October 7 2024 City Council Agenda PacketOctober 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA
95020
MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM
MAYOR
Marie Blankley
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rebeca Armendariz
Dion Bracco
Tom Cline
Zach Hilton
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org
AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS ARE TAKEN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION. Please keep
your comments to 3 minutes. Time restrictions may vary based on the Mayor's discretion.
Send written comments on any agenda item to publiccomments@cityofgilroy.org or City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street,
Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by 1 p.m. on the meeting day will be distributed to the City Council before the
meeting. Comments are also available at bit.ly/3NuS1IN.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance
to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org to help ensure
that reasonable arrangements can be made.
If you dispute any planning or land use decision from this meeting in court, you may only raise issues you or
someone else presented at this meeting's public hearing or in written letters to the City Council before the hearing.
Be aware that the time to seek a judicial review of any final decision made at this meeting is defined by Section
1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
During this meeting, a Closed Session may be called under Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2). This will
happen if, in the City's legislative body's opinion (based on current facts, circumstances, and legal advice), there's
a significant risk of a lawsuit against the City.
Additional materials submitted after agenda distribution are available on www.cityofgilroy.org as soon as possible.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's
business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that
City operations are open to the people's review.
October 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO
RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE,
CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204.
If you need translation assistance, contact the City Clerk 72 hours before the meeting at 408-846-0204 or
cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org.
Si necesita un intérprete durante la junta y gustaría dar un comentario público, comuníquese con el
Secretario de la Ciudad un mínimo de 72 horas antes de la junta al 408-846-0204 o envíe un correo
electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad a cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org.
To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or
click this link:
Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR
o haga clic en el enlace:
bit.ly/3FBiGA0
Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir
Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.
Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el
dispositivo.
The agenda for this meeting is outlined as follows:
1. OPENING
1.1. Call to Order
1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
1.3. Invocation
1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
1.5. Roll Call
1.6. Orders of the Day
1.7. Employee Introductions
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards
2.1. Presentation of Certificates of Commendation and Recognition to the
Gilroy Firefighters that Saved a Life in Chico, CA
2.2. Proclamation Recognizing October 17, 2024 as The Great Shakeout Day
3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)
4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
4.1. Annual Presentation of the Library Commission
October 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
4.2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
This part of the meeting allows public address on non-agenda topics
within the Council's jurisdiction. To speak, complete a Speaker's Card from
the entrances and give it to the City Clerk. Speaking time ranges from 1-3
minutes based on the Mayor's discretion. Extended discussions or actions
on non-agenda items are restricted by law. For Council action, the topic
may be listed on a future agenda.
Email written comments on non-agenda topics
to publiccomments@cityofgilroy.org or mail them to City Hall, 7351
Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020, by 1:00 p.m. on the meeting day. These
comments, available at City Hall, will be shared with the Council and
included in the meeting record. Late submissions will be shared as soon
as possible. A 10-page limit applies to hard-copy materials, but electronic
submissions are unlimited.
5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint
Powers Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA
Council Member Armendariz – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint
Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
JPA Board (alternate)
Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, Gilroy Gardens Board of
Directors, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate)
Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Authority JPA Board, VTA Policy Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership (alternate), Gilroy
Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task
Force, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, VTA Policy Advisory
Committee (alternate), Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board, VTA Mobility
Partnership Committee
Council Member Tovar – Downtown Committee, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate),
Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Santa Clara Valley Water
Commission, SCRWA, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team
Mayor Blankley – ABAG (alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Downtown Committee, Gilroy
Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Gilroy
Youth Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA,
South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors, VTA Mobility
Partnership Committee
October 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items under the Consent Calendar are deemed routine and approved with one motion. If a Council member or a member
of the public wishes for a separate discussion on an item, it must be requested for removal before the Council's approval
vote. If removed, the item will be discussed in its original order.
