New roadway connecting from Great America Parkway (existing) to Avenue C
The traffic analysis notes the following key assumptions with regards to the traffic circulation:
• New bridges crossing UP railroad over Lafayette Street are not constructed during this phase, therefore access from Lafayette will be via Calle del Luna and Calle del Sol to Tasman Drive.

Figure 1.2a and Figure 1.2b illustrate the external and internal intersections studied.
60 61
63 8 9
11 10
12 13
90 89
Figure 1.2a
Phase 1 External Study Intersections
City Place, Santa Clara
© Mapbox ©OpenStreetMap
N
Parcel 1
Parcel 2 Parcel 3
Parcel 4
Parcel 5
See Figure 1b for
internal intersections
I

0..
:3
1 e
(')
asman Dr
Old Gloryln
0 a:

TechMart
ARUP
Sanla CL:ira
Convention Center
e Levi's Stadium
Sa nta C• lara Youth
Soccer Park
Marie P.

DeBartolo Sports
Centre
237
Highway rI1 Blkeway
PinefieJO' Ji>O'
summerland Or
\)Seln
n
Kathryn Hughes
Elementary School
~ick Mill Blvd
5A 5B

TASMAN DRIVE

STATION ROAD
5A 5B 5C
61 1002
1002
1003 1004 1005
1006
10 10
11 12
Figure 1.2b
Phase 1 Internal Study Intersections
City Place, Santa Clara
N

1. Temporary 2 lane roadway to be constructued
during Phase 1
See Note 1
Notes
Legend
Internal (New) Study Intersection
External Study Intersection
C)
-
0 ARUP
WA
0 0 0

Page 9 ends

2 Methodology and Performance Criteria
To assess Phase 1 of development, trip generation estimates are developed consistent with the methodology used in the City Place Santa Clara Project Final EIR, April 2016 (EIR). Further information on the trip generation is provided in Section 3.

The traffic assessment analyzes the internal City Center intersections that will be constructed and operational during Phase 1, and existing intersections located along Great America Parkway (between Old Mountain View-Alviso Road and Tasman Drive) and Tasman Drive (between Great America Parkway and Calle del Sol). This will ensure that traffic patterns without the Lafayette Street / UP Railroad bridge crossings are fully assessed.

Regional traffic distribution patterns and project trip assignment utilizes similar assumptions as the EIR, with changes to account for the changes to the street network for Phase 1. To account for future traffic volumes associated with other projects in the area, the baseline traffic is based upon the Background Conditions as presented in the EIR.

The traffic analysis has been completed using Traffix software to assess the performance of intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology and is consistent with VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines and City Place EIR.

The traffic assessment evaluates the performance of intersections based on Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of the operational performance of the intersection on a grade from LOS A (best) to LOS F (worst). The LOS relates to the average delay per vehicle with LOS A representing little to no delay and LOS F with unacceptable delay to most drivers.

For non-CMP signalized intersections, LOS D or better operations is the performance metric used for the evaluation, with average vehicle delay less than

55.0 seconds. For CMP signalized intersections (#8), LOS E or better operations is the performance metric used for evaluation, with average vehicle delay less than

80.0 seconds. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the LOS standards and average vehicle delay for signalized intersections.

Page 10 ends

Table 2.1: Signalized Intersection LOS Standards
LOS Definition Average Control
Delay per
Vehicle (seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and / or short cycle lengths
<10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and / or short cycle lengths

10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and / or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear

20.1 to 35.0
D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumeto-capacity (V / C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable

35.1 to 55.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V / C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences

55.1 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths
> 80.0
Source: Traffic and Level of Service Guidelines, VTA CMP June 2003.

For un-signalized all-way stop sign intersections, the performance evaluation is based upon the average control delay per vehicle (in seconds), for two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection, the worst-case approach delay is reported. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the LOS Standards for un-signalized intersections.

Table 2.2: Un-signalized Intersection LOS Standards
LOS Definition Average
Control Delay
per Vehicle
(seconds)
A Little or no delay. <10.0
B Short traffic delay. 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 with
intersection capacity exceeded.
> 50.0
Source: Traffic and Level of Service Guidelines, VTA CMP June 2003.

Page 11 ends

3 Project Trip Generation, Distribution and
Assignment
To evaluate the future performance of the roadways, the building program is used to estimate future project trips and assigns the vehicle trips to the local network based upon the regional distribution patterns used in the EIR. Sections 3.1 to 3.3 summarize the project trip generation, distribution and assignment used in the analysis.

3.1 Project Trip Generation
The trip generation for Phase 1 has been estimated using the trip rates as described below, including a mixed-use reduction based on the MXD tool developed by Fehr & Peers, and a public transit reduction. This trip generation methodology adopted for this DAP Phase 1 is fully consistent with the EIR.

Office – The EIR uses a local Silicon Valley Rate per employee for the office land use and is based on an employee density of 270sq.ft per person.

Hotel – The hotel trip rate in the EIR is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) LU Code 310 trip rates. The average rate is used for the AM and PM peak hours.

Restaurants – In the EIR, the food & beverage used a mix of different restaurant types for estimating restaurant trips. The land use types included High-turnover (ITE 932), Quality / Fine Dining (ITE 931) and Fast-food (ITE 934). With the refinement of the program, fast-food locations are not being proposed as part of the project, therefore this land use and trip rate is replaced with Fast-casual dining (ITE 930) trip rates, which more accurately reflects the proposed use. The average rate is used for Daily, AM, and PM peak hour calculations.

Residential / Serviced Apartments – The residential trip rate used in the EIR is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) LU Code 220 trip rates.

The fitted curve rate is used for the Daily, AM and PM peak hour calculations.

Retail – The EIR used Shopping Center (ITE 820) trip rates for estimation of the retail trips at City Place. The EIR used fitted curve equation for daily and peak hours. It is noted that the EIR assessed all retail (for Parcels 4 and 5) as a single land use using the fitted curve equations. Phase 1 is assessed using the fitted curve equation, therefore as additional phases are constructed, the trip rates per ksf will adjust to reflect the adjustments to the fitted curve.

Page 12 ends

Table 3.1: Phase 1 Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Units Daily Trip
Rate
AM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
Office per employee 2.95 0.31 0.30
Hotel per room 8.17 0.53 0.60
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
per unit 6.70 0.50 0.65
Retail per ksf 116.36 2.80 9.81
Restaurants per ksf 137.16 1.10 9.12
Source:

Office – Silicon Valley Local Office Rate, per EIR. Office density of 270sf per employee.

Hotel – ITE 9th Edition LU 310. Fitted curve for daily, average rate for AM and PM peak hours Residential / Serviced Apartments – ITE 9th Edition LU 220. Fitted curve for daily, AM and PM peak hours
Retail – ITE 9th Edition LU 820. Fitted curve for daily, AM and PM peak hours Restaurants – ITE 9th and 10th Edition. LU 930 and 931. Average for daily, AM and PM peak hours.

Blended rate, see Appendix A1 for breakdown.

Table 3.2 provides a summary of the Phase 1 Program and peak hour vehicle trips assessed in this traffic assessment.

Table 3.2: Phase 1 Land Use Program and Trip Generation (excludes mixeduse reductions) Parcel Land Use Program Daily AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
5 Office 440 ksf 4,800 500 490
Hotel 480 rooms 3,920 250 290
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
200 units 1,340 100 130
Retail 21.4 ksf 2,490 60 210
Restaurants 29.6 ksf 4,060 30 270
Total 16,610 940 1,390
As in the EIR, the mixed-use reductions were estimated using Fehr & Peers MXD tool, a proprietary tool that estimates reductions based on program use. Fehr & Peers MXD reductions are provided in Appendix A2. Table 3.3 provides a summary table of the reductions applied for Phase 1 program, including the public transit reduction. The office program was not included in the mixed-use reduction since Silicon Valley office rates are being used and already include a TDM reduction.

Page 13 ends

Table 3.3: Phase 1 Reductions
Land Use Daily AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
Office
Gross 4,800 450 50 500 100 390 490
5% Public Transit
Reduction -240 -25 0 -25 -5 -20 -25
Sub-total 4,560 425 50 475 95 370 465
Retail
Gross 2,490 40 20 60 100 110 210
Mixed-use Reduction -620 -15 -5 -20 -40 -45 -85
5% Public Transit
Reduction -90 0 0 0 -5 -5 -10
Sub-total 1,780 25 15 40 55 60 115
Restaurants
Gross 4,060 20 10 30 170 100 270
Mixed-use Reduction -1,010 -10 -5 -15 -65 -40 -105
5% Public Transit
Reduction -155 0 0 0 -5 0 -5
Sub-total 2,895 10 5 15 100 60 160
Hotel
Gross 3,920 150 100 250 150 140 290
Mixed-use Reduction -970 -50 -40 -90 -55 -55 -110
5% Public Transit
Reduction -145 -5 -5 -10 -5 -5 -10
Sub-total 2,805 95 55 150 90 80 170
Residential /
Serviced
Apartments
Gross 1,340 20 80 100 80 50 130
Mixed-use Reduction -330 -5 -30 -35 -30 -20 -50
5% Public Transit
Reduction -50 0 -5 -5 0 0 0
Sub-total 960 15 45 60 50 30 80
Total 13,000 570 170 740 390 600 990
Table 3.4 provides a comparison of the Phase 1 trips against the Parcel 5 trips as assessed in the EIR. Appendix A3 provides a breakdown of the Full Build project trips as evaluated in the EIR. As shown, the Phase 1 program is expected to generate between 190 to 310 fewer vehicle trips during the peak hours, compared to those evaluated in the EIR.

Page 14 ends

Table 3.4: EIR and Phase 1 Program Peak Hour Trip Comparison Trip Generation Daily AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
EIR – Enhanced
Open Space Program 16,660 660 270 930 560 740 1,300
Phase 1 13,000 570 170 740 390 600 990
Difference -3,660 -90 -100 -190 -170 -140 -310

3.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The regional trip distribution patterns used in the City Place EIR have been used to estimate trips to the regional network. Figure 3.1a and Figure 3.1b presents the regional gateway distribution patterns used in the assessment. Assignment of the vehicle trips to the local and external network are based upon the most appropriate route choice between the trip origin and destination. Where alternative competing routes are available, trips have been assigned between the choices based upon suitability of the route and engineering judgement. Table 3.5 summarizes the inbound and outbound vehicle trips for each of the key Phase 1 access locations.

Table 3.5: Phase 1 Inbound and Outbound Trip by Site Access Location Phase 1 Site Access
Location
AM In AM Out AM
Total
PM In PM Out PM
Total
Great America Parkway
and City Place Parkway
(Temp Road)
105 52 157 44 99 143
Tasman Drive and
Avenue A 173 21 194 66 190 256
Tasman Drive and
Centennial Boulevard 230 80 310 173 273 446
Tasman Drive and
Avenue C 15 17 32 44 38 82
Tasman Drive
Eastbound Slip Ramp
(entry only)
47 0 47 63 0 63
Total 570 170 740 390 600 990
Figure 3.2 presents the project turning movement volumes at the study intersections.

Figure 3.1
Phase 1 AM and PM Peak Hour Regional Distribution
City Place, Santa Clara
© Mapbox ©OpenStreetMap
N
42%
(25%)
2%
(3%)
7%
(13%)
19%
(17%)
9%
(19%)
20%
(20%)
1%
(2%)
Parcel 5
Phase 1 Development
9%
(19%)
Legend
AM Distribution
PM Distribution
~ c;Center
§!¥' □ Pr )I
Santa Cl:ira
Convention Center
WTasmanDr
ARUP
City of Santa Clara Parking
Santa Clara PAL
BMX
(ft)
Levi's Stadium
Q
Santa Clara • Youth
Soccer Park
MarleP. Oe8artolo Sports
Centre
237
Highway 237 Blkeway
s
Pinefie(q,?O'
Summerland Dr I
~ \)S"Ln
H
Kathryn Hughes
Elementary School
~ick Mill Blvd
Figure 3.2a
Phase 1 DAP Project Volumes
City Place, Santa Clara
23 (73)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
12 (78)
0 (0)
(51) 40
(0) 0
15 (114)
144 (66)
(0) 0
(74) 51
8 Tasman Drive Great America Parkway
Tasman Drive
Great America Parkway
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
50 (265)
0 (0)
(191) 235
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
9 Tasman Drive Parking Lot
Tasman Drive
Convention Center
174 (66)
21 (190)
29 (75)
(191) 235
10 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Future Driveway
42 (46)
12 (37)
(128) 189
(0) 0
191 (104)
0 (0)
(63) 47
(0) 0
0 (0)
68 (237)
(0) 0
(0) 0
11 Tasman Drive Marie P Bartolo Way
Tasman Drive
Centennial Boulevard
15 (44)
17 (38)
216 (111)
(237) 68
12 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Future Driveway
0 (0)
122 (89)
(135) 36
108 (66)
(102) 32
0 (0)
13 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(12) 2
0 (0)
243 (102)
(0) 0
(159) 73
0 (0)
0 (0)
(8) 6
(0) 0
60 Old Mountain View Alviso Great America Parkway
Old Mountain View Alviso
Great America Parkway
52 (99)
144 (66)
(73) 23
0 (0)
105 (44)
(0) 0
61 Future Driveway Great America Parkway Great America Parkway 0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
0 (0)
144 (66)
(0) 0
(73) 23
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
63 Convention Center Great America Parkway
Bunker Hill Lane
Great America Parkway
Legend
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
L
JJL r --•--
_) ,lr -
'
L
j - --•-- -
L !L r •-l-
, -
L
j - --•-- -
L
JL -
--•--
_)
-
Figure 3.2b
Phase 1 DAP Project Volumes
City Place, Santa Clara
0 (0)
8 (11)
(15) 2
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
89 Calle Del Mundo Lafayette Street Lafayette Street
2 (15)
0 (0)
(0) 0
34 (120)
8 (11)
(78) 114
90 Calle De Luna Lafayette Street Lafayette Street
(0) 0
0 (0)
(0) 0
224 (85)
(0) 0
(215) 34
1002 Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue A
Stars and Stripes Drive
(61) 130
95 (24)
(55) 12
27 (56)
(160) 22
(46) 30
1003 Stars and Stripes Drive Centennial Boulevard
Stars and Stripes Drive
(56) 27
95 (24)
(78) 36
25 (64)
(23) 6
(59) 33
1004 Stars and Stripes Drive Hotel Access
Stars and Stripes Drive
105 (44)
(99) 52
(44) 15
0 (0)
(0) 0
(38) 17
1005Avenue C
Stars and Stripes Drive
Avenue C
0 (0)
105 (44)
(99) 52
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
1006 Station Road Avenue C Avenue C
Legend
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
-t
L L !l r !l r •
• Ii • Ii - 11
'
-t -t )!
-• • 11 - 11 • 1l _J
' ' '
L !l r
• Ii

Page 18 ends

4 Phase 1 Traffic Assessment

4.1 Intersection Level of Service
The Phase 1 traffic assessment analyzes the internal City Center intersections that will be constructed and operational during Phase 1, and existing intersections located along Great America Parkway (between SR 237 and Tasman Drive) and Tasman Drive (between Great America Parkway and Lick Mill Boulevard).

Regional traffic distribution patterns and project trip assignment utilizes similar assumptions as the EIR, with changes to account for the changes to the street network for Phase 1. The baseline traffic is based upon the Background (No Project) Conditions as presented in the EIR. The expected new development trips were added to the baseline traffic to determine the total traffic volumes. Figure

4.1a and Figure 4.1b shows the total traffic volumes (background volumes plus Phase 1 DAP project trips) for the study area intersections.

The traffic analysis was completed using Traffix software to assess the performance of intersections using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology and is consistent with VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines and City Place EIR. Table 4.1 shows the LOS results for the study area intersections.

Figure 4.1a
Phase 1 DAP Background Plus Project Volumes
City Place, Santa Clara
373 (233)
220 (210)
(160) 120
(180) 250
1112 (788)
1070 (1380)
(1061) 400
(1220) 1300
535 (744)
244 (446)
(170) 290
(684) 531
8 Tasman Drive Great America Parkway
Tasman Drive
Great America Parkway
20 (10)
20 (10)
(30) 70
(310) 10
1550 (1535)
10 (0)
(1931) 985
(0) 10
40 (70)
10 (10)
(30) 10
(90) 10
9 Tasman Drive Parking Lot
Tasman Drive
Convention Center
174 (66)
21 (190)
1689 (1325)
(2161) 965
10 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Future Driveway
52 (56)
22 (47)
(138) 199
(0) 10
1841 (1354)
0 (0)
(2023) 767
(0) 0
10 (10)
78 (247)
(10) 10
(10) 10
11 Tasman Drive Marie P Bartolo Way
Tasman Drive
Centennial Boulevard
15 (44)
17 (38)
1876 (1371)
(2207) 798
12 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Future Driveway
240 (290)
262 (169)
(275) 86
1728 (856)
(1662) 502
130 (360)
13 Tasman Drive Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol
20 (80)
460 (100)
(510) 90
(92) 252
10 (10)
1823 (1292)
(20) 10
(1779) 883
30 (130)
100 (40)
(178) 36
(30) 150
60 Old Mountain View Alviso Great America Parkway
Old Mountain View Alviso
Great America Parkway
62 (109)
1784 (1546)
(1803) 1233
0 (0)
115 (54)
(0) 0
61 Future Driveway Great America Parkway Great America Parkway 20 (110)
180 (30)
(140) 20
(50) 200
10 (30)
1494 (1466)
(20) 20
(1413) 1193
70 (310)
170 (50)
(270) 30
(50) 350
63 Convention Center Great America Parkway
Bunker Hill Lane
Great America Parkway
Legend
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
L
JJL r --•--
_) ,lr -
'
L
j - --•-- -
L !L r •-l-
, -
L
j - --•-- -
L
JL -
--•--
_)
-
Figure 4.1b
Phase 1 DAP Background Plus Project Volumes
City Place, Santa Clara
10 (10)
208 (211)
(325) 1062
10 (10)
30 (30)
(10) 10
89 Calle Del Mundo Lafayette Street Lafayette Street
132 (75)
210 (950)
(270) 910
174 (490)
48 (171)
(328) 364
90 Calle De Luna Lafayette Street Lafayette Street
(0) 0
0 (0)
(0) 0
224 (85)
(0) 0
(215) 34
1002 Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue A
Stars and Stripes Drive
(205) 130
95 (24)
(55) 12
47 (76)
(160) 22
(66) 50
1003 Stars and Stripes Drive Centennial Boulevard
Stars and Stripes Drive
(56) 27
115 (44)
(98) 56
25 (64)
(23) 6
(59) 33
1004 Stars and Stripes Drive Hotel Access
Stars and Stripes Drive
125 (64)
(119) 72
(44) 15
0 (0)
(0) 0
(38) 17
1005Avenue C
Stars and Stripes Drive
Avenue C
10 (10)
105 (44)
(99) 52
20 (20)
10 (10)
(0) 20
1006 Station Road Avenue C Avenue C
Legend
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
-t
L L !l r !l r •
• Ii • Ii - 11
'
-t -t )!
-• • 11 - 11 • 1l _J
' ' '
L !l r
• Ii

Page 20 ends

Table 4.1: Phase 1 DAP Intersection LOS and Average Delay Results Int. # Intersection Name Control Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Avg.

Delay
(sec)1
LOS Avg. Delay
(sec)1
8 Great America
Parkway / Tasman
Drive (CMP)
Signalized
D 36.6 E* 69.0
9 Convention Center /
Tasman Drive
Signalized B 17.4 C 25.5
10 Future Driveway
(west of Centennial
Boulevard) / Tasman
Drive
SSSC1
C 19.3 C 22.8
11 Centennial Boulevard
/ Tasman Drive
Signalized C 23.3 C 28.1
12 Future Driveway
(east of Centennial
Boulevard) / Tasman
Drive
SSSC1
C 19.4 C 15.5
13 Calle Del Sol /
Tasman Drive
Signalized B 17.0 C 21.6
60 Great America Parkway
/ Old Mountain ViewAlviso
Signalized
C 21.1 D 43.5
61 Great America Parkway
/ Future Driveway
(south of Old Mountain
View-Alviso)
Signalized B 12.1 B 11.3
63 Great America Parkway
/ Bunker Hill Lane
Signalized B 13.1 B 15.7
89 Lafayette Street / Calle
Del Mundo
Unsignalized C 24.9 B 11.8
90 Lafayette Street / Calle
Del Luna
Signalized B 17.1 C 22.9
1002 Stars and Stripes Drive /
Avenue A AWSC A 9.7 A 7.9
1003 Stars and Stripes Drive /
Centennial Boulevard Signalized B 12.2 B 14.2
1004 Stars and Stripes Drive /
Avenue B AWSC A 7.7 A 8.0
1005 Stars and Stripes Drive /
Avenue C AWSC A 7.8 A 8.2
1006 Avenue C / Station
Road Signalized B 10.5 B 11.0
1 Average delay for SSSC is delay on the worst approach, all others are average intersection delay.

Page 21 ends

As shown in Table 4.1, all study area intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours with the Phase 1 DAP development.

The Great America Parkway & Tasmin Drive intersection is expected to operate at LOS E with 69.0 seconds of delay during the evening peak hour. This intersection of Great America Parkway & Tasmin Drive is on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) network, with a threshold of LOS E (80 seconds of delay or less) applies to all CMP intersections. Therefore, the intersection of Great America Parkway & Tasmin Drive is expected to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours.

4.2 Intersection Queuing
The overall volume of traffic for Phase 1 is significantly less than the volume of traffic that was evaluated in the EIR (~10%) and all intersections are operating within the defined performance thresholds, indicating that traffic conditions with Phase 1 should be better than what was studied in the EIR. Nevertheless, the DAP traffic study has assessed leftturn queuing on Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive (within the study area) using the Poisson approximation for queue lengths and the findings of the Phase 1 DAP queue analysis queue lengths indicate that Phase 1 left-turns with project traffic have lower queue lengths than assessed in the EIR.

At this stage, micro-simulation is not recommended due to the overall low volume of traffic and the uncertainty of the later development stages beyond Phase 2 and considering that the Poisson method will provide a reasonable indication of where queues might exceed the available storage length.

For identification of possible queueing deficiencies and responses, the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic should be considered for determining recommended lengthening where possible, as it is currently anticipated that development of Phases 1 and 2 may occur within a similar timeframe. It is not recommended to complete micro-simulation analysis for combined Phases 1, 2, and 3 at this time, considering the uncertainty in the timing, program and detailed design of Phase 3.

Queuing analysis for the left-turn movements has been completed for each signalized intersection within the study. The queuing analysis uses the Poisson method to estimate the average vehicle queue (50th percentile) and the 95th percentile queue length. It should be noted that the 95th percentile queue is generally a worst-case condition. Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 present the 50th and 95th percentile queue lengths for each intersection left-turn movement during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the impacted movements, and improvements to mitigate impacts due to project related traffic.

For the average queue length, three intersections have queues in the AM or PM peak hour that exceed the current storage capacity. At these intersections there are four left-turn movements that exceed the storage capacity. However, of these movements only one movement has Phase 1 project related trips assigned to the movement. The westbound left-turn movement at Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive exceeds storage capacity by 35ft.

Page 22 ends

For the 95th percentile queue length, four intersections have queues in the AM or PM peak hour that exceed the current storage capacity. At these intersections there are seven left-turn movements that exceed the storage capacity. However, of these movements only one movement has Phase 1 project related trips assigned to the movement. The westbound left-turn movement at Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive exceeds storage capacity by 152ft.

Page 23 ends

Table 4.2: 50th Percentile Queue Storage Length (Poisson) Int.
# Intersection Direction
AM
Vehicles
Per Hour
PM
Vehicles
Per Hour
50th Percentile Queue
AM
Calculated
Storage
Length
PM
Calculated
Storage
Length
Storage
Length
Provided
(ft)
Sufficient
Storage
Length?
8 Great America
Parkway & Tasman
Drive
NBL 250 180 191 166 340 Yes
SBL 244 446 191 316 445 Yes
EBL 120 160 104 129 540 Yes
WBL 535 744 385 535 500 No
9 Convention Center
& Tasman Drive
NBL 10 310 0 200 180 No
SBL 10 10 0 0 50 Yes
EBL 70 30 74 49 360 Yes
WBL 40 70 42 67 160 Yes
11 Centennial
Boulevard &
Tasman Drive
NBL 10 0 0 0 100 Yes
SBL 78 247 74 174 350 Yes
EBL 199 138 162 112 380 Yes
WBL 10 10 0 0 190 Yes
13 Calle del Sol &
Tasman Drive
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
SBL 130 360 104 254 375 Yes
EBL 86 275 74 199 660 Yes
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
60 Great America
Parkway & Old
Mountain ViewAviso Road
NBL 252 92 162 87 220 Yes
SBL 100 40 74 49 110 Yes
EBL 90 510 74 274 100 No
WBL 30 130 42 92 75 No
61 Great America
Parkway & City
Place Parkway
(Temp Road / Future
Driveway)
NBL 0 0 0 0 200 Yes
SBL 115 54 104 54 200 Yes
EBL 10 10 0 0 200 Yes
WBL 0 0 0 0 200 Yes
63 Great America
Parkway & Bunker
Hill Lane
NBL 200 50 104 54 150 Yes
SBL 170 50 104 54 150 Yes
EBL 20 140 0 50 110 Yes
WBL 70 310 42 142 200 Yes
90 Lafayette Street &
Calle De Luna
NBL 10 0 0 0 630 Yes
SBL 48 171 42 142 630 Yes
EBL 0 0 0 0 630 Yes
WBL 174 490 162 387 630 Yes
1003
Stars and Stripes &
Centennial
Boulevard
NBL 130 205 74 99 380 Yes
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
WBL 47 76 42 42 300 Yes
• • ■ I l I l [ l
I I I l
■ ■ ■

Page 24 ends

Table 4.3: 95th Percentile Queue Storage Length (Poisson) Int.
# Intersection Direction
AM
Vehicles
Per Hour
PM
Vehicles
Per Hour
95th Percentile Queue
AM
Calculated
Storage
Length
PM
Calculated
Storage
Length
Storage
Length
Provided
(ft)
Sufficient
Storage
Length?
8 Great America
Parkway & Tasman
Drive
NBL 250 180 270 245 340 Yes
SBL 244 446 270 395 445 Yes
EBL 120 160 160 185 540 Yes
WBL 535 744 502 652 500 No
9 Convention Center
& Tasman Drive
NBL 10 310 0 200 180 No
SBL 10 10 0 0 50 Yes
EBL 70 30 119 94 360 Yes
WBL 40 70 74 99 160 Yes
11 Centennial
Boulevard &
Tasman Drive
NBL 10 0 0 0 100 Yes
SBL 78 247 119 219 350 Yes
EBL 199 138 235 185 380 Yes
WBL 10 10 0 0 190 Yes
13 Calle del Sol &
Tasman Drive
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
SBL 130 360 160 310 375 Yes
EBL 86 275 119 244 660 Yes
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
60 Great America
Parkway & Old
Mountain ViewAviso Road
NBL 252 92 235 160 235 Yes
SBL 100 40 119 94 110 No
EBL 90 510 119 319 100 No
WBL 30 130 74 124 75 No
61 Great America
Parkway & City
Place Parkway
(Temp Road / Future
Driveway)
NBL 0 0 0 0 175 Yes
SBL 115 54 160 110 175 Yes
EBL 10 10 0 0 175 Yes
WBL 0 0 0 0 175 Yes
63 Great America
Parkway & Bunker
Hill Lane
NBL 200 50 160 110 150 No
SBL 170 50 160 110 150 No
EBL 20 140 0 50 110 Yes
WBL 70 310 74 174 200 Yes
90 Lafayette Street &
Calle De Luna
NBL 10 0 0 0 630 Yes
SBL 48 171 74 174 630 Yes
EBL 0 0 0 0 630 Yes
WBL 174 490 235 460 630 Yes
1003
Stars and Stripes &
Centennial
Boulevard
NBL 130 205 119 144 380 Yes
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
WBL 47 76 74 74 300 Yes
• • • ■ I l I l [ l
• • ■ I l I I I l
• ■ ■

I J I I J
n n n

Page 25 ends

Table 4.3: 95th Percentile Queue Storage Length (Poisson) Int.
# Intersection Impacted
Movement
50th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)*
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)*
Storage
Length
Provided
(ft)
Comment
8 Great America
Parkway & Tasman
Drive
WBL 535 652 500
Project adds 114 vehicle trips during the
PM, approximately 15% of the overall
left turn volume. Average queue exceeds
storage capacity by 35ft, 95th percentile
queue exceeds storage capacity by 152ft.
9 Convention Center &
Tasman Drive NBL 200 200 180
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 20ft.
60 Great America
Parkway & Old
Mountain ViewAviso Road
SBL
Less than
storage
length
119 110
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 9ft.

EBL 274 319 100
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 219ft.

WBL 92 124 75
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 49ft.
63 Great America
Parkway & Bunker
Hill Lane
NBL
Less than
storage
length
160 150
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 10ft.

SBL
Less than
storage
length
160 150
No Phase 1 project trips on this
movement. Queue exceeds storage
capacity by 10ft.

Page 26 ends

4.3 EIR Off-site Intersection Mitigation
Improvements
The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measures that are the full funding responsibility of the project and identifies that project phase and number of project trips that trigger the improvement.

Table 4.3 summarizes the intersection mitigation that will be required as part of Phase 1. The mitigation at intersection 22 is triggered when the project generates 450 or more AM peak hour vehicle trips. Phase 1 is estimated to generate 870 peak hour vehicle trips; therefore, this improvement will be required to be implemented as part of Phase 1.

The other mitigations will not be triggered until later phases, when the project exceeds 2,240 project trips or more.

Table 4.3: Intersection Mitigations for Phase 1
Trip Generation Jurisdiction Mitigation Impact
Hour
Project Trips
Trigger
22 – Agnew Road-De La
Cruz Boulevard /
Montague Expressway
Santa Clara
County (CMP)
Partial Mitigation – Add a
second northbound left-turn
lane
AM 450

Page 27 ends

5 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan
The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program identifies mitigation TRA-1.1:

5.1 summarizes the vehicle trip thresholds for the office and residential program and Table 5.2 provides a summary of the total vehicle trip thresholds for Phase 1.

Table 5.1: Phase 1 TDM Reductions for Office and Residential Program Office Daily AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Office
Vehicle Trips (Phase 1 Estimate) 4,560 475 465
TDM Reduction Target -185 -45 -45
Vehicle Trip Threshold 4,375 430 420
Residential
Vehicle Trips (Phase 1 Estimate) 960 60 80
TDM Reduction Target -35 -5 -5
Vehicle Trip Threshold 925 55 75
Note: Trip reductions rounded to nearest 5 vehicle trips.

Table 5.2: Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Thresholds
Daily AM In AM Out
Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Estimates 13,000 740 990
Phase 1 TDM Reduction Target -220 -50 -50
Phase 1 Vehicle Trip Threshold 12,780 690 940
TDM Program Components
Phase 1 of the project includes infrastructure, measures and strategies as part of the overall design program with the aim of reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. These measures and strategies are summarized in Table 8 and form the basis of the overall TDM plan.

Page 28 ends

Table 8: TDM Program Components
Program Item Description
Office TDM Program
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
TDM Monitoring and
Implementation
Organization that will coordinate and provide oversight of the implementation of TDM measures for City Place.

The TMA will offer a baseline of TDM services
(coordinated for overall benefit of reducing auto trips) and provide guidance / recommendations for individual
employee / tenant programs.

Maintain and update website and marketing program to
disseminate information of TDM program
On-site Support Facilities Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Walking is encouraged within City Center through the
incorporation of ample sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks at intersections. Pedestrian connections are provided between the office program and the nearby
Great America LRT Station and Great America Amtrak
Station.

Bicycle Infrastructure The proposed roadways for City Center include on-street bike lanes with connections into the existing local
bicycle network (Along Tasman Drive).

Short-term and long-term bike parking will be provided
and will be located at convenient locations near the
office program (exact parking locations to be
determined)
Transit Infrastructure Shuttle stop(s) will be provided within convenient walking access of the office program on Block 5A
(location to be determined). Off-site transit
infrastructure includes the nearby Great America LRT
station and Great America Amtrak station, with
convenient pedestrian access routes.

Carpool Preferential parking spaces located close to building entrances to encourage carpooling
Car Share Services Provision of car sharing vehicles for use by office employees. Car sharing services provide office
employees access to a car when needed (for off-site
meetings, occasional lunch-time errands etc.), without
the need for office employees driving their own vehicle to commute.

In-building Support Facilities Pedestrian and Bicycle
Services
The office building will include the provision of
changing facilities, showers and short-term locker
facilities to encourage commuting through active travel modes.

Residential TDM Program
Transportation Management
Association (TMA)
TDM Coordinator TDM Coordinator for residents to help provide information related to commuting (to off-site locations), sign-up support for transit pass programs, car-share
programs and 511 rideshare programs.

On-site Support Facilities Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Walking is encouraged for residents with ample
sidewalks and pedestrian cross-walks at intersections,
providing connections to nearby public transit facilities.

Bicycle Infrastructure The proposed roadways for City Center include on-street bike lanes with connections into the existing local

Page 29 ends

Program Item Description
bicycle network (Along Tasman Drive). Bike lanes will
also connect to nearby recreational bike paths and trails.

Transit Infrastructure Provide in-building information for nearby public transit services, including schedules, maps to nearby transitstops and stations Car Share Services Provision of car sharing vehicles and car share membership information that provides residents access
to vehicles, without the need to own a vehicle.

TDM Plan Monitoring
Monitoring of the TDM plan will be conducted in accordance with the Section F Monitoring and Reporting. This will include the following:
• Annual monitoring and reporting that includes
o Description of TDM programs in operation over the previous year, results of driveway counts and survey findings
• Traffic counts to collect daily and peak hour traffic volumes at City Place Driveways and parking entrances. Counts will be conducted during school time and collected over a 72-hour period (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays)
• Provide total sum of entering and exiting traffic for the peak hours, adjusted to isolate office and residential parking. Traffic volumes will then be compared to TDM plan trip thresholds to determine TDM plan performance and if the vehicle trip thresholds are being met • Undertake an employee mode-share survey to determine mode-splits for employees, one year after building occupancy. Subsequent surveys will be conducted if the previous year monitoring results indicated that the vehicle trip thresholds had not been met.

Appendix A
City Place Trip Generation

Related Santa Clara City Place Santa Clara
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report
01-17-2020 Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report | Draft 4 | January 17, 2020 | Arup North America Ltd C:\USERS\ANGEL.SANCHEZ\DESKTOP\01-17-2020 PHASE 1 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.DOCX Page A1
A1 Restaurant Trip Generation Breakdown
Table A1 provides a breakdown of the restaurant trip rate used for Phase 1 restaurant program.

Table A1: Restaurant Trip Generation Rates for Phase
Land Use Units Daily Trip
Rate
AM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
(In / Out)
PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
(In / Out)
Fast-Casual per ksf 315.17 2.07
(67% / 33%)

14.13 (55% / 45%)
Fine / Quality
Dining
per ksf 89.95 0.81
(50%/50%)

7.49 (67% / 33%)
Blended Rate per ksf 137.16 1.10 9.12

Related Santa Clara City Place Santa Clara
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report
01-17-2020 Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report | Draft 4 | January 17, 2020 | Arup North America Ltd C:\USERS\ANGEL.SANCHEZ\DESKTOP\01-17-2020 PHASE 1 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.DOCX Page A2
A2 Fehr & Peers MXD Reduction
TABLE 3.1
PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use
(Units)
ITE
Code Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail, Residential, Hotel, and Restaurant Uses Trip Generation Shopping Center
(1,000 square feet)
820 21.4 2,490 40 20 60 100 110 210
Apartment
(Dwelling Units)
220 200 1,340 20 80 100 80 50 130
Hotel
(Rooms)
310 480 3,920 150 100 250 150 140 290
Quality Restaurant
(1,000 square feet)
931 23.4 2,110 10 10 20 120 60 180
Fast Casual Restaurant
(1,000 square feet)
930 6.2 1,950 10 0 10 50 40 90
Subtotal 11,810 230 210 440 500 400 900
Mixed-Use Reductions -2,930 -80 -80 -160 -190 -160 -350 Subtotal Net New Trips [A] 8,880 150 130 280 310 240 550 Office Use Trip Generation
Office
(1,000 square feet)
Local
Rates
440 4,800 50 50 500 100 390 490
Subtotal Office Trips [B] 4,800 50 50 500 100 390 490
Total Project Trip Generation
Project Trip Subtotal [A + B = C] 13,680 600 180 780 410 630 1,040 Public Transit Reduction [5%*C = D] -680 -30 -10 -40 -20 -30 -50 Total Project Trips [C + D = E] 13,000 570 170 740 390 600 990 Comparison
FEIR Trip Generation [F] 16,660 660 270 930 560 740 1,300 Difference (Results Less than FEIR Estimates)
[E - F = G]
-3,660 -90 -100 -190 -170 -140 -310
Notes:

Trip Generation Estimates using the same mixed-use equations in the City of Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara Project Environmental Impact Report, 2016, and updated built environment inputs.

Trip generation estimates do not account for transportation network company (TNCs) (e.g., Uber and Lyft) activity or other emerging trends like autonomous vehicles.

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

Related Santa Clara City Place Santa Clara
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report
01-17-2020 Phase 1 DAP Traffic Report | Draft 4 | January 17, 2020 | Arup North America Ltd C:\USERS\ANGEL.SANCHEZ\DESKTOP\01-17-2020 PHASE 1 DAP TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.DOCX Page A3
A3 City Place FEIR Trip Generation Summary
Table A1 provides a summary of the trip generation by parcel from the City Place EIR, April 2016. Note this program relates to the Enhanced Open Space program, that reallocated office program from Parcel 3 to Parcels 1, 2 and 5, with Parcel 3 becoming public open space.

Table A1: FEIR EOS Land Use Program and Trips
Parcel Land Use EOS Program Daily AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Office 1,440 ksf 15,720 1,660 1,590
2 Office 2,392 ksf 25,060 2,630 2,560
Commercial(a) 200 ksf 10,130 230 900
3 Park - - - -
4 Office 2,546.4 ksf 24,840 2,610 2,380
Commercial(a) 1,415 ksf 45,720 1,800 3,420
Hotel 298 ksf 2,600 160 160
Residential - - - -
5 Office 306 ksf 2,830 310 260
Commercial(a) 87 ksf 10,290 370 800
Hotel 280 ksf 2,450 160 150
Residential 200 ksf
(200 units)
1,090 90 90
Total 9,164.4 ksf 140,730 10,020 12,310
Notes:
(a) Commercial land use includes retail, entertainment, and food/beverage