6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the September 9, 2024 and September
16, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting
6.2. Annual Review and Adoption of the City's Investment Policy
6.3. Claim of Jennifer Figueroa/Melvin Ketchum (The City Administrator
recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute
denial of the claim)
7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
10.1. Addition of Gilroy Library Improvements Project to the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) in Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25)
1. Staff Report: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
1. Approve the addition of the Gilroy Library Improvements Project to the
City’s CIP program.
2. Adopt a resolution to amend the FY25 budget to appropriate $800,000
from Fund 405 – Gilroy Community Library, for the design phase of the
project.
10.2. Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee and Appointment of Members for the
Gilroy Gardens Lease Negotiations
1. Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Council:
1. Create an ad hoc committee for the negotiations regarding the lease
agreement with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park; and
2. Appoint three members of the City Council to the created ad hoc
committee.
10.3. Authorization for Council Travel to the League of California Cities Annual
Conference, Selection of Voting Delegate, and Direction Regarding the
Proposed League Resolution
October 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
1. Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Council:
1. Authorize travel for Council Members Armendariz and Tovar, and
Mayor Blankley to attend the League of California Cities (League)
Annual Conference.
2. Select a traveling council member as a voting delegate to vote on the
proposed League resolution.
3. Identify if Council desires to vote no or abstain in voting on the League
resolution.
10.4. Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating
Memorandum
1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
1. Adopt a Resolution to approve Addendum #2 to the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
2. Adopt a Resolution to approve the Fourth Operating Memorandum to the
Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement.
3. Adopt a Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget to
appropriate $7,200,000 as revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for
contribution towards the new Fire Station and $1,046,337 as
expenditures to be transferred out of the Traffic Impact Fund for the
Traffic Impact Fee Reimbursement policy amounts assigned to the City.
11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
14. CLOSED SESSION
14.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION:
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) and Gilroy City Code Section
17A.11(3)(b)
Name of case: Jesse R. Sanchez; Mirna Leonides Sanchez; and the Estate
of Jesse Sanchez, Jr. v. The City of Gilroy; County of Santa Clara; Rebeca
Armendariz; Sally Armendariz; Domingo Armendariz Filed August 22, 2022
14.2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE:
Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) and Gilroy City Code Section
17A.8(4)
Consideration of consent to removal of one Department Head, per Gilroy
Charter Section 703(c).
15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
October 7, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Council
Member if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and GCC Section 17A.13(b);
Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under GCC Section
17A.11(5).
16. ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE MEETING DATES
October 2024
21 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
November 2024
4 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
18 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
December 2024
9 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
Meetings are live streamed on the City of Gilroy’s website at gilroy.city/meetings and on
YouTube at https://bit.ly/45jor03.
Access the 2024 City Council Meeting Calendar at https://bit.ly/3LLzY1n.
2.2
p. 7 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 6
CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM
1. OPENING
1.1. Call to Order
1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Bracco led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.3. Invocation
Pastor McPhail led the invocation.
1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
Interim City Clerk, Beth Minor advised the agenda was posted on Friday,
September 6, 2024 at 11:00 AM.
1.5. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Dion Bracco, Council Member
Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member
Zach Hilton, Council Member
Tom Cline, Council Member
Fred Tovar, Council Member
Marie Blankley, Mayor
Absent None
1.6. Orders of the Day
1.7. Employee Introductions
Police Chief Espinoza introduced Heather Vlcek, Police Records Technician,
and Madeline Clark, Public Safety Communicator Trainee.
Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips introduced Jackie Gifford,
Management Assistant.
Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy introduced Ryan Osenton, Project
Manager.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards
2.1. Proclamation Honoring United Against Hate Week September 21-27,
2024
2.2. Proclaiming September 2024 Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
2.3. Proclaiming September 2024 as National Preparedness Month
6.1
p. 8 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 6
3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)
4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
4.1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL.
Mayor Blankley open Public Comment.
Alan Espinoza spoke regarding the assistance the residents of Garlic Farm
RV Park received and hoped that more help will be coming.
Ron Kirkish spoke regarding a request to formally acknowledge the three
Gilroy Firefighters who helped save a drowning girls life.