Appendix B
Traffix Outputs
COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 1-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Background No Project AM Background Plus Project AM ??? ??? Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del Del Crit Del Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change LOS (sec) V/C (sec) #8 Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) C 34.7 0.854 37.2 D 36.6 0.865 38.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #9 Convention Center / Tasman Drive B 17.3 0.533 17.2 B 17.4 0.549 17.7 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive C 19.3 0.077 0.1 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #11 Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive B 17.8 0.524 18.1 C 23.3 0.660 25.6 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive C 19.4 0.064 0.1 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #13 Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive B 13.2 0.703 16.0 B 17.0 0.787 20.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #60 Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road C 20.6 0.589 21.9 C 21.1 0.642 23.1 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #61 Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future A 8.4 0.265 10.1 B 12.1 0.415 8.6 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #63 Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane B 13.2 0.460 13.3 B 13.1 0.490 13.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #90 Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna B 16.4 0.495 16.3 B 17.1 0.546 17.1 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1002 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A A 9.7 0.317 9.7 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1003 Centennial Boulevard / Stars and Stripes Drive B 12.2 0.058 13.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1004 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B A 7.7 0.095 7.7 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1005 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C A 7.8 0.143 7.8 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1006 Avenue C / Station Road B 10.5 0.087 8.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #8: Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 220 1070*** 100
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
120*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 350
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 360 1 Critical V/C: 0.854 1 1100***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 37.2 0
290 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.7 2 520
LOS: C
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 250*** 1300 480
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Great America Parkway Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 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: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 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: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 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: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 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: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.47 0.53 2.00 1.08 0.92 2.00 1.50 0.50 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 4644 955 3150 2048 1650 3150 2806 893 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.23 0.27 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.39 0.39 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.0 23.4 46.0 8.0 23.3 23.3 7.0 24.1 24.1 22.6 39.7 39.7 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.88 0.54 0.36 0.89 0.89 0.49 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.89 0.89 Delay/Veh: 67.9 38.3 15.5 39.4 39.3 39.3 41.3 30.9 30.9 32.3 29.6 29.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67.9 38.3 15.5 39.4 39.3 39.3 41.3 30.9 30.9 32.3 29.6 29.6 LOS by Move: E D B D D D D C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 13 26 18 3 23 23 5 17 17 14 33 33
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #8: Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 220 1070*** 244
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
120*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 373
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 400 1 Critical V/C: 0.865 1 1112***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.2 0
290 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 36.6 2 535
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 250*** 1300 531
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Great America Parkway Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 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: 250 1300 480 100 1070 220 120 360 290 520 1100 350 Added Vol: 0 0 51 144 0 0 0 40 0 15 12 23
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 250 1300 531 244 1070 220 120 400 290 535 1112 373 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: 250 1300 531 244 1070 220 120 400 290 535 1112 373 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 250 1300 531 244 1070 220 120 400 290 535 1112 373 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: 250 1300 531 244 1070 220 120 400 290 535 1112 373 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.47 0.53 2.00 1.14 0.86 2.00 1.48 0.52 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 4644 955 3150 2144 1554 3150 2770 929 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.23 0.30 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.9 23.1 45.5 7.9 23.0 23.0 7.0 24.6 24.6 22.4 40.1 40.1 Volume/Cap: 0.90 0.89 0.60 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.49 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.90 0.90 Delay/Veh: 70.6 39.4 17.0 67.9 40.6 40.6 41.3 31.1 31.1 33.0 30.4 30.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 70.6 39.4 17.0 67.9 40.6 40.6 41.3 31.1 31.1 33.0 30.4 30.4 LOS by Move: E D B E D D D C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 14 27 21 9 23 23 5 18 18 15 34 34
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #9: Convention Center / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 20 10 10***
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
70*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 750 1 Critical V/C: 0.533 1 1500***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 17.2 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.3 1 40
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 10 10*** 10
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Convention Center Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 1775 1775 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3651 49 1750 3651 49 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 10.0 25.9 10.0 10.0 17.0 7.0 42.1 42.1 15.9 51.0 51.0 Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.72 0.72 Delay/Veh: 35.8 35.8 23.0 35.9 35.8 30.0 43.2 16.2 16.2 31.4 15.6 15.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.8 35.8 23.0 35.9 35.8 30.0 43.2 16.2 16.2 31.4 15.6 15.6 LOS by Move: D D C D D C D B B C B B
HCM2k95thQ: 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 13 13 2 27 27
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #9: Convention Center / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 20 10 10***
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
70*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 985 1 Critical V/C: 0.549 1 1550***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 17.7 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.4 1 40
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 10 10*** 10
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Convention Center Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 750 10 40 1500 20
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 0 50 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 985 10 40 1550 20
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 985 10 40 1550 20
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 985 10 40 1550 20
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 10 10 10 10 20 70 985 10 40 1550 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 1.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 1775 1775 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3663 37 1750 3653 47 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 10.0 23.0 10.0 10.0 17.0 7.0 45.0 45.0 13.0 51.0 51.0 Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.51 0.54 0.54 0.16 0.75 0.75 Delay/Veh: 35.8 35.8 25.1 35.9 35.8 30.0 43.2 15.7 15.7 34.0 16.2 16.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.8 35.8 25.1 35.9 35.8 30.0 43.2 15.7 15.7 34.0 16.2 16.2 LOS by Move: D D C D D C D B B C B B
HCM2k95thQ: 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 17 17 2 28 28
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #10: Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 21 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 0
0 174
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 965 2 Critical V/C: 0.077 1 1689
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.1 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue A (Future Driveway) Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 0 1660 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 0 1660 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 235 0 0 29 174
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 965 0 0 1689 174
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 965 0 0 1689 174
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 965 0 0 1689 174
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 932 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 272 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 272 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * C * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 19.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * C * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 965 0 0 1689 174
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 19.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=21]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2849] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 965 0 0 1689 174
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 2828
Minor Approach Volume: 21
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -73 [less than minimum of 100] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #11: Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 10*** 0 10
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 720 1 Critical V/C: 0.524 2 1650***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.1 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.8 1 10
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 0 10***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.50 0.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 875 0 875 3550 0 1750 3150 3649 51 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.43 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 41.6 41.6 16.4 51.0 51.0 Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.03 0.77 0.01 Delay/Veh: 37.0 0.0 37.0 35.8 0.0 36.3 38.7 17.0 17.0 30.5 17.6 8.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.0 0.0 37.0 35.8 0.0 36.3 38.7 17.0 17.0 30.5 17.6 8.5 LOS by Move: D A D D A D D B B C B A
HCM2k95thQ: 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 13 13 1 29 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #11: Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 22*** 0 78
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
199*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 52
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 767 1 Critical V/C: 0.660 2 1841***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.6 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.3 1 10
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 10 0 10***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 720 10 10 1650 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 68 0 12 189 47 0 0 191 42
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 0 10 78 0 22 199 767 10 10 1841 52
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 0 10 78 0 22 199 767 10 10 1841 52
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 0 10 78 0 22 199 767 10 10 1841 52
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 0 10 78 0 22 199 767 10 10 1841 52
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.50 0.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 875 0 875 3550 0 1750 3150 3652 48 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.48 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 42.3 42.3 15.7 51.0 51.0 Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.11 0.81 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.85 0.05 Delay/Veh: 37.0 0.0 37.0 37.5 0.0 37.2 65.5 16.8 16.8 31.1 21.0 8.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.0 0.0 37.0 37.5 0.0 37.2 65.5 16.8 16.8 31.1 21.0 8.8 LOS by Move: D A D D A D E B B C C A
HCM2k95thQ: 1 0 1 3 0 1 8 14 14 1 36 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #12: Avenue C / Tasman Drive
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 17 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 15
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 798 2 Critical V/C: 0.064 1 1876
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.1 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue C Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 0 1660 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 0 1660 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 68 0 0 216 15
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 798 0 0 1876 15
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 798 0 0 1876 15
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 798 0 0 1876 15
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 946 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 266 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 266 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * C * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 19.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * C * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 798 0 0 1876 15
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 19.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=17]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2706] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 798 0 0 1876 15
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 2689
Minor Approach Volume: 17
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -56 [less than minimum of 100] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #13: Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 140 0 130***
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
50*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 240
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 470 2 Critical V/C: 0.703 1 1620***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 16.0 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.2 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 7 10 0 0 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.35 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1138 0 2363 3150 3800 0 0 3222 477
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.7 7.0 67.3 0.0 0.0 60.3 60.3 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.39 0.20 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 0.0 34.7 39.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 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 0.0 0.0 45.0 0.0 34.7 39.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 LOS by Move: A A A D A C D A A A B B
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 14 0 6 2 4 0 0 29 29
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #13: Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 262 0 130***
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
86*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 240
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 502 2 Critical V/C: 0.787 1 1728***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.9 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.0 0 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 7 10 0 0 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 130 0 140 50 470 0 0 1620 240
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 122 36 32 0 0 108 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 130 0 262 86 502 0 0 1728 240
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 130 0 262 86 502 0 0 1728 240
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 130 0 262 86 502 0 0 1728 240
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 130 0 262 86 502 0 0 1728 240
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 872 0 2628 3150 3800 0 0 3248 451
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 16.2 7.0 64.8 0.0 0.0 57.8 57.8 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.55 0.35 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 34.6 40.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 34.6 40.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.9 LOS by Move: A A A D A C D A A A B B
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 19 0 11 3 4 0 0 35 35
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #60: Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 460 1580*** 100
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
90*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 70
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 10 0 Critical V/C: 0.589 0 10***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 21.9 0
30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.6 1 30
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 250*** 810 150
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20
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: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20 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: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20 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: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20 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: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.33 0.67 Final Sat.: 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 450 1350 1750 600 1200 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.28 0.26 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 24.1 24.1 16.9 27.1 27.1 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.41 0.25 0.24 0.72 0.68 0.51 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.12 Delay/Veh: 33.2 17.7 16.7 21.7 19.4 20.7 32.5 26.6 26.6 29.3 26.4 26.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.2 17.7 16.7 21.7 19.4 20.7 32.5 26.6 26.6 29.3 26.4 26.4 LOS by Move: C B B C B C C C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 11 9 5 4 17 16 6 2 2 2 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #60: Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 460 1823*** 100
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
90*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 70
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 10 0 Critical V/C: 0.642 0 10***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23.1 0
36 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21.1 1 30
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 252*** 883 150
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20
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: 250 810 150 100 1580 460 90 10 30 30 10 20 Added Vol: 2 73 0 0 243 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 252 883 150 100 1823 460 90 10 36 30 10 20 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: 252 883 150 100 1823 460 90 10 36 30 10 20
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 252 883 150 100 1823 460 90 10 36 30 10 20 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: 252 883 150 100 1823 460 90 10 36 30 10 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.67 Final Sat.: 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 391 1409 1750 600 1200 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.32 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 12.7 24.9 24.9 16.1 28.3 28.3 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.44 0.24 0.25 0.79 0.65 0.51 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.12 Delay/Veh: 40.0 17.3 16.1 22.3 20.2 19.0 32.5 26.7 26.7 29.3 26.4 26.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.0 17.3 16.1 22.3 20.2 19.0 32.5 26.7 26.7 29.3 26.4 26.4 LOS by Move: D B B C C B C C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 12 9 5 4 20 16 6 2 2 2 1 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #61: Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future Driveway) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 1640 10***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 10***
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.265 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 10.1 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.4 1 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1210*** 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Greate America Parkway City Place Parkway (Future Drivew Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 7 0 10 7 0 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 1750 1750 5600 0 1750 0 1800 1750 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 54.0 0.0 7.0 61.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.07 0.43 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 Delay/Veh: 0.0 9.4 0.0 39.5 7.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 36.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.4 0.0 39.5 7.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 36.3 LOS by Move: A A A D A A D A C A A D
HCM2k95thQ: 0 11 0 1 13 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #61: Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future Driveway) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 1784*** 115
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 62***
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.415 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.6 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.1 1 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 0*** 1233 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Greate America Parkway City Place Parkway (Future Drivew Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 7 0 10 7 0 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1210 0 10 1640 0 10 0 10 0 0 10
Added Vol: 0 23 0 105 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1233 0 115 1784 0 10 0 10 0 0 62
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 1233 0 115 1784 0 10 0 10 0 0 62
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1233 0 115 1784 0 10 0 10 0 0 62
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1233 0 115 1784 0 10 0 10 0 0 62
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.07 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 44.9 0.0 16.1 61.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.37 0.47 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.32 Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.9 0.0 35.7 7.3 0.0 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 41.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.9 0.0 35.7 7.3 0.0 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 41.1 LOS by Move: A B A D A A D A C A A D
HCM2k95thQ: 0 13 0 6 14 0 1 0 1 0 0 5
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-21
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #63: Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 180 1350*** 170
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Permit Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
20 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 20 1 Critical V/C: 0.460 1 10
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.3 0
30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.2 1 70***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 200*** 1170 350
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20
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: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 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: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 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: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 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: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.21 0.20 0.10 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.3 26.1 26.1 14.9 27.7 27.7 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.39 0.51 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.24 0.03 0.07 Delay/Veh: 21.7 12.2 12.4 19.4 11.6 9.9 21.2 21.1 21.3 22.1 21.0 21.1 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: 21.7 12.2 12.4 19.4 11.6 9.9 21.2 21.1 21.3 22.1 21.0 21.1 LOS by Move: C B B B B A C C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 7 9 9 6 11 4 1 1 1 3 0 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-22
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #63: Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 180 1494*** 170
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Permit Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
20 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 20
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 20 1 Critical V/C: 0.490 1 10
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.2 0
30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.1 1 70***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 200*** 1193 350
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20
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: 200 1170 350 170 1350 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 Added Vol: 0 23 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 200 1193 350 170 1494 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 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: 200 1193 350 170 1494 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 200 1193 350 170 1494 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 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: 200 1193 350 170 1494 180 20 20 30 70 10 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.21 0.20 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 12.4 26.3 26.3 14.7 28.6 28.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.48 0.46 0.40 0.55 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.24 0.03 0.07 Delay/Veh: 23.1 12.1 12.2 19.6 11.4 9.3 21.2 21.1 21.3 22.1 21.0 21.1 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: 23.1 12.1 12.2 19.6 11.4 9.3 21.2 21.1 21.3 22.1 21.0 21.1 LOS by Move: C B B B B A C C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 7 10 9 6 12 4 1 1 1 3 0 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-23
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project AM
Intersection #90: Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 210 40***
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 130***
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.495 1! 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 16.3 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 16.4 1 140
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 10 910*** 250
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Lafayette Street Calle De Luna
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.65 Final Sat.: 1750 2902 797 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 2363 0 1138 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 28.2 61.6 61.6 7.0 40.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 22.4 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.51 0.51 0.33 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.51 Delay/Veh: 25.9 11.0 11.0 45.8 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 34.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.9 11.0 11.0 45.8 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 34.8 LOS by Move: C B B D B A A A A C A C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 19 19 3 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 12
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-24
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #90: Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 210 48***
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 132***
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.546 1! 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 17.1 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 17.1 1 174
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 10 910*** 364
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Lafayette Street Calle De Luna
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 910 250 40 210 0 0 0 0 140 0 130
Added Vol: 0 0 114 8 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 2
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 10 910 364 48 210 0 0 0 0 174 0 132
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 910 364 48 210 0 0 0 0 174 0 132
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 10 910 364 48 210 0 0 0 0 174 0 132
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 910 364 48 210 0 0 0 0 174 0 132
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.41 0.59 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.60 Final Sat.: 1750 2642 1057 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 2445 0 1055 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 28.3 61.6 61.6 7.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 22.4 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.56 0.56 0.39 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.56 Delay/Veh: 25.9 11.6 11.6 46.5 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 35.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.9 11.6 11.6 46.5 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 35.7 LOS by Move: C B B D B A A A A C A D
HCM2k95thQ: 0 22 22 4 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 13
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-27
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #1002: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0*** 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 0*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.317 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.7 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.7 0 224***
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 34***
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue A
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 880 0 760 0 0 1507 0 708 785 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx 0.32 0.00 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * B * *
ApproachDel: 7.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.1
Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx xxxxx 1.00
ApprAdjDel: 7.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.1
LOS by Appr: A * * B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1002 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-28
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 224
Minor Approach Volume: 34
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-30
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #1003: Centennial Boulevard / Stars and Stripes Drive Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 12*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.058 0 95
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.9 1
22 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.2 0 47***
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 130 0*** 50
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Stars and Stripes Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 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 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
Added Vol: 130 0 30 0 0 0 0 12 22 27 95 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 130 0 50 0 0 0 0 12 22 47 95 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: 130 0 50 0 0 0 0 12 22 47 95 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 130 0 50 0 0 0 0 12 22 47 95 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 130 0 50 0 0 0 0 12 22 47 95 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.34 0.00 Final Sat.: 1800 0 1750 0 1750 0 0 1800 1800 1192 2408 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 75.2 0.0 75.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.34 0.24 0.00 Delay/Veh: 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.2 24.9 21.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.2 24.9 21.9 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A C C C C A
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #1004: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0*** 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 56*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.095 0 115
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.7 1
6 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 0 25***
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 27*** 0 33
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0
Added Vol: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 36 6 25 95 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 56 6 25 115 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: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 56 6 25 115 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 56 6 25 115 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 56 6 25 115 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.45 0.00 0.55 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 0.19 0.36 1.64 0.00 Final Sat.: 378 0 462 0 781 0 0 1373 149 262 1235 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.07 xxxx 0.07 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.09 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.5 8.1 7.9 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 AdjDel/Veh: 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.5 8.1 7.9 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A * * * * A A A A *
ApproachDel: 7.4 xxxxxx 7.6 7.9
Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00
ApprAdjDel: 7.4 xxxxxx 7.6 7.9
LOS by Appr: A * A A
AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1004 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Initial Vol: 27 0 33 0 0 0 0 56 6 25 115 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 202
Minor Approach Volume: 60
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 836
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #1005: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 125*** 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
72*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.143 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.8 0
17 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.8 0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0
Final Vol: 15*** 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 15 0 0 0 0 105 52 0 17 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 15 0 0 0 0 125 72 0 17 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 15 0 0 0 0 125 72 0 17 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 15 0 0 0 0 125 72 0 17 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 15 0 0 0 0 125 72 0 17 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 667 734 0 0 747 876 667 0 855 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.14 0.11 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 8.6 0.0 6.9 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 AdjDel/Veh: 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 8.6 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A * * * * A A * A * * *
ApproachDel: 8.1 7.4 8.3 xxxxxx
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxxx
ApprAdjDel: 8.1 7.4 8.3 xxxxxx
LOS by Appr: A A A *
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1005 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 15 0 0 0 0 125 72 0 17 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 140
Minor Approach Volume: 89
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:40:31 2020 Page 3-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project AM
Intersection #1006: Avenue C / Station Road
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 105*** 10
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.087 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.9 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 10.5 1 20***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 0*** 52 20
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue C Station Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Added Vol: 0 52 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 52 20 10 105 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 52 20 10 105 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 52 20 10 105 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 52 20 10 105 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.72 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 1300 500 1750 1800 0 1750 1900 0 1750 0 1800 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 24.1 24.1 16.9 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03 Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.2 11.2 15.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 21.0 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 11.2 11.2 15.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 21.0 LOS by Move: A B B B A A A A A C A C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 1-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Background No Project PM Background Plus Project PM ??? ??? Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del Del Crit Del Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change LOS (sec) V/C (sec) #8 Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) D 51.8 0.992 63.1 E 69.0 1.050 83.0 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #9 Convention Center / Tasman Drive C 21.9 0.705 24.6 C 25.5 0.765 30.1 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive C 22.8 0.488 1.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #11 Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive C 23.8 0.634 28.0 C 28.1 0.678 32.7 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive C 15.5 0.099 0.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #13 Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive B 19.0 0.704 17.9 C 21.6 0.762 20.0 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #60 Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road D 37.2 0.783 45.8 D 43.5 0.816 57.0 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #61 Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future A 9.3 0.370 11.3 B 11.3 0.479 14.5 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #63 Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane B 15.7 0.531 14.8 B 15.7 0.545 14.7 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #90 Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna C 20.9 0.429 18.8 C 22.9 0.476 20.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1002 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A A 7.9 0.215 7.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1003 Centennial Boulevard / Stars and Stripes Drive B 14.2 0.164 14.9 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1004 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B A 8.0 0.141 8.0 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1005 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C A 8.2 0.176 8.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x #1006 Avenue C / Station Road B 11.0 0.090 10.2 ? xx.x x.xxx x.xxx xx.x xx.x ? xx.x x.xxx xx.x COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #8: Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 210 1380*** 380
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
160 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 160
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 1010*** 1 Critical V/C: 0.992 1 710
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 63.1 0
170 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 51.8 2 630***
LOS: D
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 180*** 1220 610
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Great America Parkway Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 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: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 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: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 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: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 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: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.59 0.41 2.00 1.70 0.30 2.00 1.62 0.38 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 4859 739 3150 3167 533 3150 3019 680 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.21 0.35 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 20.5 38.2 11.6 25.1 25.1 11.4 28.2 28.2 17.7 34.5 34.5 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.94 0.82 0.94 1.02 1.02 0.40 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.61 0.61 Delay/Veh: 51.6 47.0 30.1 68.3 59.8 59.8 36.8 61.9 61.9 76.9 23.2 23.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.6 47.0 30.1 68.3 59.8 59.8 36.8 61.9 61.9 76.9 23.2 23.2 LOS by Move: D D C E E E D E E E C C
HCM2k95thQ: 9 27 32 14 33 33 6 41 41 24 18 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #8: Great America Parkway / Tasman Drive (CMP) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 210 1380*** 446
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 2
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
160 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 233
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 1061*** 1 Critical V/C: 1.050 1 788
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 83.0 0
170 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 69.0 2 744***
LOS: E
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 180*** 1220 684
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Great America Parkway Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 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: 180 1220 610 380 1380 210 160 1010 170 630 710 160 Added Vol: 0 0 74 66 0 0 0 51 0 114 78 73
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 180 1220 684 446 1380 210 160 1061 170 744 788 233 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: 180 1220 684 446 1380 210 160 1061 170 744 788 233 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 180 1220 684 446 1380 210 160 1061 170 744 788 233 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: 180 1220 684 446 1380 210 160 1061 170 744 788 233 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.59 0.41 2.00 1.72 0.28 2.00 1.53 0.47 Final Sat.: 3150 5700 1750 3150 4859 739 3150 3189 511 3150 2855 844 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.21 0.39 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 18.4 38.1 12.2 23.6 23.6 10.4 27.7 27.7 19.7 36.9 36.9 Volume/Cap: 0.73 1.04 0.92 1.04 1.08 1.08 0.44 1.08 1.08 1.08 0.67 0.67 Delay/Veh: 51.6 74.5 41.7 94.6 81.9 81.9 37.9 82.6 82.6 93.5 22.8 22.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.6 74.5 41.7 94.6 81.9 81.9 37.9 82.6 82.6 93.5 22.8 22.8 LOS by Move: D E D F F F D F F F C C
HCM2k95thQ: 9 32 40 19 36 36 6 46 46 30 21 21
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #9: Convention Center / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 10 0 10***
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
30 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 1740*** 1 Critical V/C: 0.705 1 1270
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.6 0
30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21.9 1 70***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 310*** 0 90
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Convention Center Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 3550 0 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3637 63 1750 3671 29 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.35 0.35 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 0.0 17.0 10.0 0.0 20.6 10.6 51.0 51.0 7.0 47.4 47.4 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.00 0.27 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.84 0.84 0.51 0.66 0.66 Delay/Veh: 49.0 0.0 31.7 35.9 0.0 26.9 35.9 19.5 19.5 43.2 16.3 16.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 49.0 0.0 31.7 35.9 0.0 26.9 35.9 19.5 19.5 43.2 16.3 16.3 LOS by Move: D A C D A C D B B D B B
HCM2k95thQ: 13 0 5 1 0 0 2 33 33 4 23 23
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #9: Convention Center / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 10 0 10***
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
30 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 1931*** 1 Critical V/C: 0.765 1 1535
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.1 0
30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.5 1 70***
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 310*** 0 90
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Convention Center Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1740 30 70 1270 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 265 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1931 30 70 1535 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1931 30 70 1535 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1931 30 70 1535 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 310 0 90 10 0 10 30 1931 30 70 1535 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 1.99 0.01 Final Sat.: 3550 0 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 3643 57 1750 3676 24 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.53 0.04 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 0.0 17.0 10.0 0.0 19.1 9.1 51.0 51.0 7.0 48.9 48.9 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.00 0.27 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.94 0.94 0.51 0.77 0.77 Delay/Veh: 49.0 0.0 31.7 35.9 0.0 28.1 37.4 26.6 26.6 43.2 18.0 18.0 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: 49.0 0.0 31.7 35.9 0.0 28.1 37.4 26.6 26.6 43.2 18.0 18.0 LOS by Move: D A C D A C D C C D B B
HCM2k95thQ: 13 0 5 1 0 1 2 40 40 4 30 30
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #10: Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 190 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 0
0 66
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 2161 2 Critical V/C: 0.488 1 1325
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.2 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue A (Future Driveway) Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 1250 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 1250 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 191 0 0 75 66
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 2161 0 0 1325 66
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 2161 0 0 1325 66
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 2161 0 0 1325 66
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 696 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 389 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 389 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.49 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.6 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 22.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * C * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * C * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 2161 0 0 1325 66
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 22.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=1.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=190]
SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=3742] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Avenue A (Future Driveway) / Tasman Drive ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 2161 0 0 1325 66
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 3552
Minor Approach Volume: 190
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -152 [less than minimum of 100] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #11: Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 10*** 0 10
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1960*** 1 Critical V/C: 0.634 2 1250
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 28.0 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.8 1 10***
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 10***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1750 3550 0 1750 3150 3681 19 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.33 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 11.1 51.0 51.0 7.0 46.9 46.9 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.94 0.94 0.07 0.63 0.01 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 36.3 35.8 0.0 36.3 34.8 27.9 27.9 39.5 16.9 10.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 36.3 35.8 0.0 36.3 34.8 27.9 27.9 39.5 16.9 10.4 LOS by Move: A A D D A D C C C D B B
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 45 45 1 21 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #11: Centennial Boulevard / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 47*** 0 247
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
138 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 56
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 2023*** 1 Critical V/C: 0.678 2 1354
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 32.7 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.1 1 10***
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 10***
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 1960 10 10 1250 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 237 0 37 128 63 0 0 104 46
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 10 247 0 47 138 2023 10 10 1354 56
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 10 247 0 47 138 2023 10 10 1354 56
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 10 247 0 47 138 2023 10 10 1354 56
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 10 247 0 47 138 2023 10 10 1354 56
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.97 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1750 3550 0 1750 3150 3682 18 1750 3800 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.55 0.55 0.01 0.36 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.4 51.0 51.0 7.0 47.6 47.6 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.63 0.00 0.24 0.38 0.97 0.97 0.07 0.67 0.06 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 36.3 45.5 0.0 39.5 39.8 32.4 32.4 39.5 17.3 10.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 36.3 45.5 0.0 39.5 39.8 32.4 32.4 39.5 17.3 10.4 LOS by Move: A A D D A D D C C D B B
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 1 8 0 3 5 47 47 1 23 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #12: Avenue C / Tasman Drive
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 38 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 44
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 2207 2 Critical V/C: 0.099 1 1371
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.2 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 0 0
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue C Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 1260 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 1260 0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 237 0 0 111 44
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2207 0 0 1371 44
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2207 0 0 1371 44
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2207 0 0 1371 44
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 708 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 382 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 382 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.10 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.3 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * C * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 15.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * C * *
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2207 0 0 1371 44
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 15.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=38]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=3660] SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Avenue C / Tasman Drive
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2207 0 0 1371 44
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 3622
Minor Approach Volume: 38
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -159 [less than minimum of 100] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #13: Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 80 0 360***
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
140 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 290
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 1560*** 2 Critical V/C: 0.704 1 790
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 17.9 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.0 0 0***
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 7 10 0 0 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.10 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.55 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1615 0 1929 3150 3800 0 0 2706 993
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 28.5 11.0 52.5 0.0 0.0 41.5 41.5 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.13 0.36 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 21.9 36.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 19.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 21.9 36.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 19.3 LOS by Move: A A A C A C D B A A B B
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 21 0 3 4 25 0 0 21 21
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #13: Calle Del Sol / Tasman Drive
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 169 0 360***
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
275 2
Cycle Time (sec): 90
0 290
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 1662*** 2 Critical V/C: 0.762 1 856
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.0 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 21.6 0 0***
LOS: C
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 7 10 0 0 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 360 0 80 140 1560 0 0 790 290
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 89 135 102 0 0 66 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 360 0 169 275 1662 0 0 856 290
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 360 0 169 275 1662 0 0 856 290
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 360 0 169 275 1662 0 0 856 290
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 360 0 169 275 1662 0 0 856 290
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.19 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.52 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1450 0 2090 3150 3800 0 0 2763 936
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 29.3 11.4 51.7 0.0 0.0 40.3 40.3 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.25 0.69 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 22.3 42.8 16.1 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 22.3 42.8 16.1 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.1 LOS by Move: A A A C A C D B A A C C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 0 0 24 0 6 8 28 0 0 23 23
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #60: Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 100 1190 40***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
510*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 70
0 80
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 20 0 Critical V/C: 0.783 0 10***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 45.8 0
170 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.2 1 130
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 80 1620*** 30
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80
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: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 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: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 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: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 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: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.89 1.00 0.11 0.89 Final Sat.: 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 189 1611 1750 200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.06 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.8 20.2 20.2 7.0 18.4 18.4 20.8 18.1 18.1 12.7 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.36 0.98 0.06 0.23 0.79 0.22 0.98 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.35 Delay/Veh: 29.0 42.8 18.0 29.7 27.0 20.4 59.4 22.1 22.1 26.2 27.9 27.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.0 42.8 18.0 29.7 27.0 20.4 59.4 22.1 22.1 26.2 27.9 27.9 LOS by Move: C D B C C C E C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 3 26 1 2 16 4 32 8 8 6 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #60: Great America Parkway / Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 100 1292 40***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
510*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 70
0 80
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 20 0 Critical V/C: 0.816 0 10***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 57.0 0
178 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 43.5 1 130
LOS: D
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 92 1779*** 30
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80
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: 80 1620 30 40 1190 100 510 20 170 130 10 80 Added Vol: 12 159 0 0 102 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 92 1779 30 40 1292 100 510 20 178 130 10 80 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: 92 1779 30 40 1292 100 510 20 178 130 10 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 92 1779 30 40 1292 100 510 20 178 130 10 80 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: 92 1779 30 40 1292 100 510 20 178 130 10 80 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.90 1.00 0.11 0.89 Final Sat.: 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 182 1618 1750 200 1600 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.31 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.06 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.6 21.2 21.2 7.0 19.6 19.6 19.8 17.5 17.5 12.3 10.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.43 1.03 0.06 0.23 0.81 0.20 1.03 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.35 0.35 Delay/Veh: 29.7 54.3 17.4 29.7 26.7 19.5 73.6 22.8 22.8 26.7 27.9 27.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.7 54.3 17.4 29.7 26.7 19.5 73.6 22.8 22.8 26.7 27.9 27.9 LOS by Move: C D B C C B E C C C C C
HCM2k95thQ: 4 31 1 2 17 3 34 8 8 6 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #61: Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future Driveway) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 10 1480 10***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 10***
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.370 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 11.3 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.3 1 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1730*** 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Greate America Parkway City Place Parkway (Future Drivew Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 7 0 10 7 0 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 1750 1750 5562 38 1750 0 1800 1750 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 54.0 0.0 7.0 61.0 61.0 7.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.9 0.0 39.5 6.7 6.7 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 36.3 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 10.9 0.0 39.5 6.7 6.7 39.5 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 36.3 LOS by Move: A B A D A A D A C A A D
HCM2k95thQ: 0 16 0 1 11 11 1 0 1 0 0 1
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #61: Great America Parkway / City Place Parkway (Future Driveway) Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 10 1546 54***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
10*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 90
1 109***
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.479 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.5 0
10 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.3 1 0
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 0 1803*** 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Greate America Parkway City Place Parkway (Future Drivew Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 7 0 10 7 0 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1730 0 10 1480 10 10 0 10 0 0 10
Added Vol: 0 73 0 44 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 1803 0 54 1546 10 10 0 10 0 0 109
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1803 0 54 1546 10 10 0 10 0 0 109
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 1803 0 54 1546 10 10 0 10 0 0 109
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 1803 0 54 1546 10 10 0 10 0 0 109
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5700 1750 1750 5564 36 1750 0 1800 1750 0 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 53.5 0.0 7.0 60.5 60.5 7.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 10.5 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.53 Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.4 0.0 47.9 7.0 7.0 39.5 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 47.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.4 0.0 47.9 7.0 7.0 39.5 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 47.0 LOS by Move: A B A D A A D A C A A D
HCM2k95thQ: 0 17 0 3 12 12 1 0 1 0 0 8
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-21
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #63: Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 30 1400*** 50
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Permit Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
140 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 110
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 20 1 Critical V/C: 0.531 1 30
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.8 0
270 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 15.7 1 310***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 50*** 1340 50
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110
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: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 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: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 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: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 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: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 21.8 21.8 10.8 25.6 25.6 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.65 0.08 0.16 0.58 0.04 0.26 0.03 0.50 0.58 0.05 0.20 Delay/Veh: 24.7 16.7 12.6 21.0 13.4 10.1 15.9 14.6 17.7 19.0 14.6 15.5 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: 24.7 16.7 12.6 21.0 13.4 10.1 15.9 14.6 17.7 19.0 14.6 15.5 LOS by Move: C B B C B B B B B B B B
HCM2k95thQ: 2 12 1 2 12 1 5 1 10 12 1 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-22
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #63: Great America Parkway/Bunker Hill Lane Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 30 1466*** 50
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Signal=Permit Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
140 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 110
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
1 20 1 Critical V/C: 0.545 1 30
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.7 0
270 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 15.7 1 310***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1
Final Vol: 50*** 1413 50
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110
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: 50 1340 50 50 1400 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 Added Vol: 0 73 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 50 1413 50 50 1466 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 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: 50 1413 50 50 1466 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 50 1413 50 50 1466 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 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: 50 1413 50 50 1466 30 140 20 270 310 30 110 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 22.5 22.5 10.6 26.1 26.1 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.66 0.08 0.16 0.59 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.52 0.59 0.05 0.21 Delay/Veh: 24.7 16.4 12.1 21.2 13.3 9.8 16.3 14.9 18.3 19.7 15.0 15.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.7 16.4 12.1 21.2 13.3 9.8 16.3 14.9 18.3 19.7 15.0 15.9 LOS by Move: C B B C B A B B B B B B
HCM2k95thQ: 2 13 1 2 13 1 5 1 10 12 1 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-23
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background No Project PM
Intersection #90: Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 950*** 160
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 60***
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.429 1! 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.8 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.9 1 370
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 0*** 270 250
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Lafayette Street Calle De Luna
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
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: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
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: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
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: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.24 Final Sat.: 1750 1920 1778 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 3071 0 429 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 36.9 36.9 24.0 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 30.2 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.46 Delay/Veh: 0.0 23.4 23.4 32.4 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 28.7 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 23.4 23.4 32.4 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 28.7 LOS by Move: A C C C B A A A A C A C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 12 12 9 17 0 0 0 0 11 0 13
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-24
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #90: Laffeyette Street / Calle De Luna
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 950*** 171
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
Signal=Split Signal=Split
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 75***
0 Loss Time (sec): 9
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.476 1! 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 20.9 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 22.9 1 490
LOS: C
Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 0*** 270 328
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Lafayette Street Calle De Luna
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
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: 0 270 250 160 950 0 0 0 0 370 0 60
Added Vol: 0 0 78 11 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 15
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 270 328 171 950 0 0 0 0 490 0 75
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 270 328 171 950 0 0 0 0 490 0 75
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 270 328 171 950 0 0 0 0 490 0 75
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 270 328 171 950 0 0 0 0 490 0 75
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.23 Final Sat.: 1750 1900 1750 1750 3800 0 0 0 0 3090 0 410 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 36.5 36.5 19.0 48.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 35.5 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.39 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.52 Delay/Veh: 0.0 23.7 25.2 37.7 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 23.7 25.2 37.7 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.9 LOS by Move: A C C D B A A A A C A C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 12 16 11 19 0 0 0 0 14 0 16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-27
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #1002: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0*** 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 0*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.215 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.9 1
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.9 0 85***
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 0 0 215***
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue A
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 999 0 812 0 0 1387 0 646 710 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx 0.22 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx 0.13 0.00 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 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 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * A * *
ApproachDel: 7.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9
Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx xxxxx 1.00
ApprAdjDel: 7.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.9
LOS by Appr: A * * A
AllWayAvgQ: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1002 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue A
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-28
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Initial Vol: 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 215
Minor Approach Volume: 85
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 776
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-30
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #1003: Centennial Boulevard / Stars and Stripes Drive Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 55 0 Critical V/C: 0.164 0 24
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 14.9 1
160*** 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 14.2 0 76***
LOS: B
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 205 0*** 66
Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Street Name: Centennial Boulevard Stars and Stripes Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 144 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 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: 144 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
Added Vol: 61 0 46 0 0 0 0 55 160 56 24 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 205 0 66 0 0 0 0 55 160 76 24 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: 205 0 66 0 0 0 0 55 160 76 24 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 205 0 66 0 0 0 0 55 160 76 24 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 205 0 66 0 0 0 0 55 160 76 24 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1800 0 1750 0 1750 0 0 1800 1800 1800 1800 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 41.7 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.53 0.36 0.08 0.00 Delay/Veh: 3.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 24.3 25.3 21.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 3.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 24.3 25.3 21.1 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A C C C C A
HCM2k95thQ: 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 1 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-33
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #1004: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 0*** 0
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
1 Loss Time (sec): 0
1 98*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.141 0 44
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.0 1
23 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.0 0 64***
LOS: A
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0
Final Vol: 56*** 0 59
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 0
Added Vol: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 78 23 64 24 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 98 23 64 44 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: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 98 23 64 44 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 98 23 64 44 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 98 23 64 44 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.49 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 398 0 420 0 751 0 0 1205 293 661 727 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.14 xxxx 0.14 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.06 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.7 8.6 7.8 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 AdjDel/Veh: 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.7 8.6 7.8 0.0 LOS by Move: A * A * * * * A A A A *
ApproachDel: 7.9 xxxxxx 7.8 8.3
Delay Adj: 1.00 xxxxx 1.00 1.00
ApprAdjDel: 7.9 xxxxxx 7.8 8.3
LOS by Appr: A * A A
AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1004 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue B
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-34
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Initial Vol: 56 0 59 0 0 0 0 98 23 64 44 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 229
Minor Approach Volume: 115
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 793
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #1005: Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 64*** 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0
Signal=Stop Signal=Stop
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
119*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 100
0 0
0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.176 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.2 0
38 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.2 0 0
LOS: A
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0
Final Vol: 44*** 0 0
Signal=Stop/Rights=Include
Street Name: Stars and Stripes Drive Avenue C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 44 0 0 0 0 44 99 0 38 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 44 0 0 0 0 64 119 0 38 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 0 0 0 0 64 119 0 38 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 44 0 0 0 0 64 119 0 38 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 0 0 0 0 64 119 0 38 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 647 709 0 0 710 825 676 0 871 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.08 0.18 xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 9.0 0.0 6.9 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 AdjDel/Veh: 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 9.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: A * * * * A A * A * * *
ApproachDel: 8.5 7.3 8.5 xxxxxx
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxxx
ApprAdjDel: 8.5 7.3 8.5 xxxxxx
LOS by Appr: A A A *
AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #1005 Stars and Stripes Drive / Avenue C
******************************************************************************** COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 44 0 0 0 0 64 119 0 38 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 157
Minor Approach Volume: 64
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1170
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Jan 15 13:38:35 2020 Page 3-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to ARUP, SAN FRANCISCO Santa Clara City Place
Phase 1 DAP Traffic Analysis January 2020
Background Conditions
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background Plus Project PM
Intersection #1006: Avenue C / Station Road
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 44 10***
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 1
Cycle Time (sec): 60
0 10
0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.090 0 0
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 10.2 0
0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 11.0 1 20***
LOS: B
Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 0 99*** 0
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: Avenue C Station Road
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:

Base Vol: 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Added Vol: 0 99 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 99 0 10 44 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 99 0 10 44 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 99 0 10 44 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 99 0 10 44 0 0 0 0 20 0 10
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 1800 0 1750 1800 0 1750 1900 0 1750 0 1800 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green Time: 0.0 33.9 0.0 7.0 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 10.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.0 0.0 23.6 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 21.0 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 6.0 0.0 23.6 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 21.0 LOS by Move: A A A C B A A A A C A C
HCM2k95thQ: 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Attachment C
Getting Trip Generation Right:

Eliminating the Bias Against
Mixed Use Development, 2013

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT
Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development
By Jerry Walters, Brian Bochner, and Reid Ewing
American Planning Association
Making Great Communities Happen
Originally published as a PAS Memo by the American Planning Association (APA) in May 2013. PAS Memo is a bimonthly online publication of APA’s Planning Advisory Service, a subscription service providing its members with the latest planning resources and customized research assistance. Learn more at www.planning.org/pas/about/.

Photos in document courtesy of Fehr & Peers.

Introduction 4
The Problem with Conventional
Traffic Impact Analysis 5
New Research Evidence for Mixed
Use Development Trip Generation 7
New Models for Mixed Use
Development Traffic Analysis 9
A New Approach: The MXD+ Method 12
Recommendations for Planners 16
Conclusion 17

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
4 When planners, developers, or traffic engineers conduct traffic impact analyses for proposed developments, they typically use the trip-generation data and analysis methods published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its Trip Generation report and Trip Generation Handbook.

However, standard traffic engineering practice does not account for project characteristics such as the mix and balance of land uses, compactness of design, neighborhood connectivity and walkability, infill versus remote location, and the variety of transportation choices offered. This can have significant implications when the project in question is a mixed use development.

The conventional methods used by traffic engineers throughout the U.S. to evaluate traffic impacts fail to account for the benefits of mixed use and other forms of lower-impact development. They exaggerate estimates of impacts and result in excessive development costs, skewed public perceptions, and decision maker resistance. These techniques overlook the full potential for internalizing trips through interaction among on-site activities and the extent to which development with a variety of nearby complementary destinations and high-quality transit access will produce less traffic. These effects can reduce the number of vehicle trips generated to a far greater degree than recognized in standard traffic engineering practice.

The ITE trip-generation data and analysis methods apply primarily to single-use and freestanding sites, which limits their applicability to compact, mixed-use, transit oriented developments (ITE 2004, 2012). The Handbook does include an approach based on limited data on mixed use developments, but only from six sites in Florida, not nearly enough to cover today’s diverse mixed use developments across the United States.

It is important that planners and developers recognize the implications of using standard ITE trip generation data and methodologies for mixed use developments and use methods that more accurately estimate traffic generated by these projects. Commonly used methods unjustifiably favor types of development that consume greater resources and generate greater impacts, shifting our attention away from development forms and locations that stimulate higher levels of social interaction and benefit to established communities.

Researchers have attempted to analyze how a mix of uses in a compact, walkable project design affects trip generation and on-the-ground traffic impacts. In 2011, two major studies introduced methodologies for predicting traffic generation from mixed use development. The researchers on those studies have now collaborated to combine the advantages of both and provide, in this PAS Memo, an even more complete and reliable approach to measuring the benefits of such forms of development. Using this new approach, planners conducting trip-generation analysis for mixed use development projects will produce more accurate forecasts of traffic generation, which will allow more appropriate on-site design features and off-site mitigation measures.

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 5 The Problem with Conventional
Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic analysis is intended to inform planners, community members, and public officials of the most suitable
planning features and infrastructure elements needed to support new development. However, the conventional
methods were developed during an era when most
new development was single use, stand alone, highway
oriented, and suburban. Standard practices ascribe
similar levels of impact to mixed-use, integrated, transitoriented, and infill development, and consequently overlook the benefits of — and impose unreasonable
obstacles to — appropriate planning and approval of such “smart growth” forms.

The standard analytic process used for planning, design, and impact analysis does not account for the degree to
which well-designed mixed use development places shops, restaurants, offices, and residences in close proximity to one another, shortening internal trips between them and making more trips conducive to walking, biking, or riding transit. Such reductions in traffic and vehicle miles traveled reduce fuel consumption, greenhouse-gas and other
emissions, and exposure of residents to passing traffic and the related threats to comfort, health, and safety. Reduced vehicular travel can also lessen the need to construct new or wider streets and highways, allowing communities to
economize on infrastructure. Mixed use developments
(MXD) also create opportunities for shared parking, which can reduce the number of spaces needed in parking lot
and garage construction.

Traffic-Reducing Attributes of Mixed Use Development
Many of the attributes of lower-impact development can
reduce traffic generation compared with conventional
single-use suburban development forms:

Diverse land uses and activities can fill basic needs nearby, thereby reducing automobile travel. They allow for linkage of trips in multipurpose trip chains, with a single auto trip to an activity center followed by several short trips on foot.

Mixed use sites also create the opportunity for shared
parking, which in turn encourages multipurpose trips and reduces the tendency to make separate automobile trips
from one destination to the next.

Higher densities and intensities of development provide opportunities for residents, employees, and visitors
to circulate among larger numbers of businesses and
activities by walking, bicycling, or making short trips by automobile. Higher concentrations of land use also
support higher quality and higher-frequency transit
service, offering tenants and visitors a viable alternative to driving. High land values and cost to provide parking also leads to higher parking prices, a disincentive to driving versus other available modes of travel.

Walkable urban design and interconnected streets
generally reduce the perceived and real separation among destinations, encourage walking and cycling, and reduce the circuitousness and length of each trip.

Short distances to transit help make transit a viable
alternative to the automobile and can create activity
centers with sufficient street life, amenities, and walking connections where needs and entertainment can be
accomplished without independent car trips.

Accessibility to complementary destinations outside
the development reduces distances between jobs and
housing, services and entertainment, and recreation, often making automobile travel unnecessary. Placed at infill
locations, complementary new development that satisfies local needs can also reduce trip making by residents,
employees, and shoppers in the surrounding community.

Socio-demographic compatibility can further reduce
auto traffic to the extent that developments are designed to attract and accommodate residents with low auto
ownership (through, for example, parking supply limits), low travel needs (based on, for example, family size,
6 fewer employed residents, lower income, or age
range), or close affiliation with other project
elements or surrounding land uses (linked, or
simply compatible, jobs and residents).

Scale of development affects feasibility for
communities and employers to provide travel
demand options and management services
that can shift traveler modes from the auto
to alternative modes of travel. Residents and
businesses that self-select into such sites
and settings are also often more amenable
to travelling less or using alternatives to
the automobile. Transportation demand
management (TDM) programs are both
more likely to be available and more likely
to be successful in compact, central, transitsupported settings.

The danger of using traditional traffic-generation
data based on single-use facilities is that it
misrepresents the true traffic generation impacts of mixed use development. The consequences of miscalculating
the benefits of mixed-use development may include
unreasonable development cost, exaggerated impacts
and mitigation responsibilities, skewed public perceptions, and decision maker resistance. This penalizes mixed use development proposals, often tipping the balance in
favor of projects that offer fewer benefits and ultimately generate higher impacts. Denying “smart” forms of
development does not reduce the overall market demand
for housing and business, so the building disallowed
ends up in other locations within the region, often in less accessible locations, at lower densities, and in less-mixed use configurations. The end result can be more traffic and higher regional vehicle-miles traveled than had the smartgrowth development been approved.

Understandably, communities and public reviewers want
to minimize the risk of unmitigated impacts. However,
doing so through the application of overly conservative project evaluation criteria undermines the pursuit of other community values, such as vibrant neighborhoods with
integrated development and activities that minimize the need to travel and the impacts produced by excessive
unnecessary use of the automobile.

Conservative traffic-generation estimates have supply-side impacts, affecting design and cost of streets and parking.

Within constrained sites, over design of traffic elements can limit the space available for revenue-producing land uses and increase other development costs. Development
fee programs also rely heavily on traffic-generation
estimates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual; this can lead to setting excessively high fee rates on mixed use development. Unquestioning use of the ITE data can
unreasonably jeopardize a MXD project’s approval,
financial feasibility, and design quality.

Mixed use sites can take many
forms, but all offer a diversity of
uses in walkable settings. Oakland
City Center BART (left); RiverPlace,
Portland, Oregon (opposite page).

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 7 New Research Evidence for Mixed
Use Development Trip Generation
Several hundred studies over the past 20 years have
confirmed that the built environment affects travel
generation (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Development
features associated with reduced trip rates include a
series of “D” variables: density, diversity of uses, design of urban environment, distance from transit, destination accessibility, development scale, demographics of
inhabitants, and demand management. In the past three
years, research has examined more directly the relative influence of each factor and their interactions and has sought to corroborate the research results through field verification. Organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Board have sponsored several of the more reputable studies on the subject.

The Eight “D” Variables
The most advanced research has confirmed that trip rate reductions are quantifiably associated with the attributes of mixed use development, defined in terms of these
characteristics of urban development patterns:

Density: dwellings, jobs per acre. Higher densities shorten trip lengths, allow for more walking and biking, and
support quality transit.

Diversity: mix of housing, jobs, retail. A diverse
neighborhood allows for easier trip linking and shortens distances between trips. It also promotes higher levels of walking and biking and allows for
shared parking.

Design: connectivity, walkability. Good
design improves connectivity, encourages
walking and biking, and reduces travel
distance.

Destinations: regional accessibility. Destination
accessibility links travel purposes, shortens trips, and offers transportation options.

Distance to Transit: rail proximity. Close proximity to transit encourages its use, along with trip-linking and walking, and often creates accessible walking environments.

Development Scale: residents, jobs. Appropriate
development scale provides critical mass, increases local opportunities, and supports transit investment.

Demographics: household size, income. Mixed use
development allows self-selection by households into
settings with their preferred activities and travel modes, allows businesses to locate convenient to clients,
and supports a socioeconomic “fit” among residents,
businesses, and activities.

Demand Management: pricing, incentives. Demand
management ties incentives to the urban environment
and allows alignment of auto disincentives with available alternate modes. It takes advantage of critical mass of travel resulting from density, diversity, and design.

A growing body of evidence indicates that these factors, individually or together, quantifiably explain the number of vehicle trips and vehicle-miles traveled for a development project and for a region as a whole. Each of the D
factors influences traffic generation through a variety of mechanisms. There are also important interactions, both synergistic and mutually dampening, among the D factors that call for sophisticated techniques when quantifying the travel generation effects of different combinations proposed in any project or plan.
8 The Evidence that Conventional Methods
Overstate MXD Impacts
Empirical evidence and research provides
evidence that mixed-use, infill, and transitoriented developments generate fewer external vehicle trips than equivalent stand-alone uses.

A nationwide study sponsored by the U.S. EPA
(Ewing et al. 2011) found statistical correlation
between the D factors and increased trip
internalization and increased walking and transit
use. It further demonstrated, for 27 mixed-use
development sites across the U.S., that:

1. On average, the sites’ land uses would
generate 49 percent more traffic if they were
distributed among single-use sites in suburban
settings, the situations to which the ITE Trip
Generation Manual would apply.

2. The ITE Handbook, the current stateof-practice resource for estimating mixed use trip generation, would overestimate peak hour traffic by
an average of 35 percent.

The following examples from recent studies demonstrate
the degree by which such developments reduce traffic
generation relative to what would be presumed under
conventional traffic analysis methods.

Atlantic Station in Atlanta is a major mixed-use infill development located on a 138-acre former brownfield site in midtown Atlanta, connected by nonstop shuttle service to a MARTA metro rail station about a half-mile away. At the time it was studied, the development included 798
mid- and high-rise residential units, 550,600 square feet of office space, 434,500 square feet of retail space, a 101- room hotel, a restaurant, and a cinema.

For Atlantic Station, the “internal capture rate” (proportion of generated trips that remain internal to the site) is 15 percent in the morning peak hour and about 40 percent of evening peak-hour. Of the trips entering and leaving the site, between 5 and 7 percent use transit and another 5 to 7 percent walk or bicycle.

According to standard ITE trip-generation rates, were the Atlantic Station development elements located at singleuse suburban sites, they would generate 37 percent more weekday traffic and 69 percent more PM peak traffic than actually counted at the centrally located, mixed use site.

RiverPlace in Portland is an award-winning mixed
use waterfront development on a former brownfield
within easy walking distance of downtown Portland,
Oregon. Adjacent to the Tom McCall Waterfront Park,
the site contains 700 residential units (condominiums
and apartments), 40,000 square feet of office space,
26,500 square feet of small retail shops and restaurants, a 300-room hotel, and a marina, cinema, and athletic
club. The waterfront walking environment conveniently
links all of the activities within the development site and connects the site to the Portland central business
district. Transit is also available at the site; the Portland Streetcar connects RiverPlace to downtown Portland
and the greater Portland area.

Atlantic Station offers residential
units alongside walkable office and
commercial space.

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 9 RiverPlace’s internal capture rate is 36 percent. For
internal and external trips combined, 40 percent
are by walking and 5 percent by transit. These
statistics are significantly higher than the regional
averages of 15 percent of trips taken by walking
and 2 percent by transit.

Bay Street in Emeryville is a vibrant, thriving recent
redevelopment project in Emeryville, California,
just outside San Francisco. The previously heavyindustrial area within and around Bay Street has undergone dramatic revitalization in the past two
decades, and it now includes the headquarters
of Pixar Studios and other businesses. Bay Street
itself is a one-million-square-foot walkable
urban village designed on a Main Street theme.

It contains a major theater complex, hotel, and 382,000 square feet of fashionable retail shops (including an Apple Store) with 381 apartment units and offices above. The site is within walking distance of a Capitol Corridor commuter rail station and within a shuttle bus ride of BART metro rail.

Bay Street’s daily traffic generation is about 41 percent less than the combined total that would be generated
by similarly sized suburban shopping centers, theater
complexes, residential uses, and office developments
based on standard ITE trip rates for stand-alone land
uses. It also generates 36 percent less daily traffic than would be estimated by traffic engineers applying the ITE Handbook and conventional analysis methods. In the PM
peak hour, Bay Street traffic generation is 46 percent lower than would be generated by the same land uses scattered on individual suburban sites, and 41 percent lower than would be estimated by standard ITE traffic analysis.

New Models for Mixed Use
Development Traffic Analysis
To address the shortcomings in conventional analysis
methods, the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) and the U.S. EPA recently conducted
significant research studies to improve quantification
of the trip-reducing effects of mixed use development.

Each study took a different approach: NCHRP undertook
extensive visitor surveys and traffic counts at Atlantic Station and two mixed-use developments in Texas
(Bochner et al. 2011), while EPA sponsored a nationwide study of more than 260 mixed use developments across
the U.S. using regional travel survey data and verification traffic counts at a subset of the sites (Ewing et al. 2011).

Using different analysis methods, each study developed a recommended approach to discounting traffic generation
estimates to account for the mix of uses and other
development characteristics. Each study represents a
major advancement over conventional analysis methods.

RiverPlace (left) offers a mix of
residential, office, and commercial
uses on Portland’s waterfront. Photo
courtesy Fehr & Peers. Bay Street’s
walkable urban village (below) is
designed on a Main Street theme.
10 NCHRP Report 684
National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 684, “Enhancing
Internal Trip Capture Estimation for MixedUse Developments,” analyzed internal-capture relationships of MXD sites and examined the
travel interactions among six individual types
of land uses: office, retail, restaurant, residential,
cinema, and hotel. The study looked at three
master-planned developments: Mockingbird
Station, a single-block TOD in Dallas; Legacy
Town C enter, a multiblock district in suburban
Plano, Texas, containing fully integrated and
adjacent complementary uses; and Atlantic
Station (see above). It compared the survey
results to those found in prior ITE studies at
three Florida sites, Boca del Mar, Country Isles,
and Village Commons, all containing a variety of
land uses, though in single-use pods.

Based on traveler and vehicle counts and interviews, the study ascertained interactions among the six land-use types of interest and compared them with site characteristics. It then examined the percentage of visitors to each landuse type who also visited each of the other uses during the same trip. The study considered site context factors and described percentage reductions in sitewide traffic generation that might result from the availability of transit service and other factors.

Researchers then performed verification tests by comparing the analysis results to those available from ITE for three earlier studies at Florida mixed use sites. The validation confirmed that the estimated values were a reasonable
match for actual counted traffic. The product of the study is a series of tables and spreadsheets that balance and apply the discovered use-to-use visitation percentages
to the land uses within the project site under study. The interaction percentages are then used to discount ITE
trip-generation rates and to reduce what would otherwise represent the number of trips entering and leaving the
entire site.

EPA MXD
The U.S. EPA–sponsored 2011 report, “Traffic Generated
by Mixed-Use Developments — A Six-Region Study Using
Consistent Built Environmental Measures,” investigated
trip generation, mode choice, and trip length for trips produced and attracted by mixed use developments.

Researchers selected six regions — Atlanta, Boston,
Houston, Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle — to represent a wide range of urban scale, form, and climatic conditions.

Regional travel survey data with geographic coordinates and parcel-level detail available for these areas allowed researchers to isolate trips to, from, and within MXDs and relate travel choices to fine-grained characteristics of these developments.

In each region, researchers worked with local planners and traffic engineers to identify a total of 239 MXDs that met the ITE definition of multi-use development. The MXDs
ranged from compact infill sites near regional cores to low-rise freeway-oriented developments. They varied in
size, population and employment densities, mixes of jobs and housing, presence or absence of transit, and locations within their regions. In total, the MXD sample for the six regions provided survey data on almost 36,000 trips.

The analysis found that one or more variables in each of seven D categories (see above) were statistically significant predictors of internal capture, external walking, external transit use, and external private vehicle trip length.

Specifically, an MXD’s external traffic generation was
related to population and employment within the site
(density); the relative balance of jobs and housing within the site and the amount of employment within 1 mile
of the site (diversity); the density of intersections within the site as a measure of street connectivity (design); the presence of bus stops within a quarter mile or the presence of a rail station (distance from transit); employment within a mile of site boundaries and percentage of regional
employment within 20 minutes by car, 30 minutes by car, and 30 minutes by transit (destination accessibility); the gross acreage of the development (development scale);
and the average number of household members as well as
GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 11 household vehicle ownership per capita(demographics).

The accuracy of the EPA MXD method was verified
through traffic generation comparisons at 27 mixed-use
sites across the U.S.

The EPA MXD product is a series of equations and
instructions captured in a spreadsheet workbook. The
methodology calculates the percentage reductions in
ITE trip generation resulting from the national statistical analysis of seven D effects on internal trip capture, walking, and transit use. The spreadsheets produce reduced
estimates of traffic generation on a daily basis and for peak traffic hours.

Combining the Approaches
The NCHRP 684 method and EPA MXD method each derive
from different research approaches and produce different methods of analyzing trip generation at mixed use
developments. They focus on overlapping but not identical aspects of mixed-use development sites and their contexts and offer respective strengths and weaknesses in terms
of factors considered and ease of application. Selecting which method to employ under different circumstances
requires both a comparison of their capabilities as well as professional judgment of their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Report 684 includes a refined assessment of on-site
land-use categories, specifically recognizing the roles of restaurants, theaters, and hotels within the site landuse mix, along with an adjustment to account for the spatial separations among individual land uses within the development site. It is directly useful for the evaluation of proposed development sites that are similar to the
one or more of the three surveyed in Atlanta and Texas
for the report. However, it is not responsive to factors such as regional location, transit availability, density of development, walkability factors, and the sociodemographic profile of site residents and businesses.

In contrast, the EPA MXD method accounts directly and
quantitatively for these factors. However, while it accounts for the balances of retail, office, and residential development, it does not explicitly differentiate subcategories such as restaurants, theaters, and hotels. Furthermore, it requires the analyst to account for off-site development, including employment within a one-mile radius of the MXD and the
number of jobs available within 30 minutes of the site.

To develop a method that captures the best of both
sets of research findings, the authors of the two original studies decided to collaborate on an integrated method
that recognizes the full array of on-site and context
characteristics that contribute to traffic reduction and, through a focus on empirical verification, achieves greater accuracy than either method individually.

In developing the integrated approach, we compared the
performances of the methods to actual traffic counts at a diverse group of mixed use developments in a variety of settings. The 27 verification sites were successful mixeduse development, exhibiting moderate to high levels of activity in terms of business sales, occupied residential units, property value, and household income, with average or above-average person trips, at the time of the survey.

They included those studied for NCHRP 684, the sites
used as the basis for the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, and others surveyed by Fehr & Peers, transportation
consultants. Six of the 27 sites were located in Florida, and three were located in Atlanta and Texas. Three of these nine were nationally known examples of smart growth or transitoriented development: Atlantic Station, Mockingbird Station, and Celebration, Florida. Six sites were located in San Diego County and were designated by local planners
and traffic engineers in 2009 as representing a wide range of examples of smart growth trip generators in that region.

The 12 remaining sites were MXD developments located
elsewhere in California and in Utah, ranging from TOD
sites (commuter rail and ferry) to conventional suburban freeway-oriented mixed use sites.
12 A New Approach:

The MXD+ Method
The new analytical approach, the MXD+ method,
combines the strengths of NCHRP 684 and EPA
MXD. The authors sought to (1) address the fact
that each method has strengths relative to the
other, (2) create a method that is more accurate
than either of the individual methods alone, and
(3) reduce confusion among practitioners on
which is the most appropriate method.

The proposed MXD+ method incorporates the
underlying data sources and logic that the two
methods share. It offers the ability to assess
the effects of spatial separation of uses and
recognition of more specific land-use categories
and to consider the dynamic influences of local
development context, regional accessibility,
transit availability, development density and
walkability factors, and the characteristics of
residents.

To develop the preferred method, the authors
experimented with different methods of integrating the
two methods and arrived at a direct calibration approach.

The appropriate combination of the results of the two
individual methods was determined through regression
analysis to identify the proportions that provided the best correlation with the traffic counted at the 27 validation sites. Table 1 presents results from the regression analysis, listing the proportions of the two methods found most
effective at matching the traffic generation at the diverse set of mixed use validation sites. Weighting the results of the two individual analyses by the percentages in
Table 1 and combining the results produces more accurate estimates of traffic generation and captures the effects of all of the site description variables included in the NCHRP and EPA methods.

The step-by-step method is as follows:

1. Apply the full EPA MXD methodology to predict
external traffic generation as influenced by site
development scale, density, accessibility, walkability
and transit availability, resident demographics, and
general mix of uses.

2. Apply the full NCHRP 684 method to capture the
effects of detailed land-use categories, including hotel, theater, and restaurant, and the spatial separation of
uses within small and medium sites.

3. Combine the results of the two methods in terms
of percentages of trips remaining internal to the
development site, using proportioning factors
presented in the table above.

4. Apply adjustments to account for off-site walking and transit travel using the EPA MXD method.

5. Discount standard ITE traffic-generation rates by the percentages of internalization produced in step 3 and
the percentage of walk and transit travel in step 4 to
obtain the estimate of site- generated traffic.

TABLE 1 OPTIMAL BLEND OF NCHRP 684

AND EPA MXD METHODS

AM PEAK

TRAFFIC

PM PEAK

TRAFFIC

AVERAGE

DAILY TRAFFIC
NCHRP 684 10.1% 36.5% n/a
EPA MXD 89.9% 63.5% 100%
GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 13 As Table 2 indicates, the MXD+ method improves traffic
generation estimates by considering the full array of 12 site development and context characteristics shown to
influence internal capture and mode share, while the
individual methods consider only 5 to 8 factors each.

Effects considered in MXD+ that are not included in the NCHRP 684 method include household size and auto
ownership, site proximity to bus and rail stops, and
accessibility to local and regional jobs. Effects considered in the NCHRP 684 method that do not appear in the EPA
MXD method include specific land uses and proximity of
interacting land uses to each other.

TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF THREE PRINCIPAL METHODS IN TERMS OF PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED EPA MXD METHOD NCHRP 684 METHOD MXD+ METHOD
Project Characteristics Considered
Density of Development
Diversity of Uses: Jobs/Housing
Diversity of Uses: Housing/Retail
Diversity of Uses: Jobs/Services
Diversity of Uses: Entertainment, Hotel
Design: Connectivity, Walkability
Design: Separation Among Uses
Destination Accessibility by Transit
Destination Accessibility by Walk/Bike
Distance from Transit Stop
Development Scale
Distance from Transit Stop
Development Scale
Demographic Profile
Data Needs (beyond Project Site Plan)
Average Residents per Dwelling Unit
Average Autos Owned per Dwelling Unit
Nearby (1/4 mi) Bus Stops and Rail Stations
Jobs Within 1 Mile of Site
Jobs Within 30-Minute Transit Trip
Regional Employment
Located in CBD or TOD?
Site Development by Classification
Vehicle Occupancy Estimate
Mode Split Estimate
♦
14 Table 3 presents the statistical performance of
the MXD+ integrated method with the individual
performance of the individual NCHRP 684 and
EPA MXD methods. We compared the ability of
each of the available methods to replicate the
amount of traffic generated at the 27
validation sites in terms of statistical measures
including percent root mean squared error, a
metric used in the transportation field to evaluate
model accuracy, and the coefficient of determination (or “R-squared”), which measures the ability of the analysis method to account for the variations in traffic generation among the 27 survey sites. For daily traffic generation, MXD+ is equivalent to the EPA MXD method, as the
NCHRP 684 method does not address daily analysis. For
peak hour traffic generation, MXD+ performs notably
better than either of the individual methods.

TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF THREE PRINCIPAL METHODS IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE AT VALIDATION SITES EPA MXD METHOD NCHRP 684 METHOD MXD+ METHOD
Daily Traffic Generation
R-squared 96% 89%* 96%
Average Error 2% 16%* 2%
Root Mean Square Error 17% 27% 17%
AM Peak Traffic Generation
R-squared 97% 93%* 97%
Average Error 12% 30% 12%
Root Mean Square Error 21% 33% 21%
PM Peak Traffic Generation
R-squared 95% 81% 97%
Average Error 8% 18% 4%
Root Mean Square Error 18% 36% 15%
* ITE Handbook internalization statistics (NCHRP 684 method does not address daily trip generation) The graphs on the following page compare the
performance of the MXD+ method to the ITE Handbook
method at replicating traffic generation at the diverse group of mixed-use validation sites. Compared with the
ITE Handbook, MXD+ method more accurately matches
the amount of daily traffic actually counted at 20 of the 27 survey sites. In the AM peak hour, it is more accurate than the ITE Handbook at 21 of the 24 sites for which counts were available, and in the PM peak hour, MXD+ is more
accurate than the ITE Handbook method at 23 of 25 sites.

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 15 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON OF ITE HANDBOOK & MXD+ METHODS DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON OF ITE HANDBOOK & MXD+ METHODS AtJan Cro- Jambor Town ~nter Mockingb LaM Mor L
R
W~V\O'l._,CJ> c§§§§§§§§
\
::[

0..
c8
7fC"
0 :;:
l'I'
s
C
Atlantic Station
Boe.a Del
Ma,
C1? l1?brat1on
Country Isle s
Crodce r Center
Jamboree Center
Moel<:lngblrd
St
La Me
Bay Street
Larkspur Landi~
R
Quarry Blind
Southern Vill<Ee
.... l'vl,II.P,l,IIQl...,(J)I.I)
f:) .C, .~f:) .C,.~f:}.C,.0
0 Ll""---rl ---r1 -
• ;;:i
m
:I:
g
CL
r:r
0 0
s:
>< 0
m
1 -I
i:i1
n·
C
a
16 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON OF ITE HANDBOOK & MXD+ METHODS with 65 percent for the ITE
trip generation among mixed-use developments, compared
The MXD+ method explains 97 percent of the variation in Handbook method. On average,
the Handbook overestimates AM peak traffic generation
the PM peak hour, the ITE
by 49 percent, compared with 12 percent for MXD+. For
Handbook overestimates actual
factors that distinguish lower impact development from
single approach that accounts for the most important
transportation planners and engineers a more accurate
mixed-use development, the MXD+ method provides
methodologies for estimating traffic generation for
By combining and refining the two most advanced
understate impacts.
4 percent, remaining slightly conservative and unlikely to traffic by 35 percent. The MXD+ method reduces this to
listed below.
available for use through the references and resources
individual methods. Tools for all three approaches are
new methods, as described above, improves upon both
previously available through ITE. Combining the two
substantial advances to the conventional practices
on enhancing trip-capture estimation each represent
U.S. EPA multiregional study and the NCHRP 684 study
development. The MXD methods developed under the
forms of smart growth, including infill and transit-oriented for evaluating traffic generation of mixed use and other We recommend that planners adopt the latest methods
Recommendations for Planners
date, unreasonably discouraged mixed-use development.
and impact assessment beyond the practices that have, to other forms. Doing so advances development planning
,_.Nl.ll~U,CJl-.,(1:1\1) 0§§§§§§§§§
Atlantic Station
mbt>re Ce nt@t
Legacy To wn Center [5j
Mockingb irdSt ation
Q j I
Rio Vista
Th,vm.,., fi
La Mesa
Villaee
Plaza •
Uptown Center
L
Rulwood snores
Re dstone
Quarry B
Sout hern
Vill~e
l'I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-t
,....
::r
a,
:,
CL
0-
8 7"
I
X
0 +
-t
al
;;t
n
s
r;;
;:?.

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 17 Traffic engineers are beginning to take notice of the
new methods, but we expect that natural sluggishness
in adopting new practices will continue to impose unfair penalties on mixed use and other forms of lower-impact
development. We recommend activism on the part of all
planners, development reviewers, and impact analysts on behalf of the more accurate MXD methods.

Immediate adoption of the improved methods will allow
planners to account for a project’s regional location, transit availability, density of development, walkability factors, and the characteristics of residents and businesses and on-site adjacencies of land uses including residential, office, retail, restaurants, theaters, and hotels. Accounting for these factors through the MXD+ method will achieve
the highest levels of accuracy possible in estimating traffic impacts of mixed use development.

We recommend applying and promoting the
MXD+ method for day-to-day project planning and
performance-based site-plan refinement, impact analysis, and discretionary review. Doing so will eliminate what is presently a systematic bias in traffic analysis that favors single-use, isolated, suburban-style development.

Conclusion
Standard traffic engineering practices are blind to the primary benefits of smart growth. A plan’s development
density, scale, design, accessibility, transit proximity, demographics, and mix of uses all affect traffic generation in ways unseen to prescribed methods. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual
and Handbook overestimate peak traffic generation for
mixed-use development by an average of 35 percent.

For conventional suburban stand-alone development, ITE
rates portray the average for such sites; so hedging mixeduse analysis toward more conservative assumptions creates a systematic bias in favor of single-use suburban development.

ITE overestimation of traffic impacts reduces the likelihood of approval of mixed use and related forms of smart growth such as infill, compact, and transit-oriented development.

Such overestimation escalates development costs, skews
public perception, heightens community resistance, and
favors isolated single-use development.

The methods of evaluating mixed use development
described in this report represent a substantial improvement over conventional traffic-estimation methods. They
improve accuracy and virtually eliminate overestimation bias, and they are supported by the substantial evidence of surveys and traffic counts at 266 mixed use sites across the U.S. The MXD+ analysis method explains 97 percent
of the variation in trip generation among mixed use sites and all but eliminates the ITE systematic overestimation of traffic. We hope planners and other professionals will take advantage of the available spreadsheet tools listed below to help even the playing field between conventional development patterns and more sustainable, walkable,
livable places.

About the Authors
Jerry Walters is a principal and sustainability practice leader with Fehr & Peers, transportation consultants. He has more than 30 years of experience in transportation
planning, engineering, and travel forecasting and is
a registered traffic engineer. Jerry developed project
evaluation methods for the U.S. EPA study “Mixed-use
Development and Vehicle Trips: Improving the Standard
Estimation Methodology.” He is a co-author of the book
Growing Cooler – the Evidence on Urban Development
and Climate Change (Urban Land Institute, 2008).
18 Brian S. Bochner is a senior research engineer
at Texas Transportation Institute with over 40
years of experience in traffic engineering and
planning. He is a certified professional traffic
engineer, a professional traffic operations
engineer and transportation planner, an
affiliate with the Transportation Research
Board, and past president and member of
the International Board of Direction of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

His awards include Transportation Innovator,
Texas Department of Transportation Research
Program, and Transportation Engineer of the
Year for the Texas Section of ITE.

Reid Ewing is a professor of city and metropolitan planning at the University of Utah, associate editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, columnist for Planning magazine, and Fellow of the Urban Land Institute. His 2010 article, “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis,” won the Best Article of the Year award from the American Planning Association, and his book, Best Development
Practices (APA Planners Press, 1996), is listed by APA as one of the 100 essential planning books of the past 100 years.

GETTING TRIP GENERATION RIGHT Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development 19 References
Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, Benjamin Sperry, and Robert Dunphy. 2011. NCHRP Report 684: Enhancing Internal
Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments.

Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board. http:// onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_684.pdf
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American
Planning Association 76(3): 265–94. www.tandfonline.com/ doi/abs/10.1080/01944361003766766
Ewing, Reid, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry
Walters, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John
Thomas. 2011. “Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use
Developments — Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built
Environmental Measures.” ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3): 248–61. http://ascelibrary.org/ action/showAbstract?page=248&volume=137&issue=3&
journalCode=jupddm&isAuthorized=no
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip
Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. www.ite.org/emodules/ scriptcontent/orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=IR-016G
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2004. Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. www.ite.org/emodules
scriptcontent/orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-028B
San Diego Association of Governments. 2010. Trip
Generation for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region. San Diego, Calif.: SANDAG. www.sandag.
org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1500_11604.pdf
Walters, Jerry, Reid Ewing, and John Thomas Eary. 2013. “Getting Trip Generation Right -- How to Accurately
Account for Impact Reduction Attributable to Mixed-Use
and Related Forms of Sustainable Development.” National Association of Environmental Professionals Conference
Proceedings, April.