Elaine Gooding spoke regarding the assistance the residents of Garlic Farm
RV Park received and hoped that more help will be coming, and thanked all
those that came out and helped.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco No report.
Council Member Armendariz mentioned the Tamale Festival to be held in Gilroy
on September 28, 2024.
Council Member Marques noted the heat presented challenges to the attendance
at Gilroy Gardens Theme Park, but Carnival Friday nights was successful. They
are looking for additional docents to assist with the theater shows.
Council Member Hilton stated there is a year over year increase in VTA ridership.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy continues to find funding for California residents for
single family home electrification, clean energy appliances, and other home
upgrades.
Council Member Cline No report.
Council Member Tovar No report.
Mayor Blankley spoke regarding several bills that will be on the ballot or have not
made it for the 2024 election. South County Youth Task Force Policy Team met
and noted there is lots of assistance from Morgan Hill and Gilroy schools, police
departments, and other agencies to help at risk kids. She announced there will be
a public acknowledgment for the three Gilroy Firefighters who saved the young
girls life.
6.1
p. 9 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 6
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the August 19, 2024 City Council
Regular Meeting.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To approve Agenda Item No. 6.1
RESULTS:PASS: 7-0
MOVER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
7.1. Award a Three-year Contract to Alpine Landscapes in a Total Amount of
$1,163,958 with an Annual Not to Exceed Amount of $387,986 for the
Community Facilities District Landscape Maintenance Services, with
up-to Two, One Year Extension Options, and Adopt a Resolution
Amending the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget by $28,927.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To approve the award of a three-year contract to Alpine
Landscapes in a total amount of $1,163,958 with an annual not to
exceed amount of $387,986 for performing the Community Facilities
District (CFD) Landscape Maintenance Services; Authorize the City
Administrator to exercise at the end of the contract term the two, one-
year extension options at the City’s sole discretion; and Adopt a
resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2025 budget by $28,927.
RESULTS:PASS: 7 - 0 Roll Call Vote
MOVER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER:Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2024-41
6.1
p. 10 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 6
7.2. Award a Three-year Contract to Jensen Landscape Services, LLC in the
Total Amount of $3,378,990 with an Annual Not to Exceed Amount of
$1,126,330 for Citywide Landscape Services, and Authorize up to Two,
One-Year Extension Options.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To approve the award of a three-year contract to Jensen
Landscape Services, LLC in the total amount of $3,378,990 with an
annual not to exceed amount of $1,126,330 for Citywide Landscape
Services; Authorize the City Administrator to exercise at the end of the
contract term the two, one-year extension options at the City‘s sole
discretion.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1
MOVER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER:Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE, TOVAR,
BLANKLEY
NOES:ARMENDARIZ
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Adjusting Future Mayor and City Council Member Salaries.
Mayor Blankley opened the Public Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of
the ordinance.
RESULTS:PASS: 7-0 Roll Call Vote
MOVER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER:Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6.1
p. 11 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 6
MOTION: To Introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Gilroy adjusting future mayor and city council member salaries.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1 Roll Call Vote
MOVER:Carol Marques, Council Member
SECONDER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,
BLANKLEY
NOES:TOVAR
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
10.1. Legislative Update.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
10.2. Consideration of an Amendment to Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.6-1(p)
Cardroom, Table Restrictions.
Mayor Blankley opened the Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed the Public Comment.
MOTION: Council approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Gilroy City
Code Chapter 16.6-1(p) to increase the number of cardroom tables allowed
from 10 to 12 tables.
RESULTS:PASS: 7-0
MOVER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
SECONDER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
10.3. Recreation Needs Assessment Implementation Introduction.
Mayor Blankley opened the Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed the Public Comment.
11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
11.1. Request to Add to the September 16, 2024 Agenda the United Sovereign
6.1
p. 12 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 9, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 6
Americans Resolution for Council Discussion.
Mayor Blankley opened the Public Comment.
Sue Ozzini requested the Council agendize this on the September 16, 2024
agenda so Council can discuss it.
Dennis Jamison requested the Council agendize this on the September 16, 2024
agenda so they can discuss it.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed the Public Comment.