Additional Resources
Description, documentation, and spreadsheet tools for
the NCHRP 684 method, Enhancing Internal Trip Capture
Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments may be found at
www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165014.aspx.

Description, documentation, and spreadsheet tools
for the EPA MXD Trip Generation Tool for MixedUse Developments may be found at www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/mxd_tripgeneration.html.

Quick-response analysis tools for applying the EPA MXD
method, the combined EPA /NCHRP method MXD+, and
MXD in conjunction with analysis of vehicle-miles traveled, GHG emissions, and shared parking, Plan+, may be found
at http://asap.fehrandpeers.com/tools/.
©Copyright 2013 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved

Model Inputs
Input Variable Input Value Source
MXD specific inputs
Project Area (Acres) 14 GIS
Intersections per Square Mile 68 EPA Smart Location Database (2013) - 2010 Scenario Employment within 1 mile of Project Site 35430 custom
Share of regional employment within a 30 minute trip by transit 3 custom Surrounding Household Size 2.74 ACS 2012 (5-year) - All Housing Types Surrounding Vehicle Ownership 1.95 ACS 2012 (5-year) - All Housing Types Site Household Size 2.40 custom
Site Vehicle Ownership 1.50 custom
Average Vehicle Occupancy (HBW Trips) 1.0 NCHRP 758
Average Vehicle Occupancy (HBO Trips) 1.0 NCHRP 758
Average Vehicle Occupancy (NHB Trips) 1.0 NCHRP 758
Model Outputs (Vehicle Trips)
Land Use Units1 ITE Code Quantity Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Net New Uses
(220) - Apartment (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) Dwelling Units 2202 200 1336 20 82 102 83 45 128 (310) - Hotel (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) Rooms 3103 480 3923 150 104 254 147 141 288 (820) - Shopping Center (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 sq ft leasable area 8204 21.4 2493 38 23 61 102 111 213 (931) - Quality Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 sq ft gross floor area 9315 23.4 2105 10 9 19 117 58 175 (930) - Fast Casual Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) 1000 Sq. Ft. FLA 9306 6.2 1954 9 4 13 48 40 88 Reductions
Internal Capture -364 -11 -11 -22 -82 -66 -148
External Walk, Bike, and Transit -2,570 -72 -70 -142 -110 -87 -197 Total Reductions -2,934 -83 -81 -164 -192 -153 -345
Net New Project Trips 8,877 144 141 285 305 242 547

1. DU = dweling units. KSF = 1000 square feet

2. ITE Trip Generation land use category (220) - Apartment (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) ◦ Daily: T = 6.06(X) + 123.56
◦ AM Peak Hour: T = 0.49(X) + 3.73 (20% in, 80% out)
◦ PM Peak Hour: T = 0.55(X) + 17.65 (65% in, 35% out)

3. ITE Trip Generation land use category (310) - Hotel (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) ◦ Daily: T = 8.95(X) + -373.16
◦ AM Peak Hour: T = 0.53(X) (59% in, 41% out)
◦ PM Peak Hour: T = 0.60(X) (51% in, 49% out)

4. ITE Trip Generation land use category (820) - Shopping Center (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) ◦ Daily: Ln(T) = 0.65 * ln(X) + 5.83
◦ AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.61 * ln(X) + 2.24 (62% in, 38% out) ◦ PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.67 * ln(X) + 3.31 (48% in, 52% out)

5. ITE Trip Generation land use category (931) - Quality Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) ◦ Daily: T = 89.95(X)
◦ AM Peak Hour: T = 0.81(X) (55.00000000000001% in, 45% out) ◦ PM Peak Hour: T = 7.49(X) (67% in, 33% out)

6. ITE Trip Generation land use category (930) - Fast Casual Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P) ◦ Daily: T = 315.17(X)
◦ AM Peak Hour: T = 2.07(X)
◦ PM Peak Hour: T = 14.13(X)

7. Reductions based on application of MXD+ model:
◦ Total Reductions: Daily = 24.8%, AM Peak Hour = 36.6%, PM Peak Hour = 38.7% ◦ Internal Capture: Daily = 3.1%, AM Peak Hour = 4.9%, PM Peak Hour = 16.6% ◦ External Walk, Bike, and Transit: Daily = 21.7%, AM Peak Hour = 31.7%, PM Peak Hour = 22.1%

8. Sources:
◦ ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th and 10th Edition
◦ Fehr and Peers

9. Person Trips:
◦ Person Trips derived using the following average vehicle occupancy rates, applied to ITE Vehicle Trip Generation:
◦ HBW AVO:1
◦ HBO AVO:1
◦ NHW AVO:1
Attachment D
Transportation Tables

Table 1: Recent Counts
Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 38 28 2 68 4 19 46 69 91 195 105 391 14 751 42 807 1335 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 12 6 8 26 11 11 11 33 23 167 12 202 11 885 100 996 1257 Great America Parkway Tasman DriveGreat America Parkway Tasman Drive 326 594 160 1080 56 542 47 645 27 137 33 197 335 615 147 1097 3019 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 99 0 124 223 34 255 0 289 0 1137 225 1362 1874 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 287 28 335 650 3 16 7 26 21 311 66 398 132 943 22 1097 2171 Great America Parkway Great America Way 36 347 63 446 192 1054 68 1314 2 3 9 14 175 57 194 426 2200 Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 36 347 63 446 192 1054 68 1314 2 3 9 14 175 57 194 426 2200 Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 112 562 169 843 107 576 135 818 14 7 17 38 33 11 40 84 1783Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 22 1127 2 1151 22 835 16 873 0 0 5 5202 4 2033 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 470 1152 353 1975 142 678 120 940 119 89 103 311 468 271 300 1039 4265 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 1702 104 1806 0 1083 0 1083 0 0 0 0 406 0 902 1308 4197 Table 2A: Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 61 70 3 134 3 10 10 23 0 371 151 522 0 306 23 329 1008 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 11 22 5 38 16 13 11 40 84 278 22 384 29 322 97 448 910 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 231 842 373 1446 82 584 59 725 104 246 63 413 370 561 268 1199 3783Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 231 842 373 1446 82 584 59 725 104 246 63 413 370 561 268 1199 3783 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 122 0 131 253 40 244 0 284 0 844 165 1009 1546 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 295 37 369 701 2 3 2 7 19 512 61 592 96 693 23 812 2112 Great America Parkway Great America Way 41 442 37 520 169 1294 40 1503 3 4 0 7 100 9 147 256 2286 Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 216 381 67 664 22 914 455 1391 90 8 22 120 11 2 4 17 2192Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 187 628 345 1160 163 601 177 941 14 13 22 49 62 5 18 85 2235Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 45 1051 5 1101 14 866 18 898 3 0 5 8307 10 2017Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 347 1316 234 1897 198 545 87 830 59 92 16 167 435 196 341 972 3866 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 347 1316 234 1897 198 545 87 830 59 92 16 167 435 196 341 972 3866 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 1878 172 2050 0 772 275 1047 0 0 0 0 335 0 967 1302 4399 Table 2B: Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 23 42 1 66 -1 -9 -36 -46 -91 176 46 131 -14 -445 -19 -478 -327 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive -1 16 -3 12 5 2 0 7 61 111 10 182 18 -563 -3 -548 -347 Great America Parkway Tasman DriveGreat America Parkway Tasman Drive -95 248 213 366 26 42 12 80 77 109 30 216 35 -54 121 102 764 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 23 0 7 30 6 -11 0 -5 0 -293 -60 -353 -328 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 8 9 34 51 -1 -13 -5 -19 -2 201 -5 194 -36 -250 1 -285 -59 Great America Parkway Great America Way 5 95 -26 74 -23 240 -28 189 1 1 -9 -7 -75 -48 -47 -170 86 Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 180 34 4 218 -170 -140 387 77 88 5 13 106 -164 -55 -190 -409 -8 Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 75 66 176 317 56 25 42 123 0 6 5 11 29 -6 -22 1 452Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 23 -76 3 -50 -8 31 2 25 3 0 0 3 1 0 5 6 -16 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard -123 164 -119 -78 56 -133 -33 -110 -60 3 -87 -144 -33 -75 41 -67 -399 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 176 68 244 0 -311 275 -36 0 0 0 0 -71 0 65 -6 202 Note: Difference is calculated as Recent Counts (from Table 1) - Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 2A). A negative value indicates the City Place counts are less than recent counts.Table 2C: Percent Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR (Only showing for turn movements greater than 150 vehicles) Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 47% 30% 25% -145% -145% -32% Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 40% 47% -175% -122% -38% Great America Parkway Tasman DriveGreat America Parkway Tasman Drive -41% 29% 57% 25% 7% 11% 44% 52% 9% -10% 45% 9% 20% Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 12% -5% -2% -35% -36% -35% -21% Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 3% 9% 7% 39% 33% -36% -35% -3% Great America Parkway Great America Way 21% 14% -14% 19% 13% -66% 4%Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 83% 9% 33% -15% 85% 6% 0%Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 40% 11% 51% 27% 34% 4% 24% 13% 20% Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane -7% -5% 4% 3% -1%Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard -35% 12% -51% -4% 28% -24% -13% -86% -8% -38% 12% -7% -10% Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 9% 40% 12% -40% 100% -3% -21% 7% 0% 5% Note: Percent Difference is calculated as Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 2B) divided by Counted Volume in City Place EIR (from Table 2A).

Grand
Total North/South East/West Westbound
AM Peak Hour
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
North/South East/West Westbound
AM Peak Hour Grand
Total
North/South East/West
AM Peak Hour Grand
Total Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
North/South East/West
AM Peak Hour Grand
Total Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Table 3A: 2020 Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 170 70 10 250 10 10 10 30 0 850 370 1220 30 640 30 700 2200 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 20 30 10 60 30 20 20 70 90 610 180 880 390 680 120 1190 2200 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 250 1300 480 2030 100 1070 220 1390 120 360 290 770 520 1100 350 1970 6160 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 250 1300 480 2030 100 1070 220 1390 120 360 290 770 520 1100 350 1970 6160 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 130 0 140 270 50 470 0 520 0 1620 240 1860 2650 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 340 40 370 750 10 10 10 30 20 730 70 820 140 1510 30 1680 3280 Great America Parkway Great America Way 220 580 160 960 300 1960 220 2480 30 10 30 70 150 10 200 360 3870 Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 250 810 150 1210 100 1580 460 2140 90 10 30 130 30 10 20 60 3540Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 200 1170 350 1720 170 1350 180 1700 20 20 30 70 70 10 20 100 3590 Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 450 1540 10 2000 20 1600 110 1730 130 0 160 290 10 0 10 20 4040Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 570 2010 270 2850 220 1200 190 1610 60 100 30 190 530 200 680 1410 6060 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 570 2010 270 2850 220 1200 190 1610 60 100 30 190 530 200 680 1410 6060 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 2470 290 2760 0 1460 350 1810 0 0 0 0 820 0 1310 2130 6700 Table 3B: Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 132 42 8 182 6 -9 -36 -39 -91 655 265 829 16 -111 -12 -107 865 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 8 24 2 34 19 9 9 37 67 443 168 678 379 -205 20 194 943 Great America Parkway Tasman DriveGreat America Parkway Tasman Drive -76 706 320 950 44 528 173 745 93 223 257 573 185 485 203 873 3141 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 31 0 16 47 16 215 0 231 0 483 15 498 776 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 53 12 35 100 7 -6 3 4 -1 419 4 422 8 567 8 583 1109 Great America Parkway Great America Way 184 233 97 514 108 906 152 1166 28 7 21 56 -25 -47 6 -66 1670Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 214 463 87 764 -92 526 392 826 88 7 21 116 -145 -47 -174 -366 1340 Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 88 608 181 877 63 774 45 882 6 13 13 32 37 -1 -20 16 1807Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 428 413 8 849 -2 765 94 857 130 0 155 285 8 0 8 16 2007Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 100 858 -83 875 78 522 70 670 -59 11 -73 -121 62 -71 380 371 1795 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 768 186 954 0 377 350 727 0 0 0 0 414 0 408 822 2503 Note: Difference is calculated as 2020 Volumes (from Table 3A) - Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 2A). A negative value indicates the City Place counts are less than recent counts.Table 3C: Percent Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR (Only showing for turn movements greater than 150 vehicles) Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 78% 73% 77% 72% 68% -17% -15% 39% Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 73% 93% 77% 97% -30% 16% 43% Great America Parkway Tasman DriveGreat America Parkway Tasman Drive -30% 54% 67% 47% 49% 79% 54% 62% 89% 74% 36% 44% 58% 44% 51% Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 17% 46% 44% 30% 6% 27% 29%
Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 16% 9% 13% 57% 51% 38% 35% 34% Great America Parkway Great America Way 84% 40% 61% 54% 36% 46% 69% 47% 3% -18% 43% Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 86% 57% 63% 33% 85% 39% 38% Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 44% 52% 52% 51% 37% 57% 25% 52% 50%Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 95% 27% 42% 48% 50% 97% 98% 50% Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 18% 43% -31% 31% 35% 44% 37% 42% -64% 12% -36% 56% 26% 30% Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 31% 64% 35% 26% 100% 40% 50% 31% 39% 37% Note: Percent Difference is calculated as Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 3B) divided by Counted Volume in City Place EIR (from Table 2A).

North/South East/West
AM Peak Hour Grand
Total
North/South East/West
AM Peak Hour Grand
Total
North/South East/West Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM Peak Hour Grand
Total
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
I
I
Table 4: Recent Counts
Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 58 28 11 97 14 76 197 287 99 740 332 1171 32 374 17 423 1978 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 11 18 36 65 39 94 25 158 20 682 24 726 11 314 9 334 1283 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 84 618 536 1238 377 924 50 1351 27 635 52 714 270 223 57 550 3853Great America Parkway Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 166 0 67 233 90 1146 0 1236 0 427 170 597 2066 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 62 4 243 309 29 24 15 68 4 1088 388 1480 237 567 6 810 2667 Great America Parkway Great America Way 21 1010 460 1491 99 554 7 660 60 82 23 165 76 9 169 254 2570Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 21 1010 460 1491 99 554 7 660 60 82 23 165 76 9 169 254 2570Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 22 651 40 713 32 759 30 821 236 19 235 490 174 21 71 266 2290Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 13 1171 0 1184 8 1224 4 1236 45 0 101 146 2 0 2 4 2570Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 271 1002 377 1650 368 1625 142 2135 170 459 100 729 445 125 146 716 5230 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps
Table 5A: Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 61 18 12 91 20 40 104 164 0 718 137 855 1 447 16 464 1574 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 20 16 29 65 71 71 32 174 18 730 12 760 40 388 13 441 1440 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 104 543 458 1105 333 919 70 1322 61 701 137 899 460 369 116 945 4271Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 104 543 458 1105 333 919 70 1322 61 701 137 899 460 369 116 945 4271 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 262 0 67 329 131 1103 0 1234 0 550 229 779 2342 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 71 1 181 253 20 41 8 69 6 1074 468 1548 287 841 24 1152 3022 Great America Parkway Great America Way 16 977 225 1218 182 670 7 859 32 20 7 59 55 3 120 178 2314 Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 69 774 13 856 25 667 100 792 428 13 169 610 62 5 6 73 2331Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 48 551 43 642 43 812 30 885 132 11 203 346 302 22 103 427 2300Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 24 1010 4 1038 15 1248 3 1266 19 0 102 121 2 0 9 11 2436Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 585 763 396 1744 344 1633 132 2109 183 273 269 725 919 265 178 1362 5940 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 585 763 396 1744 344 1633 132 2109 183 273 269 725 919 265 178 1362 5940 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 1048 189 1237 0 2220 739 2959 0 0 0 0 381 0 670 1051 5247 Table 5B: Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 3 -10 1 -6 6 -36 -93 -123 -99 -22 -195 -316 -31 73 -1 41 -404 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 9 -2 -7 0 32 -23 7 16 -2 48 -12 34 29 74 4 107 157 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 20 -75 -78 -133 -44 -5 20 -29 34 66 85 185 190 146 59 395 418Great America Parkway Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 96 41 -43 0 -2 0 123 59 182 276 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 9 -3 -62 -56 -9 17 -7 1 2 -14 80 68 50 274 18 342 355 Great America Parkway Great America Way -5 -33 -235 -273 83 116 0 199 -28 -62 -16 -106 -21 -6 -49 -76 -256Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 48 -236 -447 -635 -74 113 93 132 368 -69 146 445 -14 -4 -163 -181 -239Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 26 -100 3 -71 11 53 0 64 -104 -8 -32 -144 128 1 32 161 10Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 11 -161 4 -146 7 24 -1 30 -26 0 1 -25 0 0 7 7 -134Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 314 -239 19 94 -24 8 -10 -26 13 -186 169 -4 474 140 32 646 710 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps
Note: Difference is calculated as Recent Counts (from Table 4) - Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 5A). A negative value indicates the City Place counts are less than recent counts.Table 5C: Percent Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR (Only showing for turn movements greater than 150 vehicles) Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive -75% -3% -37% 16% 9% -26% Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 9% 7% 4% 19% 24% 11%
Great America Parkway Tasman Drive -14% -17% -12% -13% -1% -2% 9% 21% 41% 40% 42% 10%Great America Parkway Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 37% 29% -4% 0% 22% 26% 23% 12% Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive -34% -22% -1% 17% 4% 17% 33% 30% 12% Great America Parkway Great America Way -3% -104% -22% 46% 17% 23% -43% -11% Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd -30% -74% 17% 17% 86% 86% 73% -10%Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane -18% -11% 7% 7% -16% -42% 42% 38% 0%Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane -16% -14% 2% 2% -6%Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 54% -31% 5% 5% -7% 0% -1% 7% -68% 63% -1% 52% 53% 18% 47% 12% Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps
Note: Percent Difference is calculated as Difference between Recent Counts and Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 5B) divided by Counted Volume in City Place EIR (from Table 5A).

PM Peak HourPM Peak HourPM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
Westbound Grand Total North/South East/West Northbound Southbound Eastbound North/South East/West Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Grand Total
Grand
Total
North/South East/West Northbound Southbound EastboundNorth/South East/West Grand Total Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound I
Table 6A: 2020 Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 150 20 20 190 20 50 110 180 0 1080 410 1490 120 1030 20 1170 3030 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 150 20 290 460 90 80 40 210 30 1050 20 1100 50 960 30 1040 2810 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 180 1220 610 2010 380 1380 210 1970 160 1010 170 1340 630 710 160 1500 6820Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 180 1220 610 2010 380 1380 210 1970 160 1010 170 1340 630 710 160 1500 6820 Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 360 0 80 440 140 1560 0 1700 0 790 290 1080 3220 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 90 10 270 370 20 50 10 80 10 1480 620 2110 350 1120 30 1500 4060 Great America Parkway Great America Way 50 1900 290 2240 230 960 40 1230 190 20 170 380 180 10 240 430 4280Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 80 1620 30 1730 40 1190 100 1330 510 20 170 700 130 10 80 220 3980Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 50 1340 50 1440 50 1400 30 1480 140 20 270 430 310 30 110 450 3800Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 320 1840 10 2170 40 1970 30 2040 110 0 560 670 10 0 10 20 4900Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 590 1600 530 2720 550 2870 160 3580 270 280 270 820 1070 270 290 1630 8750 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 590 1600 530 2720 550 2870 160 3580 270 280 270 820 1070 270 290 1630 8750 Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps 0 1800 570 2370 0 3310 1070 4380 0 0 0 0 590 0 890 1480 8230 Table 6B: Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 92 -8 9 93 6 -26 -87 -107 -99 340 78 319 88 656 3 747 1052 Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 139 2 254 395 51 -14 15 52 10 368 -4 374 39 646 21 706 1527 Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 96 602 74 772 3 456 160 619 133 375 118 626 360 487 103 950 2967Great America Parkway Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 0 0 0 0 194 0 13 207 50 414 0 464 0 363 120 483 1154 Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 28 6 27 61 -9 26 -5 12 6 392 232 630 113 553 24 690 1393 Great America Parkway Great America Way 29 890 -170 749 131 406 33 570 130 -62 147 215 104 1 71 176 1710Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 59 610 -430 239 -59 636 93 670 450 -62 147 535 54 1 -89 -34 1410Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 28 689 10 727 18 641 0 659 -96 1 35 -60 136 9 39 184 1510Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 307 669 10 986 32 746 26 804 65 0 459 524 8 0 8 16 2330Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 319 598 153 1070 182 1245 18 1445 100 -179 170 91 625 145 144 914 3520 Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps
Note: Difference is calculated as 2020 Volumes (from Table 6A) - Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 5A). A negative value indicates the City Place counts are less than recent counts.

Table 6C: Percent Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes used in the City Place Santa Clara EIR (Only showing for turn movements greater than 150 vehicles) Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Patrick Henry Drive Tasman Drive 49% -59% 31% 19% 21% 64% 64% 35% Old Ironsides Drive Tasman Drive 88% 86% 25% 35% 34% 67% 68% 54% Great America Parkway Tasman Drive 53% 49% 12% 38% 1% 33% 76% 31% 83% 37% 69% 47% 57% 69% 64% 63% 44%Great America Parkway Tasman Drive Calle Del Sol Tasman Drive 54% 47% 27% 27% 46% 41% 45% 36% Lick Mill Boulevard Tasman Drive 10% 16% 26% 37% 30% 32% 49% 46% 34% Great America Parkway Great America Way 47% -59% 33% 57% 42% 46% 68% 86% 57% 58% 30% 41% 40%Great America Parkway Old Mountain View-Alviso Rd 38% 14% 53% 50% 88% 86% 76% -15% 35%Great America Parkway Bunker Hill Lane 51% 50% 46% 45% 13% -14% 44% 41% 40%Great America Parkway Old Glory Lane 96% 36% 45% 38% 39% 82% 78% 48%Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard 54% 37% 29% 39% 33% 43% 11% 40% 37% -64% 63% 11% 58% 54% 50% 56% 40% Great America Parkway Mission College Boulevard
Great America Parkway US 101 NB Ramps
Note: Percent Difference is calculated as Difference between 2020 Volumes and Counted Volumes from the City Place Santa Clara EIR (from Table 6B) divided by Counted Volume in City Place EIR (from Table 5A).

East/West
North/South East/West
PM Peak HourPM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
North/South East/West Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound North/South Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Grand
Total
Grand
Total
Grand
Total Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
RELATED SANTA CLARA PHASE 1 DAP PROJECT
CEQA Addendum Errata Sheet
Prepared for March 2020
City of Santa Clara
r ESA
~

Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1, Parcel 5 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1, Parcel 5 Project 1 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum Errata Sheet March 2020

4.3 Comparison of Project Analyzed in EIR and DAP 1 Project The development plan for Phase 1 on Parcel 5 that was analyzed in the EIR was the same under both land use schemes (Scheme A and Scheme B). Under the EIR, Development on Parcel 5 was expected to provide a mix of uses, including residential, hotel, retail, and office uses. The proposed buildings were described as including approximately 87,000 gsf of commercial uses (retail and food/beverage) and 258,000 gsf of office uses. In addition, the Draft EIR analyzed as part of Phase 1 approximately 200,000 gsf of residential uses with development of approximately 200 units, and approximately 280,000 gsf for 400 rooms in one or more hotels. In total, Parcel 5 was described as including approximately 825,000 gsf of development and having a FAR of 2.37, subject to the development transfer provisions described in the MCP. Parking would be provided in above- and below-finished-grade parking structures and within surface parking lots.

The description of Parcel 5 in the Enhanced Open Space Variant analyzed in Exhibit A to the Final EIR and, together with the Increased Housing Alternative presented in the EIR, adopted as the Project and reflected in the approved MCP differed slightly from the Project analyzed in the Draft EIR in that it permits up to 306,000 gsf of office uses and a total of approximately 873,000 gsf of development with a FAR of 2.52. The approved MCP description for Parcel 5 differs slightly from the Project analyzed in the EIR in that it permits up to 306,000 gsf of office uses. In addition, the MCP allows for up to 20 percent deviation from this base entitlement through a density transfer provision along with other provisions allowing flexibility as DAPs are designed.

The built-in flexibility may result in increases or decreases in density per phase while not exceeding the maximum build-out for the entire Project.

The DAP 1 Project follows the “New Tasman Drive Intersection Variant 2” that was analyzed in the EIR and includes the relocation of Stars and Stripes Drive 100 feet to the north and an increase in the developable acreage on Parcel 5. The DAP 1 Project proposal also relies on the development transfer provision and thus is compliant with the MCP while differing slightly from the Phase 1 plan analyzed in the EIR. The DAP 1 Project would include approximately 51,000 gsf of commercial uses (21,400 gsf of retail and 29,600 gsf of food/beverage), 440,000 gsf of office uses, 175,000 gsf of residential uses (200 units), and a 381,000 gsf hotel (480 keys). The DAP 1 Project would defer public park open space requirements to Phase 2 and develop on a total of

14.3 acres (see Table 2). These deviations from Parcel 5 as analyzed in the EIR are consistent with the overall Project and compliant with the MCP.

Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1, Parcel 5 Project
Related Santa Clara DAP 1, Phase 1, Parcel 5 Project 2 ESA / 201901172 CEQA Addendum Errata Sheet March 2020
TABLE 2

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON
DAP 1 Project Area (gsf) Final EIR Project Area (gsf)
Commercial (Retail/Food & Beverage) 51,000 87,000
Office 440,000 306,000 258,000
Residential 175,000 (200 units) 200,000 (200 units)
Hotel 381,000 (480 rooms) 280,000 (400 rooms)
Total GSF 1,047,000 873,000 825,000
Total Acreage 14.3 8
Floor-Area Ratio 1.68 2.52 2.37
SOURCE:

Related Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara, Development Area Plan 1 Phase 1 Parcel 5, November 2019 City of Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2015.City of Santa Clara, City Place Santa Clara Project Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2016.

City of Santa Clara, Exhibit A to City Place Santa Clara Project Final Environmental Impact Report, June 2016.

Resolution/Approval of CEQA Addendum for Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 1 of 4 Rev. 03-04-2020
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A FIRST

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE RELATED SANTA CLARA PROJECT IN

CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT

AREA PLAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE PROJECT SITUATED
ON APPROXIMATELY 14.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
5155 STARS AND STRIPES DRIVE (APNs 104-03-036
(portion), 104-03-037 (portion), 104- 03-038 AND 104-03-039) SCH#2014072078
CEQ2014‐11180 (EIR)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) together with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Santa Clara prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the proposed construction by Related Santa Clara, LLC (the “Applicant”) of a new multi-phased, mixed-use development known as the Related Santa Clara Project (the “Project”);
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-8337, certifying the Final EIR and adopting CEQA findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the Santa Clara City Council approved a number of Project entitlements, including Resolution No. 16-8339, which rezoned the Project site to the PD-MC (Planned Development-Master Community) zoning district; WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 16-8339, buildout of the Project is governed by a Master Community Plan (the “MCP”) dated April 5, 2017, which anticipates up to eight potential phases of development, each of which would be governed by a “Development Area Plan,” or “DAP”;
Resolution/Approval of CEQA Addendum for Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 2 of 4 Rev. 03-04-2020
WHEREAS, the Project analyzed in the Final EIR and approved via the MCP consists of up to

9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings, retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, hotel rooms, surface and structured parking facilities, new open space and roads, landscaping and tree replacement, and new/upgraded/expanded infrastructure and utilities; WHEREAS, after certification of the Final EIR, on November 4, 2019, in conformance with the Development Area Plans and Architectural Review Submittal and Approval Procedures (the “DAP Procedures”) attached as Appendix C to the MCP, the Applicant filed an application for City Council approval of a Development Area Plan for Phase One of the Project (“DAP 1 Application”);
WHEREAS, the DAP 1 Application proposes certain modifications to the Project analyzed in the Final EIR and approved via the MCP, consisting of minor changes to the boundaries of Phase One of the Project, a minor increase in the maximum square footage permitted within Phase One of the Project, and a small change to the use mix permitted within Phase One of the Project;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that all potential environmental impacts of the Project (as modified by the DAP 1 Application) were thoroughly analyzed, the City caused an addendum to the Final EIR (the “Addendum”) to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164, which Addendum is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, the Addendum provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that no subsequent environmental review is required because the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met;
WHEREAS, Section 2.7.2.4 of the DAP Procedures provides for the review and recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of each DAP application before action is taken by the City Council; and
Resolution/Approval of CEQA Addendum for Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 3 of 4 Rev. 03-04-2020
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Addendum and the DAP 1 Application, at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed DAP 1; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing and deliberations among the Planning Commissioners, on February 20, 2020 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20- 001 making findings that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would have required additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met and recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum prior to acting on the DAP 1 Application; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider DAP 1, at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed DAP 1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. Findings. That the City Council has exercised its independent judgement and reviewed and considered the Final EIR, together with the Addendum thereto, and has determined that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would have required additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met. Specifically, and without limitation, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of the DAP 1 Application because (1) the Project (as modified by the DAP 1 Application) would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those studied in the EIR, (2) there exists no new information of substantial importance that would result in any new or more severe Resolution/Approval of CEQA Addendum for Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 4 of 4 Rev. 03-04-2020
significant impacts as compared to those studied in the EIR; (3) there are no substantial changes in circumstances that would result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the EIR; and (4) there is no feasible mitigation measure or alternative that is considerably different from others previously analyzed that has not been adopted.

3. Approval. That the City Council hereby adopts the Addendum.

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachment Incorporated by Reference:

1. CEQA Addendum
5155 Stars and Stripes Drive – Web Link Slip Sheet to
City Place Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDir ectory/216/2571?alpha=R
150 Post Street, Suite 740 | San Francisco, CA 94108 | 415-788-1000 www.bergdavis.com MEMO
FROM: BergDavis Public Affairs
TO: Ruth Shikada, City Manager
DATE: January 22, 2020
RE: Summary of January 15, 2020 Santa Clara Open House
The following is a brief summary of the Related Santa Clara Open House held Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at the Santa Clara Convention Center. At the time this open house was held, the project was fully entitled and slated to begin construction in 2020.

The meeting, which began at 5:30 pm and ended at 7 pm, was held in Room 207 of the Convention Center. Light refreshments of cookies, coffee and water were served.

Approximately 25-30 people attended the open house, including members of the city council, planning commission and planning department.

Stephen Eimer, co-managing partner for the project, gave a two-part slide presentation.

The first part began with an overview of Related Companies and some of its other largemixed use projects in the United States, including Hudson Yards, and then provided an overview of Related Santa Clara’s boundaries and key features, including hotels, retail, office, and housing. The second part of the presentation provided information about the timeline and phasing of the project from construction to opening.

The presentation was followed by questions from the audience that primarily focused on the following topics:

1. Entrances and exits for the project

2. Temporary roads, road closures and traffic circulation during construction

3. Traffic circulation during game days and special events once the project is built

4. Expected street, bicycle and pedestrian improvements

5. Affordable housing

6. Pedestrian safety

7. Project financing
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Dear Gloria,
Mayor and Council
Gloria Sciara; Elizabeth Elliott; Andrew Crabtree
Genevieve Yip; Martha Martinez
FW: Related Santa Clara on 2-20-2020 Planning Commission agenda Thursday, February 20, 2020 4:21:42 PM

POST MEETING MATERIAL
2/20/2020 PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 2
For your reference, our office received the email below which appears to be post-meeting material for the February 20, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.

Best regards,
Julie Minot, SPHR I Executive Assistant, Mayor and City Counci l Mayor & Council Offices I City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue; Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel: 408-615-2252 I www.santaclaraca.gov
----:Original Message-----
From: Gary Wesley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 4:02 PM
To: PlanningCommission <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <MA [email protected]>
Cc: Gary Wesiey <[email protected]>
Subject: Related Santa Clara on 2-20-2020 Planning Commission agenda Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission:

I represent David Ebrahimi personally and as the representative of two corporations (D.E. Restaurants, Inc. and D.E.

II Restaurants, Inc.) with interests in the area Related Santa Clara plans to develop.

As to tonight's proposed recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to approve an addendum to an environmental review (asserting no change in the project or other relevant •circumstances), each of my clients hereby objects to the proposed action on the basis that the proposed development and other circumstances have changed such that a further environmental evaluation is required.

For example, the effect on traffic stemming from changes to the proposed development and the current and anticipated traffic in the area is significant. Traffic will be greatly impacted by the project - as changed - both in the construction phase and beyond.

In addition, Mr. Ebrahimi has experienced an increase in methane fumes and alarms in recent years. The impact of methane and other hazardous material on construction and later use of the area should be evaluated, and mitigation measures should be considered.

The Planning Commission has a duty to independently evaluate the agenda materials provided. They include thousands of pages. Many materials evidently were just made available. The Planning Commission should postpone voting on the matter until each member evaluates the materials and duly considers all objections and other input received.

Thank you for your consideration.

GARY B. WESLEY
Attorney at Law
707 Continental Circle #424
Mountain View, CA 94040
( 408) 882-5070
From: Gregg <gregg [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:41 PM
To: PlanningCommission <PLANNINGCOMMISSION@santaclaraca .gov> Subject: PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014-10554, CEQ2014-01180). Redevelopment and removal of David's Restaurant on Stars and Stripes Drive in Santa Clara .

Feb 20,2020
Hello,
This is to object to redevelopment and removal of David's Restaurant on Stars and Stripes Drive in Santa Clara. PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014-10554, CEQ2014-01180) My family and I have been going to David's Restaurant in Santa Clara City for over 30 years. David's has served and supported Santa Clara when little was around that part of Santa Clara City. Their excellent food and service are a credit to the community. I go to monthly professional events at their banquet center.

The restaurant business is one of the toughest to survive, and David's has. David's is a family run business, employing· local people long term. They contribute to the community and support -· the tax base. · · · · ·
. . .David's should be grandfathered into any planning chang.es, not demolished. Please support the renewal of their lease so they can continue as a valued local business.

Regards,
Gregg Rose
P. 0. Box 448
Saratoga, CA 95071
408-242-3603
Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 1 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT

AREA PLAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE RELATED SANTA
CLARA PROJECT SITUATED ON APPROXIMATELY 14.3
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5155 STARS AND STRIPES
DRIVE (APNs 104-03-036 (portion), 104-03-037 (portion), 104- 03-038 AND 104-03-039)
SCH#2014072078
CEQ2014‐11180 (EIR)
PLN2019-14186 (Development Area Plan)

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the Santa Clara City Council approved a number of entitlements for the proposed construction by Related Santa Clara, LLC (the “Applicant”) of a new multiphased, mixed-use development known as the Related Santa Clara Project (the “Project”); WHEREAS, the Project entitlements approved by the City Council on June 28, 2016, included Resolution No. 16-8339, which rezoned the Project site to the PD-MC (Planned DevelopmentMaster Community) zoning district; WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-8337, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) together with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA Guidelines”) and adopting CEQA findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 16-8339, buildout of the Project is governed by a Master Community Plan (the “MCP”) dated April 5, 2017, which anticipates up to eight potential phases of development, each of which would be governed by a “Development Area Plan,” or “DAP”;
Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 2 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020
WHEREAS, the Project analyzed in the Final EIR and approved via the MCP consists of up to

9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings, retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, hotel rooms, surface and structured parking facilities, new open space and roads, landscaping and tree replacement, and new/upgraded/expanded infrastructure and utilities; WHEREAS, on November 4, 2019, in conformance with the Development Area Plans and Architectural Review Submittal and Approval Procedures (the “DAP Procedures”) attached as Appendix C to the MCP, the Applicant filed an application for City Council approval of a Development Area Plan (“DAP 1 Application”) for Phase One of the Project; WHEREAS, the Development Area Plan for Phase One of the Project (“DAP 1”) consists of components from the DAP 1 Application which incorporate City comments on the DAP 1 Application and that is dated November 1, 2019;
WHEREAS, the DAP 1 Application proposes certain modifications to the Project analyzed in the Final EIR and approved via the MCP, consisting of minor changes to the boundaries of Phase One of the Project, a minor increase in the maximum square footage permitted within Phase One of the Project, and a small change to the use mix permitted within Phase One of the Project;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that all potential environmental impacts of the Project as modified by the DAP 1 Application were thoroughly analyzed, the City caused an addendum to the Final EIR (the “Addendum”) to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its independent judgement and reviewed and considered the final EIR, together with the Addendum thereto, and determined that no further environmental review is required for the modifications to the Project contemplated by the DAP 1 Application; WHEREAS; the City Council separately has adopted the Addendum in connection with its consideration of DAP 1;
Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 3 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020
WHEREAS, Section 2.7.2.4 of the DAP Procedures provides for the review and recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of each DAP application before action is taken by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider DAP 1, at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed DAP 1; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing and deliberations among the Planning Commissioners, on February 20, 2020 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20- 002 making findings pursuant to Section 2.7.2.6 of the DAP Procedures and recommending that the City Council approve DAP 1 as conditioned in Attachment 1 to Resolution No. 20-002; and WHEREAS, Section 2.7.2.5 of the DAP Procedures provides that the City Council shall consider the DAP application at a public meeting after receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.7.2.6 of the DAP Procedures provides that the City Council may approve or conditionally approve a DAP application upon making specified findings; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider DAP 1, at which time interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed DAP 1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. Findings. Pursuant to Section 2.7.2.6 of the DAP Procedures, the City Council makes the following findings:

Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 4 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020
(a) DAP 1 conforms to and is consistent with the applicable Development Requirements and the MCP.

As defined in the MCP, the Development Requirements mean the project approvals taken following certification of the Final EIR, the various project transaction documents, and the documents approved under the DAP Procedures. Except as specifically modified by the DAP 1 conditions of approval, all of the conditions of approval adopted in connection with the earlier project approvals continue to apply to development within the DAP 1 area. In addition, the Addendum identifies which mitigation measures adopted in connection with the Final EIR are applicable to the DAP 1 development. The Staff Reports prepared for the February 20, 2020 Planning Commission meeting and the March 17, 2020 City Council meeting include narrative descriptions and tabular analysis that demonstrate how DAP 1 conforms with the applicable MCP requirements, which analysis is incorporated by reference as though set forth herein. In summary, DAP 1 includes a mixed-use development program featuring approximately 1,047,000 square feet of office, retail, residential, and hotel uses that is within the development program contemplated by the MCP to establish a gateway into the City Center Mixed Use Zone primarily on Parcel 5. As required by the MCP, DAP 1 parking is provided in subterranean parking structures and is arranged to maximize shared parking opportunities to reduce the overall demand for parking within the DAP 1 area. The DAP 1 development is further consistent with other MCP standards regarding phasing, lot coverage, massing, floor area ratios, and similar design criteria. The DAP 1 conditions of approval will require all construction documents and building permits to meet applicable City standards. Accordingly, as proposed and conditioned, DAP 1 conforms with all applicable City standards. (b) The Infrastructure that the Applicant proposes to construct in connection with Phase One is sufficient to serve the DAP 1 proposed development on the subject property.

As defined in the MCP, Infrastructure means those items identified in the Infrastructure Master Plan, which include open space improvements, streets and transportation improvements, sewer Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 5 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020
and storm drainage systems, water systems, traffic signal systems, dry utilities, and other necessary improvements. Consistent with Section 4.3.5 of the Development Agreement, all shared outdoor space improvements required for DAP 1 are permitted to be provided in connection with Phase Two of the project and will serve the DAP 1 development accordingly.

DAP 1 includes conceptual plans for a new network of streets to serve the development, which will also be served by transit facilities adjacent to Phase One development. Finally, DAP 1 includes conceptual information about how the project will accommodate all of the necessary dry utilities and other necessary improvements. The DAP 1 conditions of approval will require all construction documents and building permits to meet applicable City standards. Accordingly, as proposed and conditioned, DAP 1 will include Infrastructure that is sufficient to serve the proposed development.
(c) The proposed shared outdoor space provided for Phase One in accordance with the MCP is reasonable and appropriate to the proposed level of development under DAP 1.

Consistent with Section 4.3.5 of the Development Agreement, all public park improvements are permitted to be provided in connection with Phase Two of the project and will serve the DAP 1 development accordingly. When it approved the Development Agreement, the City determined that it was reasonable to meet the shared outdoor space needs of the DAP 1 development in connection with development of Phase Two under DAP 2, and DAP 2 is anticipated to provide

1.21 acres of shared outdoor space to serve the residents in Phase One. DAP 1 will, however, provide approximately 2.22 acres of private open space.

3. Approval. That the City Council hereby approves DAP 1, as conditioned in Attachment 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

5. Notice of Determination. The Development Review Officer is directed to cause to be filed a Notice of Determination with the appropriate agencies in accordance with CEQA.

Resolution/Approval of Related Santa Clara Project DAP 1 Page 6 of 6 Rev. 03-04-2020

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachment Incorporated by Reference:

1. Conditions of Approval
Related Santa Clara, DAP 1, Phase 1 – Conditions of DAP Approval 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The DAP Phase 1 project shall continue to comply with all Conditions of Planned Development – Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning Approval (City Council Resolution 16-8339) and all adopted mitigation measures under the approved MMRP, unless specifically superseded by any of these conditions.

The DAP Phase 1 project will comply with all applicable codes, regulations, standards, ordinances, and resolutions in effect at the time of each DAP 1 plan submission, to the extent applicable under the MCP, DA, DDA and other Project approvals. The following conditions of approval are recommended:

GENERAL
G1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for each building, Developer will submit plan(s) for review and approval by the Community Development Director detailing the following:
a. minimum building setbacks and lot coverage for each building; b. detailed streetscape and landscape plans, including elements of landscape zones described in the MCP;
c. shared outdoor space elements, if any, to the extent known; d. public art installation locations, if any, to the extent known; e. onsite loading/unloading zones for all anticipated uses, including but not limited to delivery vehicles, trash pick-up, ride-share services, bicycle parking facilities, commuter buses, and/or private shuttles;
f. access and circulation plans for all entrances and exits to parking garages; and g. bicycle facilities and amenities.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C1. The Residential Serviced Apartments on Block 5C, as residential dwelling units to be constructed under Land Use Scheme A of the Master Community Plan (the land use scheme selected by the Master Developer), are required to be used for more than 30 days under a written contract such that they shall not meet the City's definition of Transient Occupancy in SCCC 3.25.020(g).

C2. Prior to commencement of grading activities, a review meeting conducted by the City and attended by all on-site field superintendent(s) will be held.

C3. This Condition of Approval shall replace Condition of Approval P15 from the Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning Approval (included by reference herein under City Council Resolution 16-8339). The Comprehensive Sign Program required by the MCP for Parcels 4 and 5 shall be considered concurrently with and approved or conditionally approved as a part of the DAP for Phase 2 by the City Council. The Comprehensive Sign Program required by the MCP for Parcels 1 and 2 shall be submitted with the initial DAP submission for Parcel 1 or 2, whichever is submitted first, and shall be considered concurrently with and approved or conditionally approved as a part of the applicable DAP by the City Council.

ENGINEERING
E1. Replace existing curb ramps at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of Tasman Drive/Centennial Boulevard with two ADA compliant curb ramps at each corner.

E2. Sidewalks along Tasman Drive between the Avenue A and Avenue C shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide with an additional 5-foot landscape strip with street trees and irrigation.

Related Santa Clara, DAP 1, Phase 1 – Conditions of DAP Approval 2 E3. Storm drain mains and laterals, and sanitary sewer mains and laterals, shall be outside the drip line of mature trees or 10 feet clear of the tree trunk, whichever is greater.

Provide root barriers when the future drip line of the project installed trees will cover the sidewalk. Root barriers for sidewalk protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 1.5' deep, and centered on trees. Root barriers for curb and gutter protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 2’ deep, and centered on trees.

E4. In conjunction with installation of off-site improvements, the applicant shall perform pavement reconstruction for the entire north side of Tasman Drive along the Project frontage.

E5. Relocate existing Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stops that are affected by the proposed site access during construction and/or in final condition, as necessary based upon consultation between Developer, City, and VTA.

E6. The detailed design and construction of streets and sidewalks (including landscape strips) of DAP 1 shall be in substantial conformance with the MCP, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, recognizing the changes in street configuration and site design that have been made between conceptual MCP and the DAP.

E7. The detailed design and construction of Station Road at the intersection of Station Road and Avenue C (including length of the left turn pocket) shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.

E8. Detailed traffic signal and intersection design at the intersections of Stars and Stripes Drive/Centennial Boulevard and Avenue C/Station Road shall be approved by the Traffic Division of the Department of Public Works.

E9. Developer and City shall cooperate to establish time limits for parking along the public roadways with parking including Avenue A, Avenue C and Stars and Stripes Drive.

E10. This Condition of Approval shall replace Condition of Approval E2 from the Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning Approval (included by reference herein under City Council Resolution 16-8339). Following approval of Tentative Maps and/or Vesting Tentative Maps by Council, the Developer shall file Final Maps for approval and recordation to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits for the DAP. However, for DAP 1, a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map shall be approved by Council prior to the issuance of building permits for buildings located on property covered by DAP 1, and a Final Map approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works shall have been filed for recordation covering property on which the building is located prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any building within DAP 1.

WATER
W.1 If, during the design process, deficiencies are identified in the existing water and/or sanitary sewer system resulting specifically from the projected additional demands or loads from the DAP 1 development, prior to issuance of the first building permit for a building within DAP 1, the developer shall submit design documents which correct the identified deficiencies in a manner consistent with City and/or other applicable regulatory standards. Any and all water and recycled water distribution systems in the proposed DAP 1 area, including areas within the 100-foot zone area of the landfill area, shall be subject to State Department of Drinking Water requirements and approval to the extent specifically required by State law.

Related Santa Clara, DAP 1, Phase 1 – Conditions of DAP Approval 3 FIRE
F1. The maximum fire flow reduction for the development for installation of fire sprinklers will be limited to 50-percent. The number of fire hydrants will be based on the based fire-flow without fire sprinkler reduction.

F2. The streets that travel over the below-grade Tasman Garage (such as Centennial and Avenue C between Stars and Stripes and Tasman) shall be capable of supporting multiple 100k lb. fire trucks on any area of such streets.

F3. The Fire Department connections shall be on the street front for which the building street name is assigned. The final location will be determined by the Fire Department.

STREETS
ST1. This Condition of Approval shall replace Condition of Approval P11 from the Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning Approval (included by reference herein under City Council Resolution 16-8339): Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the Developer shall provide the Streets Division of Public Works third-party certification that the stormwater control plan meets applicable C.3 requirements, along with an Operations and Maintenance Agreement approved by the City for post-construction maintenance of C.3 devices/measures. Each DAP phase shall meet its C.3 requirements on its own merit. If a banking system is to be created to achieve a compliance for the entire project's full implementation, the applicant shall first create area treatment surplus (credit) during the earlier DAP phase(s) to be used by subsequent project phase(s).

ST2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a Stormwater Management Plan shall be completed for the DAP 1 area. Developer at its cost shall relocate the existing bioretention swale along the east side of the City garage structure to a location mutually acceptable to City and Developer.

The following sections correspond directly with the 13 DAP submission requirements identified in Exhibit 2 to Appendix C of the MCP pages 255-258.

PREPARED FOR

RELATED COMPANIES

MASTER DEVELOPER

PREPARED BY

GENSLER

ARCHITECT OF RECORD
FOSTER+ PARTNERS

MASTER COMMUNITY

ARCHITECT ARUP

TRANSPORTATION

ENGINEERING
WSP

CIVIL ENGINEERING

GIBSON DUNN

LAND USE ATTORNEY

OJB LANDSCAPE

ACHITECTURE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

PREMIER PARKING

PARKING CONSULTANT

SELBERT PERKINS

SIGNAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
1 .0 KEY PLAN
1 .1 NARRATIVE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MCP &

COMPLIANCE MATRIX

1.l(a) Proposed Land Use Program

1.l(a).i Square Footage of Non-Residential Use 1.l(a).ii Calculation of Parking Spaces by Use - refer to 1.l(a).iii

1.l(a).iii Identification of Shared Parking
Opportunities

1.l(b) Infrastructure Description 1.l(c) Contextual Information

1.2 DATA CHARTS

1.2.1 Program of uses & aggregate uses

1.2.2 Estimated phase aggregate development

1.2.3 Anticipated building heights 1.2.4 Parking data table 1.2.5 Status of build out for previous phases

1.3 SITE PLAN

1.3.1 Location of potential uses

1.3.2 Phase blocks, parcel boundaries 1.3.3 Location of public property

1.3.4 General information 1.3.4(d) Site Cross Sections 1.3.5 Planned public & private shared open space

1.3.6 (a) Diagram of proposed roads & sidewalks
and Signalization

1.3.6(b) Midblock Alleys, Pedestrian & Bicycle
Connections

1.4 DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS

1.4.1 Construction Schedule & Materials
Documents for Temporary Station Site

1.4.2 Minimal initial buildings (MIB)

1.4.3 Additional initial buildings (AIB) 1.4.4 Additional retail buildings (ARB) 1.4.5 Phasing of Additional Buildings

1.4.6 Proposed Major Department Stores (MDS)

1.4.7 AIB, MIB, MDS in Phase 3

1.4.8 Summary of MIB, MRB, AIB, ARB and MDS
by Phase

1.4.9 Parking Management Plan

1.5 SIGNAGE PLAN 1.6 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1.7 ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS (STEP 2 SUBMISSION)

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE

1.8.1 Roadways and infrastructure 1.8.2 Transit

1.8.3 Pedestrian routes & improvements

1.8.4 Bike lanes & improvements

1.8 COA Utilities

1.9 OPEN SPACE 1.10 RETAIL PLAN

LIST OF DRAWINGS

1.3.2-1 1.3.2-2 1.3.3-1 1.3.3-2 1.3.6 (A)-1 1.3.6 (A)-2 1.3.6 (B)-1 1.3.6 (B)-2 1.6 -1 1.6-2 1.8.1-1 1.8.1-2 1.8.3-1

1.8.3-2

1.8.4-1

1.8.4-2

PHASE BLOCKS, PARCEL BOUNDARIES
& DIMENSIONS BLOCK SA

PHASE BLOCKS, PARCEL BOUNDARIES
& DIMENSIONS BLOCKS SB & SC

PUBLIC PROPERTY BLOCK SA PUBLIC PROPERTY BLOCKS SB & SC DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED ROADS &

SIDEWALKS, BLOCK SA

DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED ROADS &

SIDEWALKS, BLOCKS SB & SC

PEDESTRIAN ROUTES & PUBLIC

PRIVATE, BLOCK SA

PEDESTRIAN ROUTES & PUBLIC

PRIVATE, BLOCKS SB & SC

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, BLOCK SA TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, BLOCK SB AND SC

ROADWAYS WITH PUBLIC PRIVATE

OWNERSHIP, BLOCK SA

ROADWAYS WITH PUBLIC PRIVATE

OWNERSHIP, BLOCK SB AND SC

PEDESTRIAN ROUTES &

IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, BLOCK SA

PEDESTRIAN ROUTES &

IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, BLOCK SB
AND SC

BICYCLE LANES & IMPROVEMENTS, BLOCK SA BICYCLE LANES & IMPROVEMENTS,

BLOCK SB AND SC

1.8 COA -A UTILITIES, BLOCK SA 1.8 COA -B UTILITIES, BLOCK SB AND SC

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE &

ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS

DOCUMENTS FOR TEMPORARY STATION
SITE
APPENDIX B: SIGNAGE PLAN APPENDIX C: BEST EFFORTS APPENDIX D: SOUND WALL RESPONSE CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.0 KEY PLAN
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP J I 1,0 KEY Pl.AN 2
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.1 WRITTEN NARRATIVE OF

COMPLIANCE WITH MCP
The following document is hereby submitted to the
City of Santa Clara as the formal OAP Application and
will be referred as OAP 1, Phase 1, Parcel 5 Submission to comply with the requirements of the CityPlace Santa
Clara Master Community Plan (MCP) Volume 1 dated
April 5, 2017.

BLOCK SA
OFFICE

1.1(a).i PROPOSED LAND USE PROGRAM
The Phase 1 site includes blocks SA, SB and SC, which
are located facing Levi 's Stadium on Tasman Drive,
forming one of the primary gateways into the new
development. A parking garage is located below the three blocks on Parcel 5 serving the office, hotel guests, and service apartments, including valet and visitors.

Block SA contains a land use program of: office, retail/ food & beverage and below grade parking . The Tasman
Gateway Office flanks the main entrance of the site at the junction of Tasman Drive and the west side of Centennial Boulevard. The Tasman Gateway Office provides a high
quality workplace, fully connected to the amenities of the overall development.

PHASE 1 PARCEL S

BLOCK SB

BUSINESS
HOTEL
--
Block SB contains a land use program of business hotel
with retail/food & beverage and below grade parking . The hotel is one of a pair of landmark gateway buildings that define both the project and the principle entrance into the site off of Tasman Drive.

Block SC contains a land use program of 200 residential serviced apartments and is situated on the east side
of the Tasman Gateway, marking the corner of the
development. This block is in close proximity to local
transport links such as the Santa Clara/Great America
Train Station and the VTA Light-rail.
l 1,,1
CITYPLACESANTACLARA I DAP111 ,lWRITTENNARRATI VEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHMCP 3 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.l(a).ii SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL AREAS Office
Retail Food &
Beverage
Hotel
-
mliPIMtt
480
440,000
21,400 29,600
381,000
872,000

BLOCK SA
OFFICE
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

BLOCK SB BUSINESS
HOTEL
l 1,,1
--
(l)
CITYPLACESANTACLARA I DAP111 ,lWRITTENNARRATI VEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHMCP 4 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.l(a).iii IDENTIFICATION OF SHARED PARKING OPPORTUNITIES PHASE 1 - PARKING SUPPLY ANALYSIS
For the Phase 1 building development, Related is committed to supplying a minimum of 1,918 structured parking spaces that will be located below the street level in Blocks SA, SB, and SC.

The parking supplied for the Office land use will offer up to 75% of its spaces to be available as shared parking during evening and weekends, serving both future Phase 2 retail/entertainment demand and NFL gameday supply (to be reserved for this specific use) per SF 49er's agreement.

Table 1 below details the parking requirement per the MCP and an additional calculation for a requested parking reduction based on current market demand conditions for Hotel and Residential parking that justifies a reduced parking supply.

1.1(a).ii CALCULATION OF PARKING SPACES BY USE PER MCP
TABLE 1
PHASE 1 PARKING REQUIREMENTS (PER MCP)
EfiH%U- . Office 440,000 SF 3.0 / 1,000 SF 1,320
Retail 21,400 SF 4.5 / 1,000 SF 96
Food & 29,600 SF 1.5 / 1,000 SF 44 Beverage
Hotel 480 KEYS 1 / KEY 480
Residential 200 APT5 1.5 / UNIT 300 Serviced Apt.
2,241
Office
Retail
F&B
Hotel
Residential
Serviced Apt.

PHASE 1 PARKING SUPPLY (PROPOSED)
440,000 SF 3/1,000 SF
--1,320
21,400 SF 3.0/1,000 SF 64
29,600 SF 3.0/1,000 SF 89
480-Keys 0.5/key 240
200-Units 1.0/Unit 200
1,913
150/o
The proposed parking supply (1,913 parking spaces) is 340 spaces less than the 2,241 cars that are required by the parking ratios in the MCP. The parking supply table above illustrates that the Office, Retail and F&B totals are unchanged, with reductions seen in hotel and residential supply only.

These reductions are justifiable as the residential use is actually serviced apartments connected to the hotel which require less parking than traditional retail apartments (1.5/unit reduced to 1.0/unit), and the hotel reduction is consistent with recent trends of hotel guests choosing ride share services for their mobility option instead of car rental (1.0 down to 0.5/key).

Ride-share applications are having impacts to the methods people choose for transportation to their destinations in a substantial way, thus reducing the need for parking or storage of a personal vehicle. Since companies like Uber and Lyft have arrived, consumers have altered their choices for mobility and are opting for ride-share services to avoid the aggravation of driving, the cost and availability of parking, and often the hassles associated with renting a car. In fact, a recent Gallup poll has shown that 30% of all Americans use ride share with that percentage going up to 45% for those 18 to 29. Use also increases for those in the city (vs suburb) and people with higher income (at 41%).

Although ride share companies will not share their specific data, we see that these services are used everywhere providing mobility services, with most notable impacts to parking demand occurring at hotels, restaurants, event centers and airports.