MOTION: To agendize this item on the September 16, 2024 meeting for
discussion by Council.
RESULTS:PASS: 4-3
MOVER:Carol Marques, Council Member
SECONDER:Tom Cline, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, MARQUES, CLINE, BLANKLEY
NOES:ARMENDARIZ, HILTON, TOVAR
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
14. CLOSED SESSION
15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
16. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 P.M.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.
/s/Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk
6.1
p. 13 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 7
CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM
1. OPENING
1.1. Call to Order
1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Armendariz led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.3. Invocation
None
1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
Interim City Clerk, Beth Minor advised the agenda was posted on Friday,
September 13, 2024 at 11:00 A.M.
1.5. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Dion Bracco, Council Member
Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member
Tom Cline, Council Member
Fred Tovar, Council Member
Marie Blankley, Mayor
Absent Zach Hilton, Council Member
1.6. Orders of the Day
1.7. Employee Introductions
Police Chief Espinoza introduced Police Officers Jailene Fernandez and Mark
Bedoya.
Utilities Director, Heath McMahon introduced Senior Civil Engineer Bret Swain.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards
2.1. Proclaiming the Week of September 17 through September 23, 2024 as
Constitution Week.
3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)
3.1. Department Work Plan Updates as of Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2024.
4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
4.1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
6.1
p. 14 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 7
COUNCIL.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
Nashaba Afzal requested the Council review their criteria for which
proclamations are put on the agenda and which are not.
Robert Zepeda spoke regarding City contracted landscaping contracts and how
most tax funds do not stay within the city.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco No report.
Council Member Armendariz Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board
discussed the evaluation for the new Executive Director and their upgraded website.
Council Member Marques noted that the downtown area is now free of all plywood
coverings.
Council Member Hilton Absent.
Council Member Cline No report.
Council Member Tovar No report.
Mayor Blankley noted that the Highway 25/101 interchange recently received $2M in
grant funding.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6.1. Approve the 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To approve the 2025 Council Meeting Schedule.
RESULTS:PASS: 6 - 1
MOVER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
7.1. Approve a Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Morgan Hill in the
6.1
p. 15 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 7
Amount of $1,814,455, Award a Contract to HydroScience Engineers, Inc.
in the amount of $673,348, Approve a Project Contingency in the Amount
of $67,336, and Adopt a Resolution of Budget Amendment to Increase
Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget by $3,628,910 for the Joint Morgan Hill-
Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs Project.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To Approve a Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of
Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill in the amount of $1,814,455 for the
design, construction, and construction management of the Joint Morgan
Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs Project (Project No. 24-RFP-PW-499) and
authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement and
associated documents; and
Award a contract to HydroScience Engineers, Inc. in the amount of
$673,348 and approve a project contingency of $67,336 for a total project
expenditure of $740,684 for the design of the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy
Trunk Line Repairs Project and authorize the City Administrator to
execute the contract, associated documents, and any use of the
contingency funding; and
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 budget and appropriating $3,628,910 from the
Sewer Fund (700) for design, construction, and construction management
of the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk Line Repairs Project.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1
MOVER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
SECONDER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2024-42
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Adjusting Future Mayor and City Council Member Salaries.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To adopt the ordinance adjusting Future Mayor and City Council
Member Salaries.
RESULTS:PASS: 5-1-1
6.1
p. 16 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 7
MOVER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
SECONDER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
BLANKLEY
NOES:TOVAR
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
Enactment No.: Ordinance No. 2024-02
10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
10.1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to Release
Unclaimed Checks.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To adopt a resolution to release unclaimed checks to the
City's General Fund in accordance with California Government Code
Section 50053.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1
MOVER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER:Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2024-43
10.2. Consideration of a Park Naming Application to Re-Establish the Gilroy
Golf Course Facility as Ousley Park.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To establish the name of the from Gilroy Golf Course Facility
to Ousley Park.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1
MOVER:Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
6.1
p. 17 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 7
10.3. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy in
Review of the City of Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to its
Biennial Review.