The impact to parking demand at hotels has largely been attributed to the ride-share services providing more convenience and, in many cases, less cost versus acquiring a rental car. It is very common for the hotel guest that their trip originates at the airport (for their arrival city) where ride-share has been easily accommodated very near the airport arrival area. Directional signs and information shown on the app on their phone direct users to the area where only a few short minutes later their driver is waiting.

Ill JEii'
In fact, travel expense management systems providers have found that business travelers reporting their expenses have directly shown that this change in transportation habit is increasing year over year. From 2014 the use has increased from 9% to 59% in 2017 according to their data. Hoteliers have seen this paradigm shift in travel and many have created ride-share designated pick-up zones to accommodate these users.

Further evidence to this change in travel patterns, several hotels were surveyed to the size of their hotel, e.g ., number of rooms and the vehicles parked in their garage. Those results are:

TABLE 2 111111 ... ... . , ... ' . ' . ... . . ' . ;
. . ' : •· .. . Doubletree 505 82% 125 0.25 San Jose
Nia Hotel 250 77% 33 0.13 Menlo Park
Westin SFO 420 85% 99 0.24
Aloft SFO 298 95% 72 0.24
BRIX North
Hotel
Residence 400 87% 171 0.43 Inn+
SprlnghIII
Suites
The results of this analysis of mobility habits of hotel guests have shown that the actual parking demand for hotel use has been reduced in parallel to the increased use of ride-share.

With the pattern of vehicle use for service ( extended stay) apartments different than traditional apartments, the changing habit of hotel guests for ride-share, the close proximity of light rail/bus, bicycle resources, and shared car services the 15% parking reductions are justified .

CITYPLACESANTACLARA I DAP111 ,lWRITTENNARRATIVEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHMCP 5 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.1.(b) INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Parcel 5 also referred to as the Tasman Block has an
estimated development of approximately 14-acres.

The development includes offices, a hotel, serviced
apartments, mixed-used retail, food courts and an
underground parking structure.

The Parcel 5 site boundaries are delineated as follows :
• Tasman Drive to the South
• Relocated Stars and Stripes Drive to the North
• The existing Santa Clara City Garage to the West
• Avenue C (West of Lafayette Street) to the East

PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE
Site Access and Roadways
Access point to Parcel 5 will be via Tasman Drive and
Avenue A, Centennial Blvd . and Avenue C.

All new roadways will include sidewalks, cross walks,
bike lanes and street parking where possible. Drop off
zones for Uber/Lyft type services will be provided at
strategic locations.

Traffic lights will be installed at intersections as
determined by the traffic study.

Storm Drainage
The storm drainage system for the site will be an
underground gravity network of pipes, catch basin,
manholes, water quality treatment measures and other
appurtenances. The storm drainage will connect to the existing pump station located by the existing tennis courts just north of the existing garage. The building
drainage will be via internal systems piped directly
to the storm drains. Public streets will be designed
such that the 100-year event flow remains within the
roadway limits and not extend into private property.

Potable Water Parcel 5 will be served by the water mains located in the relocated Stars and Stripes Drive with a minimum
of two connection points to the existing watermains
south of Stars and Stripes Drive. Connections points
will be along Avenue C between Stars and Stripes
Drive and Tasman Drive and Centennial. The site will
include a combined domestic and fire water system
"looped" network, which will tie into the future Parcel 4 network.

Recycled Water
The recycled water system for Parcel 5 will be in the
relocated Stars and Stripes Drive and connect to the new infrastructure located in Parcel 4. For Parcel 4, the recycled water distribution will include two points of connection to the existing recycled water mains. More
specifically connection points will be at Great American Parkway/City Place Parkway and Avenue B/City Place
Parkway. Parcel 5 recycled water distribution will be
activated at the same time Parcel 4 recycled water
distribution is activated.

Wastewater
The sanitary sewer system for Parcel 5 will be in
the relocated Stars and Stripes Drive with lateral
connections to the buildings. Parcel 4 sanitary sewer
flows will be combined with the Parcel 5 flows in the
Stars and Stripe sanitary sewer system .

Street Lighting
Street lights will be installed throughout Parcel 5 on all new streets in compliance with the MCP.

ELECTRIC, GAS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Electric
The current design for Parcel 5 indicates that a new
underground vault just east of Centennial along the
north side of Tasman Drive could be utilized for new
connection to SVP feeder circuits.

SVP has confirmed that to provide electrical service
to the new development, new circuits would need to
be installed and extended from the existing " Northern
Receiving Substation" located south of Levi's stadium .

Specifically, it is expected that four new 600A, 12kV
feeder lines would be needed to serve Parcel 4 and
Parcel 5.

Gas Main
PG&E service could be extended from Lafayette Street to service parcel 5. Gas mains would typically be extended in a joint trench with SVP electric facilities . Trenches are estimated to be 36" to 48" wide to accommodate
12" separation requirements . Further coordination with PG&E for final design plans will be required .

Telecommunication
AT&T will provide service to one Main Point of Entry
(MPOE) for up to one building on each non-contiguous
property. AT&T will serve multiple buildings on one property, but the applicant will be billed for the estimated cost of the additional AT&T services. The applicant is responsible for trenching and installation of AT&T conduits.

Conduits for new Comcast service would typically be
installed by Comcast contractors in an "open trench"
provided by the developer. Number and sizes of
conduits would be based on the types of services desired for the development program .

CITYPLACESANTACLARA I DAP111 ,lWRITTENNARRATIVEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHMCP 6 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.1.(c) CONTEXTUAL

INFORMATION ABOUT THE AREA

SURROUNDING THE SITE
Phase 1 Parcel 5, is located facing the Levi's Stadium and the Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park. Tasman Drive serves
as a primary vehicular route that runs parallel to the site, while the Santa Clara Train/Great America Station and
multiple bus stops serve the public transport network of the site.

To the West of Parcel 5 is an existing building that forms the City of Clara Parking Garage, and further west the site is met by the San Tomas Aquino Creek.

Phase 1 Parcel 5 marks the primary gateway into the
site with via Centennial Blvd . This, in turn, intersects with Stars and Stripes Drive, which runs parallel to the southern portion of Phase 2.
1111.'\_
II
f
City of Santa
Clara Parking
Garage
Levi's Stadium
·t
-
--
I
I
t:-
..
·,LJ
-
--1.
-- J I
.
- ': 1 I
' j j
RETAILENTERTA!r NT DISTRICT
-
JD I
I
BLOCK SA 7 . OFFICE
I
----
Sant, ( 1 1 r (Great A 1 i,
.i ~r•
I
Train :.-
1 ~, i lil J
' ·: L L . J C) ;i
I H~
TASMAN DRIV:r
'
BLOCK 58 BLOCK SC

BUSINESS I RESIDENTIAL HOTEL SERVICED
j
)
I APARTMENTS :
: [ ~ 1--..- I~
=~I ---------- r
--~:

Santa Clara Youth Soccer Parlk
--~
I
.
1:

CITYPLACESANTACLARA I DAP111 ,lWRITTENNARRATI VEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHMCP 7 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.2.1 PROGRAM OF USE AND APPROXIMATE AGGREGATE SQUARE

FOOTAGE OF USE INCLUDING OPEN SPACE
Office 306,000 SF 440,000 SF 134,000 SF
Retail 62,000 SF 21,400 SF (40,600 SF) Food & 25,000 SF 29,600 SF 4,600 SF Beverage Hotel 280,000 SF 381,000 SF 101,000 SF Residential 200,000 SF 175,000 SF (25,000 SF) Serviced Apt. _.,,,,.,.,.11e&•i·i·H-m
---Mlil·ii+i·EE·iiiiiilliHM
Area
FAR

OPEN SPACE
8 ACRES

2.52 1.21 ACRES

14.3 ACRES

1.68 0 ACRES

6.3 ACRES

0.84 (1.21 ACRES)

PERMISSABLE OR CONDITIONAL SEE MCP
Vl,3.2, pg 37
Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible Permissible under Development Transfer
Section 3.2, pg. 36

COMMENT

COMPLIES COMPLIES
DEFERRED TO PHASE 2 PER DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT. REFER TO 4.3.5

1.2.2 ESTIMATED PHASE OF AGGREGATED DEVELOPMENT VS. TOTAL

ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
- E·ii!Hillilli
Office 306,000 SF 440,000 SF 134,000 SF
Retail 62,000 SF 21,400 SF (40,600) SF Food & 25,000 SF 29,600 SF 4,600 SF Beverage Hotel 280,000 SF 381,000 SF 101,000 SF Residential 200,000 SF 175,000 SF Serviced Apt. - ------

COMMENTS

PERMISSIBLE UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFER 3.2, PG. 36

1.2.3.ANTICIPATED BUILDING HEIGHTS

ANTICIPATED HEIGHT
(FT) & 1ST FL. DATUM

BLOCK BLOCK
SA SB
--

BLOCK SC
9 12
7 219 219 219

1.2.4.PARKING DATA TABLE
OFFICE 440,000 3.0 / 1,000 SF
RETAIL 21,400 4.5 I 1,000 SF
FOOD& 29,600 1.5 I 1,000 SF BEVERAGE
HOTEL 480-KEYS 1/KEY RESIDENTIAL
SERVICED 200-UNITS 1.5 / UNIT

APARTMENTS
198 @ +37.0-FT
218 @ +37.0-FT
135 @ +37.0-FT
1,320
96 44
480
300
21 84

3.0 / 1,000 SF 3.0 / 1,000 SF 3.0 / 1,000 SF

0.5 / KEY

1.0 / KEY
1,320
64 89
240 200

COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
1913
- -----•t-i!iJtl

1.2.5 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT BUILDOUT
OFFICE
RETAIL
FOOD&

BEVERAGE HOTEL RESIDENTIAL

SERVICED

APARTMENTS

CURRENT DAP
440,000 SF
21,400 SF 29,600 SF
381,000 SF
175,000 SF
TOTAL
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.2 DATA CHARTS 8
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.3 SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT 1.3

BLOCK SA
OFFICE
BLOCK5B BUSINESS HOTEL
--
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 9
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.1.: SITE PLAN. LOCATION OF POTENTIAL USES
LEGEND
Land Uses
Residential
Office
Hotel
Retail Food & Beverage

PARKING
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

TASMAN DRIVE
ClTYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 10
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.1.: SITE PLAN. LOCATION OF POTENTIAL USES
LEGEND
Land Uses
Residential
Office
Hotel
Retail Food & Beverage

PARKING
ACCESS POIN,;_ ►
i
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
11\RS NE stRftJi mra
·-
ACCESS POINT ►
810 SPACES
BELOW GRADE PARKING LEVEL 1
ACCESS POINT ►
V
CJT YPLACE SANTA. CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 11
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.1.: SITE PLAN. LOCATION OF POTENTIAL USES
LEGEND
Land Uses
Residential
Office
Hotel
Retail Food & Beverage

PARKING
ACCESS POI~T ►
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
, ..

S1Nt!IN05TIIHSDRM$
◄ ACCESS POINT
1,103 SPACES
◄ ACCESS POINT
Mr
BELOW GRADE PARKI NG LEVEL 2
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 12
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.2: PHASE BLOCKS, PARCEL BOUNDRIES & DIMENSIONS Related
WSP

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
BLOCK5A
0 > ...J
al
...J
1 z z BLOCK5B
w
fz
w
()
,Jg, 326'
/2 II

TASMAN DRIVE
Related Santa Clara
DAP-1
76'
---------------
BLOCK5C
244'
I
()
N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 13
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.3: LOCATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
! /'i 1h1// ~ * LEGEND //
r) -7"- V ,X
PUBLI: PROPERTY I ~ V V I V V
V V " V V
I
PRIJATE PROPERTY :::: V V '/ V V :; V
V I
.

V I V / v/ I F lllll'l·llll··lllll·l.!lll.·11 11 r,_, ~;;-~~.--:-;, I - \ '('.'.:; ,-;;:::: -+----- ff \ \. L____x V i -- ~ V V /, / . / -/ / / // Cf'~ / / // V 1//' / / / / / /,, / / / / / / 'lh'//, / / / / / / / / / 1//V I / STARS & STRIPES --,,---,,-, ',1//21/1/. V,/,, Yc:-7 "7/ 7 -// 77 ½~ )
V/ ;,- , / / / / . /
0/ / ..,,,, ////////// V "/ / "/ / _I'"'""'._ / x;X)>< V Y'>< V\lV' ""'"'X.. '1,11 X )Q< X ) X <Y V )( v' X 0,V ,l1"y ,? ()< X 1/ ;::; .;;_ >< V X 0 - 1, ) X ) X V / X X > ·1-JO :x j k - a: I• /V ()< "/ ...J w - al f- v' / I/ x;o X, X ) '- z // ...J ,;: l'-,-,t <{ / ) (.) ' w <{ "v (.) V .) X)O X z / XXX BLOCK SC' y- X w EXISTING w X ')';,,BLOCK 5A y z / BLOCK5B X)' :, '~
fPARKING :, X z (/) 1-1 z X I w I\ Z GARAGE V W X I I
,N' V W X \ 1 X V (.) X ' f- r V V V I'/ ---\ X V I/ ' r V x' ><..;,< V V V X ,\ \ \ .r _) X V V V ! "-"v V
X X
\\~\I' ·* -: 6 0 0 0 \--------1 ~-1t ~ z ~/' X /y. l( )' ;'9"' ////////1//J. I X X J'-? V' ~:J J'V' 1\
- --- .. r·r .. -, ,-
..c_- . r - , .-,.. .,c,.--' C --- ~- '
-
-
.. .
-
y V V . . TASMAN DRIV E
.
- -\ \ - <J.'
-=----- -/ - -<;; 11-01-~ .v. - .. - F -·
-
-
- -
- l
, ... .,.r..v e:, \JI\\ \ \;1 l lf - .,,_ ,, ._, - -• - Related Related Santa Clara
WSP DAP-1 @- N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 14
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.4(a).: PARCEL 5
Office
Retail/Food &
Beverage
Residential
Serviced Apt.
0 480
200
-
Parking (Below-Grade) ==
EXHIBIT 1 .3 .4.A: FLOOR AREA
Lot Area Total GFA

14.3ACRES 1,047,000 sf
440,000
51,000
381,000
175,000
1,047,000
865,000
Floor Area Ratio

1.68 LEGEND
Land Uses
Residential
Office
Hotel Retail Food & Beverage
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

TASMAN DRIVE
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 15
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.4(b) CONCEPTUAL MASSING HEIGHT & BULK

BLOCK SA OFFICE

BLOCK SB BUSINESS
HOTEL

BLOCK SC RESIDENTIAL SERVICED

APARTMENTS
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 16
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.4(C) SITE SECTION & GARAGE CROSS-SECTION
Mu.He~219'rrml
-- =•~==1~=.:.::.:.::,==~~•= :::~ ' =t=:::~=tt:t:t::l==~~•== ~===== ,::, ~ =~ ~ =::::: =•~==:~=+=+=++=:==~~•= :_:; - ~----,f-+-+++--+---+-~- ~- - t----f----t-------jt---__ -_-_-_-I~, • '-
SA i
' ·1 _______ , i ,I SA i t !
I j1 i I 1_,
~ ·-
J
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 17
18’

SIDEWALK
WITH 8’ PLANTING AREA
18’

SIDEWALK
WITH 8’ PLANTING AREA
6’
BIKE
LANE
6’
BIKE
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
MEDIAN
67’ CURB-TO-CURB

STARS & STRIPES
BLOCK 4F CITY CENTER STATION DISTRICT
BLOCK 5B GATEWAY HOTEL
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
103’ ROW
ILLUSTRATED STREET SECTIONS1.3 1111111

SVP JOINT TRENCH

WATER LINE STORM DRAIN

STORM DRAIN

RECYCLED WATER

SANITARY SEWER

SVP STANDARD TRENCH
NOTE: PRELIMINARY UTILITY LAYOUT. UTILITY CLEARANCES WILL CONFORM TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA STANDARDS.

1.3.4(d) STREET SECTIONS - STARS & STRIPES
3+$6(3$5&(/

STARS & STRIPES
CITYPLACE SANT~ CLARA I
10’

SIDEWALK
10’

SIDEWALK
6’
BIKE
LANE
6’
BIKE
LANE
11’
TURN
LANE
11’
TURN
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
MEDIAN
67’ to 89’ CURB-TO-CURB

CENTENNIAL BLVD
BLOCK 5B GATEWAY HOTEL
BLOCK 5A GATEWAY OFFICE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
87’ to 109’ ROW

ILLUSTRATED STREET SECTIONS

STANDARD SVP TRENCH GARAGE ROOF STANDARD SVP TRENCH
3+$6(3$5&(/
NOTE: PRELIMINARY UTILITY LAYOUT. UTILITY CLEARANCES WILL CONFORM TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA STANDARDS.

1.3.4(d) STREET SECTIONS - CENTENNIAL BLVD.

CITYPLACE SANTI\ CL ~RA I
10’

SIDEWALK
6’
BIKE
LANE
8’
PKG
LANE
6’
BIKE
LANE
15’

SIDEWALK
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
MEDIAN
53’ CURB-TO-CURB

AVENUE A
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
78’ ROW
BLOCK 5A GATEWAY OFFICE

EXISTING PARKING GARAGE

ILLUSTRATED STREET SECTIONS

SVP JOINT TRENCH SVP STANDARD TRENCH

STORM DRAIN WATER LINE
NOTE: PRELIMINARY UTILITY LAYOUT. UTILITY CLEARANCES WILL CONFORM TO CITY OF SANTA CLARA STANDARDS.

1.3.4(d) STREET SECTIONS - AVENUE A
3+$6(3$5&(/
CITYPLACE SANTI\ CL ~RA I
10’

SIDEWALK
6’
BIKE
LANE
6’
BIKE
LANE
8’

SIDEWALK
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TURN
LANE
45’ CURB-TO-CURB

AVENUE C
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
63’ ROW
BLOCK 5C GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL

TRANSIT CENTER

ILLUSTRATED STREET SECTIONS

SVP JOINT TRENCH SVP STANDARD TRENCH

WATER LINE
NOTE: PRELIMINARY UTILITY LAYOUT.

UTILITY CLEARANCES WILL CONFORM TO CITY
OF SANTA CLARA STANDARDS.

1.3.4(d) STREET SECTIONS - AVENUE C
3+$6(3$5&(/
CITYPLACE SANTI\ CL ~RA I
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.5: PLANNED PUBLIC & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

PRELIMINARY SHARED OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE CONCEPT ILLUSTRATIVE

PRIVATE OUTDOOR SHARED OPEN SPACE
~ - ~ ±:ll:lb!=-=-=~~~'P:1-\~~JC~rr~~~~~7"~§ =§ =r'i =§ =E =rE= 'if. = ~= =;-T Lis' "'c-----t------,,';-';:!~~!:~~!:!~~==:r~_e~--------_l..tc,~_j'~~~~I:~~-~;c _,c;;•~,rl--lli

BLOCK SA
OFFICE

TASMAN DRIVE
n-n
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 18
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.6(a).: DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED ROADS AND SIDEWALKS * Refer to Appendix 1 for 1"=100' scale
Related
SllEWALK
CU.SS 1 • B t<E LANES
r wOE TYP C.ol.

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
-
BLOCK5A
I
---- ----:--i--- ----
BLOCK5B
"
_, ~ ¼+ ~ -----

TASMAN DRIVE
Related Santa Clara
1 I - 1- 1------
1 I - I I
I I

I I I I
BLOCK5C
------------ ----------------------
WSP DA P -1
I
I
.T.S. (/)
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 19
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1.3.6(b).: MIDBLOCK ALLEYS, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CONNECTIONS LEGEND
SIJEWALK I CLASS2 ·Bl<ELANES - -
::::
1 11·: , 'iii[ 111'1·11111· ·11111·1 .II I ll.'II I [l,I ~ ~'¾..;·~~.---:--;, l - )'('.'.:;-re;,~ ff '\\____.__._.__L____x y •· .., I • 1 fi\' - -: --- ~ sTARS&STRIPEs ===i
- -
l
.
-/ -
Related
WSP

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
<(
w
::::,
z
w
I
BLOCK5A
y
-
' '
.,,.
- .-,.. .,c,.--'
1-01-~
I
llf'
0 >' __J
al
__J
1 z z
w ' f-z w I•
()
I '
.
-~--------- ~
. :--t-~l ____ ---l_l
---
- ---
- ---
-: ---:--- -------------
1 I ~ m~ - - --- - --- -: -:-r- ---------------- -

1.1 BLOCK5B I I I I
I I
I I
BLOCK5C
.. TASMAN DRIVE
<J. ' I
. l
Related Santa Clara
DAP-1
I
I I I
I I
'
. '
-\ \ -\
- -~ - i ; . -
Ill'\\ I 1'11 7llf
(fr N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.3 SITE PLAN 20
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.4 DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS
EXHIBIT 1.4.1: TEMPORARY FIRE STATION
Refer to appendix A: Construction Schedule & Architectural materials Documents for Temporary Station Site
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.4 DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS 21 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.4 .2 : MINIMUM INITIAL BUILDING (MIB) PHASE 1
For locations of land uses defined below refer to 1.1.1 (a) --
·····-· . . . '. . . . . . .

OFFICE
HOTEL

RETAIL/FOOD
& BEVERAGE
not specifically
defined
300 keys
S0,000 SF
RESIDENTIAL 200-units in
440,000 SF
480 keys
Sl,000 SF
SERVICED Phases 1 & 2 in 200-units
APTS. aggregate
mmmll-M1·i·!·i·i·t1MIM·i·i·t11

1.4 .3 : ADDITIONAL INITIAL BUILDING (AIB) PHASE 1
MATRIX
For locations of land uses defined below refer to 1.1.1 (a)

ADDITIONAL INITIAL BUIDLINGS TARGET
OFFICE
HOTEL

RETAIL/FOOD
& BEVERAGE

RESIDENTIAL

SERVICED
APTS.

Total

MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
PER DDA 5.3.3
TOTAL

MINIMUM & BEST EFFORTS
IWIRI
440,000
381,000
Sl,000
17S,000
200,000 SF 1,047,000 SF
600,000 SF
800,000, SF 1,047,000 SF

1.4.8 SUMMARY OF MINIMUM AND ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS USES AND AREAS Reference DDA Sections 5.3.2 through 5.3.
... . . . ... .. . . . ·-
_
:•c . • •·•• ·• , , .- ·c - : .. · ::••. oc_
Office (SF) 440,000 440,000
Hotel (Keys) 300 480 480 Retail+ F&B 800,000 1,500,000 51,000 51,000 749,000 1,449,000 (SF) Residential Serviced 200 200 200 Apt.
(Units)
Major
Department 300,000 300,000
Store (SF
Aggregate 1,300,000 1,730,000 1,047,000 1,047,000 253,000 683,000 (SF) EXHIBIT 1.4.4: ADDITIONAL RETAIL BUILDINGS
Not applicable in Phase 1. Applicable to Phases 2 and 3. See DDA Section 5.3.5 EXHIBIT 1.4.5: PHASING OF ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS
Not applicable in Phase 1. Applicable to Phase 2.

EXHIBIT 1.4.6: PROPOSED LOCATION OF MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORES Not applicable in Phase 1. No major department stores required or planned for Phase 1.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.4 DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS 22 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5
EXHIBIT 1 .4 .9: PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
LEGEND
PARCEL 5
-·-·-·- PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
In accordance with DDA Section 5.5, this
diagram illustrates how at least 3,000 parking
spaces for non-NFL events at Levi's Stadium can be accommodated on City controlled property.

CIT'YPL.ACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.4 DEVELOPME'tfT OBLIGATIONS 23 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.5 SIGNAGE PLAN
Refer to Appendix B: Signage Plan
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.5 SIGNAGE PLAN 24
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.6 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
EXHIBIT 1.6.1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE DISTRICT
Related
WSP

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
Related Santa Clara
DAP-1 N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.6 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 25
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1.8.1 ROADWAYS WITH PUBLIC PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
PUBLI: PROPERTY PRIJATE PROPERTY
, im11111·1-111- -11111-1 .1111: 11 11"',
/, 1///'· / / / / / /~ /
~ V/,:,, , ,
Related
WSP

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
/
v'
/
.;,<
i'\Z:,
y X.
• r - •- r "'r..-'
L____x
!
0 > •
...J
al
/ "/

X )Q'- X
; ) ) ) )
'/ ?
XXX

BLOCK SB
X
/ 0< X X ,"9"'
.._,.__
ii
. TASMAN DRIVE
LI '
. l
Related Santa Clara
DAP-1
V i j - - ~
// Cf'.: A. / / //
/ /
) )
)
"-,
XXX
BLOCK ,>, SC
x'
X
J'Jx,r-. >()t_ X V' ///////1/1/2 ,
------ : --
- -I ..
./
I-
· \ 1
HI,\\ \ \;l l -1111
(fr N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ANO DOCUMENTS 26 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1.8.2 TRANSIT
LEGEND
PARCEL 5 BOUNDARY

INTERNAL SHUTTLE
ROUTES
ACE/VTA SH~ TTLE

BUS ROUTE,

CAPITOL CORRIDOR/ALATMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS

MUNICIPAL BUS LINE
(EXISTING)
,

MUNICIPAL BUS ROUTE

BLOCK SA
OFFICE

BLOCK SB

BUSINESS
HOTEL
--
Santa Clara/Great America
rain Station
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ANO DOCUMENTS 27 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1.8.3 PEDESTRIAN ROUTES, WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP LEGEND
SllEWALK -
PUBLI: PROPERTY PRIJATE PROPERTY
V • • • TASMAN DRIVE
-
~~
,
'--~~-~-
-
-
- - - - - -
11·-0ft- ....,,;>- LI '
. l
.,
__ ___. _.......,,_
-
Related Related Santa Clara
WSP DAP-1
I -\ \; -~ - i . -
\ll\\ \ \:11 1111
(fr N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ANO DOCUMENTS 28 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1.8.4 BICYCLE LANES & IMPROVEMENTS
CLASS2 - BIKELANES - - - - -
- •• \- 1 I
A - =
-
,_ ,W I -, --
-
/)/--- x ~ 11 t-l I I I l 1[111JTTiTITT 111 1 ! .J' I
. TASMAN DRIVE
c,• I - I - \-
--~~;f)~,x x_~,. _, :J\\1~ --
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ANO DOCUMENTS 29 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1.8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL {COA) UTILITIES
11 •11 I••
Related
WSP
PROPOSED OOMESTK: WATER --- - - -w --PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER --- RW ---- STIJBOUT ECONNECTKlN

EXISTING

PARKING
GARAGE
:._-;.__-_-_-__

BLOCK SA
CONNECTKlN TO
EXISTl'IG WATER LNE
D
al z
z
w
fz
w
u
BLOCK 5B
Related Santa Clara
DAP-1

BLOCK SC
CONNECTKlN TO

EXISTNG WATER MAN
/
C
N.T.S.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I DAP 1 I 1.8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ANO DOCUMENTS 30 PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.9 OPEN SPACE
EXHIBIT 1.9
:CJ
·'
i

OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT (PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT)

2.4-people/household (PPH)*

2. 53-acres per 1,000 residents**
----
200 480
Comments

48.0% 1.21
-
Deferred to Phase 2 per Development Agreement. Refer to Section 4.3.5 on page 18 of the Development Agreement.

Timing of Required Public Parks
0 Any Public Parks required to be dedicated to serve residential uses on the Project Site pursuant to Chapter 17.35 of the Code must be included in the OAP for the Phase in which such residential uses are located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall have the right to defer to Phase 2 the improvement and dedication (or other reservation) of all or any portion of the Public Parks required to be dedicated in connection with the residential units constructed on Phase 1 (the "Phase 1 Parkland"), in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.3. r!"!'"'r7. If Developer elects to defer its obligations to provide any or all of the Phase 1 Parkland to Phase 2, Developer shall provide in the OAP for Phase 1 a description of how the applicable portion of the Phase 1 Parkland shall be provided within Phase 2. The first OAP for Phase 2 shall include any portion of the Phase 1 Parkland not improved and dedicated (or otherwise reserved) as part of Phase l, and such Phase 1 Parkland shall be constructed in accordance with a schedule approved as part of the first OAP for Phase 2.