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution in review of the City of Gilroy
Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to its Biennial Review.
RESULTS:PASS: 6-1
MOVER:Tom Cline, Council Member
SECONDER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES:BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, CLINE,
TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2024-44
10.4. Consideration of a Resolution of the Gilroy City Council Calling for
a Legally Valid 2024 General Election
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.
Andrea Hightower felt the resolution should not be passed.
Noshaba Afzal felt the resolution should not be passed.
Sabra Dupree felt the resolution should not be passed.
Warren Seifert felt the resolution should not be passed.
Bill O’Connor felt the resolution should not be passed.
Teresa Perez felt the resolution should not be passed.
Joanne Fierro felt the resolution should not be passed.
Maria Aguilar felt the resolution should not be passed.
Daniel Donovan felt the resolution should not be passed.
Sally Armendariz felt the resolution should not be passed.
Ron Kirkish felt a modified resolution should be passed.
Connie Rogers felt the resolution should not be passed.
Erin O’Brien felt the resolution should not be passed.
Michelle Nelson felt the resolution should not be passed.
Arcelia O’Connor felt the resolution should not be passed.
Sue B. spoke regarding issues with voter information and records.
6.1
p. 18 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 7
Armando Benavides felt the resolution should not be passed.
Dennis Jamison felt a modified resolution should be passed.
Judy Hess felt a modified resolution should be passed.
Daniella Arellano felt the resolution should not be passed.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.
MOTION: To reject the Resolution calling for a legally valid 2024
election.
RESULTS:PASS: 4-2-1
MOVER:Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER:Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
AYES:ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:BRACCO, CLINE
ABSENT:HILTON
ABSTAIN:
11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator, Jimmy Forbis announced the Arts and Culture Commission will be
unveiling the For the Love of Gilroy posters on Friday, September 20, 2024.
Additionally, the annual coastal cleanup will be held on Saturday, September 21, 2024
at Solorsano Middle School, and Caltrain will be holding a train electrification event on
Saturday at the Gilroy Caltrain Station.
13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
14. CLOSED SESSION
14.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to GC Sec. 54956.8 and GCC Sec. 17A.8
Property: Gilroy Gardens Theme Park, 3050 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy,
CA (APN’s: 810-17-024, 810-17-026, 810-17-029, 810-17-030, 810-17-031,
810-18-002, 810-18-013, 810-19-005, 810-19-007, 810-19-010, 810-19-011,
810-19-014)
Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator; Victoria Valencia,
Economic Development Manager
Other Party to Negotiations: Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park, LLC
Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment for sale or lease.
The Council voted unanimously to remain in the Closed Session.
15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Blankley advised no reportable action.
16. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 P.M.
6.1
p. 19 of 262
City Council Regular Meeting
AgendaSeptember 16, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 7
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.
/s/Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk
6.1
p. 20 of 262
Page 1 of 2
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Annual Review and Adoption of the City's Investment
Policy
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Finance
Submitted By:Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
Prepared By:Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Develop a Financially Resilient Organization
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution establishing the City’s updated Investment Policy.
BACKGROUND
Per California Code Section 53646(a) and the City’s Investment Policy, the City
Administrator shall annually render to the City Council a statement of investment policy,
which shall be considered by the Council at a public meeting to ensure its consistency
with respect to the overall objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. The City Council last
reviewed the policy in October 2023.
Per the City’s Investment Policy, temporarily idle or surplus funds of the City shall be
invested in accordance with principles of sound treasury management. The three basic
objectives of Gilroy's Investment Program are, in order of priority, (1) safety of invested
funds, (2) maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow needs of the City; and (3)
attainment of the maximum yield possible consistent with the first two objectives.