The required 1.21-acres of parkland will be included with the Phase 2 OAP parkland area requirements and will be accommodated along the east side of Parcel 4.
* Refer to Population and Housing section of the EIR, Chapter 3.12, page 9, footnote 30, indicates that "Multifamily residential pph was established during conversations with City Staff on September 10, 2014." Table 3.12-6 on page 10 of the same Chapter uses a Residential pph rate of 2.4 ** Refer to Exhibit D to the DA, under Chapter 8 - New Public Park Design, Review & Approval Process, Section 2, l.C.l , the parkland dedication standard of 2.53 acres per 1,000 City residents per Mitigation Fee Act. Refer also to the Public Services and Recreation section of the EIR, Chapter 3.13, page 21, which refers to and utilizes the Mitigation Fee Act dedication standard of 2.53 acres per 1,000 residents.

CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.10 OPEN SPACE 31
PHASE 1 PARCEL 5

1.10 RETAIL PLAN
_.llii·ii·Hi·EE·iiiiliiliiii
Retail
Food &
Beverage
62,000 SF
25,000 SF
21,400 SF (-40,600 SF) 29,600 SF 4,600 SF

COMPLIES COMPLIES
.. __
LEGEND
Land Uses

TASMAN DRIVE
Residential
Office
Hotel Retail Food & Beverage
CITYPLACE SANTA CLARA I OAP 1 I 1.12 RETAIL PLAN 32
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Related Santa Clara Development Area Plan (DAP) 2 for Phase 2 of the Related Santa Clara Project, located on Vacant Parcels North of Stars and Stripes Drive (Former Municipal Golf Course) [Council Pillar: Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Related Companies (Developer) filed an application for a Development Area Plan (DAP 2) for the Related Santa Clara Project (Project) located on an approximately 240-acre site north of Tasman Drive. The Related Santa Clara Project was previously referred to as the “City Place Project” and is referenced as such in various City documents. The entire Project includes the development of up to

9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings; retail, food and beverage, and entertainment facilities; residential units; hotel rooms; surface and structured parking facilities; new open space and roads, landscaping and tree replacement; and new/upgraded/expanded infrastructure and utilities.

On June 28, 2016, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved General Plan Amendments, and approved the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning and accompanying Master Community Plan document (MCP) to allow for the phased development of the Project. The MCP (Attachment #7) sets forth the development standards, design guidelines, phasing constructs, project implementation procedures, development transfer provisions among parcels, permitted and conditional uses allowed within the proposed land use areas, and City Approval standards for DAP applications. The adopted Project entitlements also include a Development Agreement (DA) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Consistent with these Project approvals, development of the entire Project is anticipated to occur in approximately seven phases. The City Council approved DAP 1 for the first phase on March 24, 2020.

Before the Developer may ground lease portions of the Project site from the City, it must receive City approval of a “Phase Option Notice” defining the boundaries of the development phase and of a DAP, which will implement the approved PD-MC Zoning and the MCP. The Developer submitted the Phase 2 Option Notice on December 11, 2019, and submitted an amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 15, 2020 (Attachment #3) delineating the specific boundaries to be included in Phase 2. The City approved such amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 28, 2020 (Included in Attachment #3). This DAP 2 application is the next step in the land use entitlement process for the second phase of the Project.

As discussed in the attached report to the Planning Commission, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the MCP and other applicable standards. As discussed in the following Analysis section of this report, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the Project’s City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
Development Obligations as set forth in the DDA.

The Planning Commission at a public hearing on May 27, 2020 considered DAP 2 and recommended that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR and approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission also, requested that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM).

BACKGROUND
DAP 2 encompasses a 44.5-acre portion of the 86.6-acre area identified in the MCP as Parcel 4 (APN: 104-03-036). See Attachment #1 (Key Plan Map) for the location of the property and its vicinity. The DAP 2 area is generally bordered by the future Second Street to the north; San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west; the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (west of Lafayette Street) to the east; and the future relocated Stars and Stripes Drive and the Phase One area to the south.

The DAP 2 development would create six blocks within Parcel 4, generally correlating to portions of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4H within the Parcel 4 area of the approved MCP. Block 4H does not include the Station Area. New streets proposed as part of the DAP 2 development include east/west First and Second Streets, north/south Creekside Drive, and the extension of Avenues A, B, and C, and Centennial Boulevard from Phase One. All of City Place Parkway is also a component of this phase.

The proposed development program would be distributed as follows:

Block 4B:
· 100,000 square feet of office;
· 65,000 square feet of retail/food & beverage; and
· 50,000 square feet of entertainment
Block 4D (now divided into two blocks):
· 30,000 square feet of office;
· 150,000 square feet of retail;
· 20,000 square feet of food and beverage
· 180,000 square feet of hotel (220 guest rooms);
· 530,000 square feet of residential (200 Service Apartments & 300 residential units); · Health club, office, retail, food & beverage, and entertainment uses supporting the primary hotel and residential uses; and
· Structured parking (500 spaces)
Block 4E and 4F:
· 305,000 square feet of loft style office buildings;
· 180,000 square feet of retail;
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
· 115,000 square feet of food & beverage, including the global food market; · a large public outdoor plaza; and
· a smaller plaza space associated with the offices
Block 4H:
· 20,000 square feet of retail;
· 5,000 square feet of food & beverage; and
· Structured Parking Garage (2,920 spaces), with the retail and food and beverage uses at the ground floor along Avenue B
Summary of Parking:
· Parking Structure: 2,920 spaces
· Street parking: 150 spaces
· Residential parking: 500 spaces
· Valet storage increment: 275
· Total: 3,845 spaces

DISCUSSION
The following discussion includes a summary of the Planning Commission hearing and additional information related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and a summary of future entitlement actions for DAP 1 and DAP 2 that were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. It also provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the DDA. The determination of DDA consistency was not part of the Planning Commission review, but is a requirement for the City Council.

Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on DAP 2 at their May 27, 2020 regular Meeting.

Following a presentation by staff, the Commission opened the item for public hearing. The applicant made a presentation and answered questions form the Commission. No other members of the public appeared to speak at the hearing.

The staff presentation focused on how the DAP 2 conforms with the MCP. The Planning Commission staff report and its attachments provide a more detailed analysis of MCP conformance and are attached to this report (Attachment #2).

During the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff and the Developer clarifying questions regarding several issues, including:
· The amount of development square footage within the DAP 2 area compared to the amount planned for Phase 2 in the MCP;
· How the project would work in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic; · The potential to add TDM Strategies to target a greater level of trip reduction for the project and mode shift from vehicles to other modes of transportation such as bicycles; and · The rationale for the proposed reduction of parking spaces from the numbers described in the MCP.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
After the close of the public hearing, the majority of the Commission expressed their support for the Project, particularly program and design elements as depicted in the applicant’s conceptual architectural renderings. The Commission considered the DAP 2’s consistency with the MCP, including additional analysis with respect to DAP 2’s development area, parking supply, and impact on area traffic and asked for clarification of procedural issues. In response to a question from the Commission, staff clarified that the Planning Commission’s purview is focused on evaluating the project’s conformance to the MCP rather than with the DDA and that the Council is the review body for conformance to the Project’s Development Obligations including the DDA. The Commission acknowledged the deferral of architectural review after the initial stage of DAP approval to a later stage review and approval process by the Community Development Director, as permitted under the MCP. The Commission’s discussion then focused primarily on TDM requirements for the project, which are summarized below, with some Commissioners noting that the proposed reduction in parking ratios for the project would be appropriately accompanied by increased use of TDM strategies.

The Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions: 1) recommending that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR in connection with the DAP 2 application (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent), and 2) recommending that the Council approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent). In addition, the Commission forwarded a request that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer to include additional TDM measures in the Project to ensure ample parking (vote 6-0).

Transportation Demand Management
The Planning Commission focused the discussion on its preference for a more robust TDM program with larger trip reduction targets than were required when the Project was first approved. On this issue, clarification was provided by the Assistant City Attorney that under the MCP and the DA, the City may not modify existing conditions of approval (such as that related to TDM) without the voluntary agreement of the Developer. Staff noted that the DAP 2 proposal is consistent with the City’s previously-adopted conditions regarding the TDM program. Accordingly, the Planning Commission did not propose any conditions of approval related to the TDM requirements. However, the Commission made a formal request for the Council to discuss this point with the Developer further.

As required by the MCP, the Developer submitted a Traffic Report as part of its application, which was peer reviewed by City staff and its consultant team. The Traffic Report, which is provided as Attachment B to the First Addendum to the Project EIR, includes parameters for the DAP 2 TDM program. As required by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, the TDM program must achieve a reduction in Project office-generated daily traffic by a minimum of four percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least 10 percent and a reduction in Project residential-generated daily traffic by a minimum of two percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least four percent.

The Final EIR Response to Comments for the Project, dated June 2016, included detailed responses to comments from a Planning Commissioner and other parties expressing similar concerns that these trip reduction targets were too low. (FEIR, 3-8 to 3-10 and App. B.2-71). The FEIR explained that these reductions are much larger than they may appear because the traffic generation estimates City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
against which these reductions will be measured already reflect substantial reductions from the trip generation estimates for standard office projects in the Trip Generation Manual and Handbook published by the Institute for Traffic Engineers. The estimates used as the starting point for the City Place TDM targets were based on rates from Silicon Valley high-tech office developments, which have higher employee densities than standard office developments. The City Place estimates were further reduced to adjust for proximity to transit, and for the fact that it is a mixed-use development with residential, office and retail uses. The FEIR noted that, taking these adjustments into account, the City Place TDM targets “yield a total trip reduction of 15 to 18 percent,” similar to the 16 percent target that the City had recently required for a project one of the commenters had suggested as a model for the City Place TDM program. The FEIR also provides detailed responses to comments suggesting the TDM targets for the North Bayshore (Google), Apple, and Stanford University projects would be appropriate for City Place. The responses noted substantial differences between Stanford’s unique circumstances as a university and other projects, including City Place, and further noted that the North Mountain View and Apple targets had not in fact been achieved, concluding: “The trip reduction targets for City Place are similar to the actual trip reductions achieved at North Bayshore and more aggressive than what has actually been achieved at the Apple campus.” As shown in the Traffic Report, DAP 2 includes potential measures and strategies for reducing traffic generated by office and residential uses, along with an annual monitoring program to evaluate TDM effectiveness and determine if the trip reduction targets established by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 are satisfied. In addition, the Addendum to the Project’s EIR concluded that the overall number of trips generated by DAP 2 will be less than the number of trips analyzed under the EIR for Phase 2, and that approval of DAP 2 would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than previously analyzed for Phase 2.

Future Entitlement Actions
As part of the Planning Commission discussion, Commissioners requested clarification on the design review process established through the MCP. Staff noted the following review procedures will be conducted either at a staff level or through a separate hearing process.

Architectural Review
Under the City’s review process as set forth in Appendix C of the MCP (Attachment #7), the Developer has elected to defer the submittal of architectural materials, building architectural designs, and building site designs, including building setbacks and building coverage details for each of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E/F and 4H to a later submittal for review by the Community Development Director, who has approval authority under the MCP. Staff will post the application materials submitted for Architectural Review on the City’s website, on the project web page, as soon as a complete application is received.

Sign Program
The Applicant has also requested to defer the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program (“CSP”) for development on Parcels 4 and 5. Staff and the Applicant have been discussing specific details to include in the CSP over the past several months, and anticipate a draft coming together in the near future. Accordingly, Staff recommends a condition of approval to permit the CSP required by the MCP for Parcels 4 and 5 (Phases 1-4) to be considered and approved or conditionally approved by the City Council (following consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission) before City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
the issuance of the first building permit for development (for buildings, other than the below-grade Tasman garage, and excluding excavation and grading) undertaken pursuant to DAP 1 or DAP 2.

Ground Lease
The City and the Developer will prepare a final ground lease that is consistent with the DDA terms and DDA form of Ground Lease for the Phase 2 area before the Phase 2 area is taken down by Developer. Construction under DAP 2 will not commence on Phase 2 until the Ground Lease is executed with limited exception of early infrastructure or site preparation requested by Developer and approved by the City under a form of license, permit to enter, or other agreement approved by the City. In April, the City and the Developer entered into a Landfill Operations and Management Agreement which obligated the Developer to obtain and maintain comprehensive and robust insurance programs throughout the development of the Project and after completion of construction.

The insurance terms were carefully negotiated so that City’s interest in the landfill would be sufficiently protected, even for risks that are unrelated to the development of the Project, and so that the broadest possible range of Developer’s indemnification obligations would be backstopped with insurance running to both City and Developer. The insurance provisions addressed in the Landfill Operations and Management Agreement cover all insurance requirements for the Project and will be applicable to any work done on the former landfill. Submission and management of claims under joint insurance programs will be governed by an Insurance Administration Agreement to be executed prior to Developer commencing intrusive work on the Landfill.

Project Consistency with the MCP
The MCP requires that specific materials be submitted in connection with a DAP application. The following discussion details how the Developer’s application complies with the requirements of Section 1.4 (Development Obligations) of Exhibit 2 (Documents to be Submitted for DAP Applications) of Appendix C (DAP Submittal & Approval Procedures) to the MCP. (The following Section references are to MCP Appendix C, Exhibit 2 except as otherwise noted) This information was updated to further clarify compliance since the Planning Commission meeting.

Section 1.4.1 - Temporary Fire Station No. 8
Section 1.4.1 requires the Phase 1 DAP to provide details regarding the temporary Fire Station No. 8.

This requirement is not applicable to the DAP 2 application; moreover, the necessary improvements to Fire Station No. 8 to temporarily house operations from Fire Station No.10 were approved and permitted, and the construction is complete.

Section 1.4.2 - Minimum Initial Buildings / Minimum Retail Buildings Section 1.4.2 requires the DAP to show the proposed locations and square footages of: (1) Minimum Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.2; (2) Minimum Retail Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.4; and (3) a minimum of 200 residential units within Phases 1 and 2.

Minimum Initial Buildings
First, for the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires that Phase 2 include at least 700,000 square feet of buildings consisting of (i) 500,000 square feet of retail (including food and beverage and entertainment) and (ii) 200,000 square feet of office and/or a 300-key or larger hotel.

In addition, as part of the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires at least 200 residential units in the aggregate between Phases 1 and 2. The DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for retail. DAP 2 also includes 435,000 square feet of office uses plus a 220-room hotel, which satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for office and/or hotel uses by virtue of the office space being greater than 200,000 square feet. The City previously approved 200 residential units for the Phase 1 DAP, which satisfied the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for residential uses in Phases 1 and 2. Therefore, DAP 2’s program fully satisfies the remaining requirements to develop the Minimum Initial Buildings.

Minimum Retail Buildings
Second, for the Minimum Retail Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate between Phases 2 and 3. As noted above, the DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses towards this total, leaving 145,000 square feet of retail to be built in Phase 3 to achieve the Minimum Retail Buildings obligation.

Section 1.4.3 - Additional Initial Buildings
Section 1.4.3 requires that the DAP also show the proposed locations and square footages of Additional Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.3. The DDA requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 230,000 square feet of total office, retail (including food and beverage and entertainment), and/or residential buildings during Phase 2. As summarized previously, DAP 2 provides 435,000 square feet of office, which is 235,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 200,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. DAP 2 also provides 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which is 105,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 500,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings.

Finally, DAP 2 provides 530,000 square feet of residential uses as traditional and serviced apartments, in addition to the 200 residential units approved in the Phase 1 DAP and required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. In total, DAP 2 includes 870,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings, easily satisfying the requirement to use best efforts to provide 230,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings.

Section 1.4.4 - Additional Retail Buildings
Section 1.4.4 requires the DAP to indicate the proposed locations and square footages of the Additional Retail Buildings that could be satisfied under the best efforts standard of the DDA. As summarized above, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate among Phases 2 and 3, and DDA Section 5.3.5 requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 750,000 square feet as Additional Retail Buildings for an aggregate total of 1,500,000 square feet of retail within Phases 2 and 3. The DAP 2 application proposes 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses. Therefore, there is a balance of 145,000 square feet of retail uses to satisfy the requirements of DDA Section 5.3.4 to provide Minimum Retail Buildings, plus the full 750,000 square feet of Additional Retail Buildings for which Developer must make best efforts to provide within Phases 2 and 3 combined.

Section 1.4.5
Section 1.4.5 requires the DAP to show whether Phase 2 will include Development Obligations that can be satisfied among two or more phases of the Project or if part of the Development Obligations will be deferred to Phase 3. As discussed above, the Phase 2 DAP provides 605,000 square feet of the Minimum Retail Buildings and defers 145,000 square feet to Phase 3, with an obligation to use best efforts to attempt to develop 750,000 square feet for the Additional Retail Buildings. The DAP 2 City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
application demonstrates that, between Phases 2 and 3, it is possible to satisfy the minimum retail program requirements, although the current retail market may make it infeasible to provide the Additional Retail Buildings in Phase 3 notwithstanding the Developer’s best efforts.

Section 1.4.6 - Major Department Stores
Section 5.3.6 of the DDA requires Developer to use best efforts to develop two to three major department stores to be included in one or more DAPs within Phase 1, Phase 2 and/or Phase 3.

Consistent with that provision, Section 1.4.6 requires DAP applications to show proposed locations and square footages of any proposed major department stores. DAP 2 does not propose any major department stores. As noted above, DDA Section 5.3.7(b) permits the Developer to submit an Alternate Leasing Plan that would relieve the Developer of its obligation to use its best efforts to develop the Additional Retail Buildings and any major department stores. The Developer has submitted an Alternate Leasing Plan pursuant to DDA Section 5.3.7(b) that will be considered as an informational item for discussion and comment at a future Council meeting.

Section 1.4.7 is only applicable to Phase 3.

Section 1.4.8 - Cumulative Summary of Uses
Section 1.4.8 requires the DAP to include a cumulative summary of uses constructed to date, plus a balance of development required in future phases (through Phase 3). Although nothing has been constructed to date, DAP 2 includes information about the uses approved under the Phase 1 DAP and proposed by the Phase 2 DAP in Table 1.4.7 on page 1.4-1 (Attachment #10), which is summarized below:
· Minimum Initial Buildings: 1.3 million square feet of office, hotel, and/or retail buildings required among Phases 1 and 2, plus 200 residential units; approximately 2.1 million square feet of office, hotel, and retail buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2, plus 700 residential units; zero balance required in future phases. · Minimum Retail Buildings: 50,000 square feet required in Phase 1 and 750,000 required among Phases 2 and 3; 51,000 square feet provided in Phase 1 and 605,000 square feet provided in Phase 2; 145,000 square feet balance required in Phase 3. · Additional Initial Buildings: 200,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 1 and 230,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 2 for a total of 430,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings; approximately 712,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2 as Additional Initial Buildings in excess of the required Minimum Initial Buildings and Best Efforts. · Additional Retail Buildings: none proposed; balance of 750,000 square feet subject to the best efforts requirement.
· Major Department Stores: none proposed.

Section 1.4.9 - Parking Management Plan
Finally, Section 1.4.9 requires an updated Parking Management Plan to be included in the DAP. In accordance with DDA Section 5.5, Exhibit 1.4.8 on page 1.4-2 of DAP 2 (Attachment #12) illustrates how at least 3,000 parking spaces to serve non-NFL events at Levi’s Stadium on a non-reserved basis can be accommodated on the portions of the Project site that will not have been ground leased once Phases 1 and 2 are taken down. The necessary parking can be accommodated on the Citycontrolled Parcels 1 and 2.

City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
Authority for DAP 2 Review and Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Development Obligations summarized above, the MCP defines City Approval standards for DAP applications. Specifically, Section 2.7.2.6 authorizes approval or conditional approval of a DAP if the Council finds that (1) the DAP conforms to and is consistent with the applicable project approvals, transaction documents, and the MCP; (2) the Infrastructure that the Developer proposes to construct in connection with the applicable phase is sufficient to serve the proposed development on the subject property; and (3) the proposed shared outdoor space provided for in the applicable phase in accordance with the MCP is reasonable and appropriate to the proposed level of development.

Under Section 2.7.2.5 of Appendix C to the MCP, Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a DAP application. However, Section 2.7.2.6 limits the Council’s authority, only permitting Council to alter or supersede previously imposed conditions of approval if they are consistent with the standards of review and acceptable to the Developer. Moreover, the DA prohibits any conditions of approval that would conflict with the adopted Project entitlements, including, without limitation, conditions that would alter or change the permitted land uses, limit the Project’s height or bulk, limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or materially increase the Developer’s obligations.

When it approved the Project site rezoning and MCP in 2016, Council adopted conditions of approval that apply to the Project in addition to the development standards identified in the MCP. Among other requirements, the conditions of approval require the Project to comply with the terms of the DA and with the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program following certification of the Project’s EIR.

Therefore, Council has authority to adopt new conditions of approval that are required to ensure that DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP with respect to the findings listed above. However, modifications to existing conditions, which include all of the Project’s mitigation measures, would require the Developer’s consent under the DA and the MCP. Accordingly, City staff and the Planning Commission have recommended specific conditions of approval in connection with DAP 2 that either (1) are within the City’s discretion to adopt under the MCP and the DDA or (2) have the Developer’s consent to modify.

Specifically, the Developer has agreed to modify two former Conditions of Approval. Proposed Condition of Approval C5 would replace former Condition of Approval P15 (as modified by Condition of Approval C3 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to require the Comprehensive Sign Program for Parcels 4 and 5 to be considered by the City Council before the issuance of the first building permit for buildings (excluding the below-grade Tasman garage) developed pursuant to the DAP for Phases 1 or 2. In addition, proposed Condition of Approval E9 would replace former Condition of Approval E2 (as modified by Condition of Approval E10 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to allow the Developer to apply for, and receive Council approval of, a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map for Phase 2 prior to the issuance of building permits (excluding excavation and grading) within Phase 2 and to secure approval of and file for recordation Final Maps for Phase 2 prior to any certificate of occupancy within Phase 2; under the existing Condition, Final Maps would be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On June 28, 2016, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Although the EIR and MMRP identified mitigation measures to reduce most project impacts to less-than-significant levels, the SOC was required given the EIR’s conclusion that the proposed Project would have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of land use, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and biology; and cumulative significant unavoidable utilities impacts (Attachment #4).

Although there are certain differences between the project described in DAP 2 and the description of Phase 2 development in the MCP and certified EIR, DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP. To ensure that the potential impacts of the Project continue to be thoroughly analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City worked with consultant Environmental Science Associates to prepare an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Related Santa Clara / City Place Project; the Addendum is attached to this report (Attachment #5).

The Addendum provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that implementation of DAP 2 would not result in substantial changes or introduce new information not already analyzed in the previously-certified Project EIR, primarily because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the EIR, and would not cause new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the EIR, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts associated with DAP 2 have already been adequately analyzed in the Project EIR, and no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.

At the May 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted to find that the Addendum provides substantial evidence that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met and to recommend that the Council adopt the Addendum prior to acting on the DAP 2 application.

Upon adoption of the Addendum and approval of DAP 2 by the Council, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Because the ClerkRecorder’s Office is not currently open to the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NOD will also be posted on the City’s webpage.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense, which is included in the FY2019/20 Adopted Budget.

As was previously considered by the Council in the decisions to offer development of the project site and subsequent approval of the initial land use entitlements, it was noted there will be social and City of Santa Clara Page 10 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020
economic benefits that will accrue to the City and region in terms of new retail and entertainment opportunities not readily found in the South Bay area, as well as creation of jobs, property tax and sales tax revenues, and land lease revenues. Development of the Project will provide substantial land lease revenues to the City. Development fees and other exactions paid for and provided by the Project (including up to $17.4 million for implementation of a multimodal improvement plan and a voluntary contribution to VTA of approximately $16 million) will also benefit the City.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office and Finance Department.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected]
Public Notices and Comments:

The notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to property owners, residents and businesses within 1,000 feet of the project site. A joint meeting notice for this meeting and for the Planning Commission meeting held on May 27, 2020 was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 14, 2020. Notice was also posted on the City’s website under the development project page.

The Developer held a Community Open House meeting from 5:30 to 7:00 pm on January 15, 2020 at the Santa Clara Convention Center to provide an update to nearby residents and businesses about the current plans and schedule. The event was attended by the Applicant’s project team, City staff and approximately 24 members of the public. A summary of the open house event provided by the Applicant’s consultant is attached (Attachment #8).

The City Council continued the public hearing on this item from June 23, 2020 to July 13, 2020 to allow more time to address questions regarding information on Developer Obligations.

ALTERNATIVES
Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase 2 Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:

1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project,

2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project subject to conditions; or

3. Deny the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project City of Santa Clara Page 11 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
20-628 Agenda Date: 7/13/2020

RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives 1 and 2:

Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase I Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:

1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project; and

2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project, subject to conditions.

Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Key Map Plan

2. Web Link Slip Sheet - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 27, 2020

3. Amended Developer Phase Option Notice for DAP 2

4. Web Link Slip Sheet - 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive City Place FEIR and MMRP

5. EIR Addendum for DAP 2

6. Resolution to Adopt EIR Addendum for DAP 2

7. Web Link Slip Sheet - Master Community Plan Volume I

8. Applicant-provided 01.15.2020 Community Open House Summary

9. Resolution to Approve DAP 2

10. Staff Report Tables

11. Conditions of Approval

12. DAP 2 Document Plans
City of Santa Clara Page 12 of 12 Printed on 7/9/2020
powered by Legistar™
Attachment 1
Related Santa Clara
Key Map Plan – DAP 2, Parcel 4
PARCEL 1
PARCEL3
" I
PARCEL2
•
5155 Stars and Stripes Drive – Web Link Slip Sheet to
Planning Commission Staff Report – May 27, 2020
https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4544426&GUID=9EADA7B2-10C2- 43E9-848A-C93A3B2214BC
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Stephen F. Eimer
Executive Vice President & Co-Managing Partner
Related Santa Clara, LLC
5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Re: Approval of Phase Option Notice for Phase 2
Dear Mr. Eimer:

City Manager's Office
January 28, 2020
This letter is intended to serve as a decision from the City of Santa Clara (the "City") on the Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 pursuant to Section 4.4 of that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated August 12, 2016, by and between the City and Related Santa Clara, LLC (the "Developer") (the "DDA"), in connection with the City Place Santa Clara project (the "Project"). 1 The City approves the Phase Option Notice for Phase 2 of the Project as submitted in a letter from the Developer to the City dated December 10, 2019 and as amended in a letter from the Developer to the City dated January 15, 2020 (collectively the "Phase 2 Option Notice"), subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this letter.

The City finds that the geographic boundaries of Phase 2 as shown in Exhibit 1 of the Phase 2 Option Notice are consistent with the conceptual phasing descriptions set forth in Section 2.3 of the Master Community Plan (the "MCP"), as required by DDA Section 4.1.2. The MCP identifies a "conceptual" phasing strategy that allows for parcel modification to address changing conditions, with the goal of developing the essential core of the mixed-use zone involving retail, entertainment, residential, hotel, and office space development on Parcel 4. (MCP Section 2.3, page 25.) Although the proposed boundaries of Phase 2 as shown in Exhibit 1 of the Phase 2 Option Notice do not precisely match the conceptual boundaries illustrated in the MCP, the proposed Phase 2 boundaries are nevertheless consistent with the MCP phasing concept, because development will deliver the mixed-use development envisioned in the MCP on Parcel 4 with a program that includes the required mix of uses at a square footage within the amount permitted by the MCP.

The Phase 2 Option Notice includes a proposed conceptual Phasing Plan intended to replace DDA Exhibit E. The City agrees that DDA Article 4 intends for the Parties to update the Phasing Plan in connection with approval of a Phase Option Notice and to include such updated Phasing Plan with the Memorandum of Ground Lease recorded when the subject phase Ground Lease is executed. The conceptual boundaries of future phases shown in the Phasing Plan are acceptable to the City. 1 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter have the meanings defined in the DDA. 1500 Warburton Avenue • Santa Clara, CA 95050 • Phone: ( 408) 615-2210 • Fax: (408) 241-6771 • www.santaclaraca.gov Mr. Stephen Eimer, Related Santa Clara, LLC
Re: Approval of Phase Option Notice for Phase 2
January 28, 2020

Page 2 of 2 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentDecember 8, 2022

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
December 8, 2022