ANALYSIS
The City’s idle cash is primarily invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF),
United States Treasury notes and bills, and California Cooperative Liquid Assets
Securities System (CLASS). As of June 30, 2024, about $57 million is invested in LAIF,
6.2
p. 21 of 262
Annual Review and Adoption of the City's Investment Policy
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 October 16, 20231
3
5
2
$105 million in US Treasury bills, and $28 million in CLASS, earning an effective rate of
return of 4.4%. Both LAIF and CLASS, which account for approximately 43% of the
City’s portfolio, provide great daily liquidity, meaning on any given day, the City can
withdraw large sums of money the same day or within a day’s notice, while earning
interest.
No changes are recommended to the current investment policy at this time. Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to keep the current
investment policy in effect.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could direct staff to make additional adjustments to the policy. This is not
recommended. The current policy provides adequate guidance for the City’s investment
program, which is meeting the three primary objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact to adopting the City’s General Investment Policy. Review and
update of the investment policy is an activity that is included in the Finance
Department’s annual and ongoing workplan.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Exhibit A – Investment Policy
6.2
p. 22 of 262
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
ADOPTING THE CITY’S INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the City has a responsibility to ensure it handles public funds
appropriately; and
WHEREAS, Section 53646 of the Government Code allows local agencies to
annually approve a Statement of Investment Policy which has been prepared by the
chief fiscal officer of such local agency; and
WHEREAS, the Investment Policy describes the investments the City can utilize
in compliance with California Government Code Section 53646 and good practice
dictates that local agencies prepare a written investment policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council formally adopts the investment policy via a
resolution that promotes sound financial management practices designed to meet the
City Council’s goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a statement of Investment
Policy annually which is designed to conform with the requirements of the Investment
Act; and
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Investment Policy is to establish a
conservative set of investment criteria that will prudently protect the City’s assets,
provide liquidity to meet the City’s cash needs, and enable the City to generate a market
rate of return from its investment activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the investment policy and delegates
investment authority to the City Treasurer pursuant to California Government Code
Section 53607; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Gilroy hereby adopts the amended Investment Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A, a
copy of which is on file at the City offices and is available for inspection by the public.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2024 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
6.2
p. 23 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Adopting the City’s Investment Policy
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED:
______________________________
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
6.2
p. 24 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Adopting the City’s Investment Policy
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BETH MINOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2024-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a
City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of
said held on Council held Monday, Date, with a quorum present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official
Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date.
____________________________________
Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)
6.2
p. 25 of 262
- 1 -
2
0
4
7
INVESTMENT POLICY
FOR
CITY OF GILROY
Revised: October 2024
I.STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this Investment Policy (“Policy”) is to identify elements that will foster a
prudent and systematic investment program that meet the City of Gilroy’s objectives
through a diversified investment portfolio. This policy also serves to organize and formalize
the City’s investment related activities, while complying with all applicable statutes
governing the investment of public funds.
Temporarily idle or surplus funds of the City of Gilroy shall be invested in accordance with
principles of sound treasury management and in accordance with the provisions of
California Government Code Sections 53600, et seq., the Municipal Code, guidelines
established by the California Municipal Treasurer's Association and the California Society
of Municipal Finance Officers, and this Investment Policy.
A.Overall Risk Profile
The three basic objectives of Gilroy's Investment Program are, in order of priority:
1.Safety of invested funds;
2.Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow needs of the City; and
3.Attainment of the maximum yield possible consistent with the first two objectives.
The achievement of these objectives shall be accomplished in the manner described
below:
1.Safety of Invested Funds
The City shall ensure the safety of its invested idle funds by limiting credit and
interest rate risks. Credit risk is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security
issuer or backer. Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value portfolio
securities will fall due to an increase in general interest rates.
a.Credit risk will be mitigated by:
i.Limiting investments to the safest types of securities as outlined in this
policy;
ii.By prequalifying the financial institutions with which it will do business; and
iii.By diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of any one issuer
or backer will not place an undue financial burden on the City.
b.Interest rate risk will be mitigated by:
6.2
p. 26 of 262
- 2 -
2
0
4
7
i.Maintaining adequate sums in 30 day or less funds.
ii.Structuring the City's portfolio so that securities mature to meet the City's
cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell
securities on the open market prior to their maturation to meet those specific
needs; and
iii.Investing primarily in shorter term securities (five years or less).
c.The physical security or safekeeping of the City's investments is also an
important element of safety. Detailed safekeeping requirements are defined in
Section III of this Policy.
2.Liquidity
The City’s investment portfolio shall be structured in a manner which strives to
achieve that securities mature at the same time as cash is needed to meet anticipated
demands (static liquidity). Additionally, since all possible cash demands cannot be
anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or
resale markets (dynamic liquidity).
Funds equal to 20% of the total annual expenditure budget less any capital
expenditures for which bond proceeds are available, less internal service fund
charges and less Trust and Agency fund expenditures, as first adopted for each fiscal
year, shall be invested in the California State LAIF or other 30 day or less securities
for call requirements. However, this provision shall not require the sale of any
investment due solely to the adoption of a new budget, or amendment to a budget,
which would have the effect of increasing the dollar amount needed to maintain this
20% requirement in 30 day or less funds. At such time that the 30 day or less funds
falls below 20% of the annual expenditure budget, the City Treasurer, within 30
days, will notify the Investment Committee with a proposed action plan. The City
Council will be subsequently notified of the action taken. The specific percentage
mix of different investment instruments and maturities is described in Section II of
this Policy.
3.Yield
Yield on the City's investment portfolio is of secondary importance compared to the
safety and liquidity objectives described above. Investments are limited to relatively
low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being
assumed. While it may occasionally be necessary or strategically prudent of the City
to sell a security prior to maturity to either meet unanticipated cash needs or to
restructure the portfolio, this Policy specifically prohibits trading securities for the
sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates.
B.Time Frame for Investment Decisions
The City's investment portfolio shall be structured to provide that sufficient funds from
investments are available every month to meet the City's anticipated cash needs. Subject
6.2
p. 27 of 262
- 3 -
2
0
4
7
to the safety provisions outlined above, the choice in investment instruments and
maturities shall be based upon an analysis of anticipated cash needs, existing and
anticipated revenues, interest rate trends, and specific market opportunities. No
investment should have a maturity of more than five (5) years from its date of purchase
without receiving City Council approval within the prior 90 days.
C.Pooling of Funds
The City will consolidate cash and reserve balances from all funds to maximize
investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing,
safekeeping and administration. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds
based on their respective participation and in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
D.Definition of Idle or Surplus Funds
Idle or surplus funds for the purpose of this Policy are all City funds which are available
for investment at any one time, including the estimated checking account float,
excepting those minimum balances required by the City's banks to compensate them for
the cost of banking services. This Policy also applies to the idle or surplus funds
included in the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, capital projects
funds, enterprise funds, internal service funds, trust/agency funds and of other entities
for which the City of Gilroy personnel provide financial management services.
E.Applicability of Policy
This policy does not apply to:
1.The City's Deferred Compensation Plan, the investments in which are directed by the
participating employees; and
2.Monies held by a trustee or fiscal agent and pledged to the payment or security of
bonds or other indebtedness, or obligations under agreements, of a local agency, or
certificates of participation in such bonds, indebtedness or agreements, the
investment of which may be in accordance with the statutory provisions governing
the issuance of those bonds, indebtedness or agreements, or to the extent not
inconsistent therewith, or if there are no specific statutory provisions, in accordance
with the ordinance, resolution, indenture or agreement of the local agency providing
for the issuance.
3.Monies held in a Section 115 trust for Post-Employment Benefits Trust (the
“Program”) for the purpose of pre-funding pension obligations and/or OPEB
obligations. Investment of such section 115 trust/s are directed by the separate
Investment Guidelines Document (IGD) as approved by the Plan Sponsor.
6.2
p. 28 of 262
- 4 -
2
0
4
7
F.Benchmark and Performance Standards
T investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of
return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City’s
risk constraints, the cash flow needs, and state and local laws. The performance
of the investment portfolio shall be compared to the average yield on the U.S.
Treasury bill that most closely corresponds to the investment portfolio’s
weighted average effective maturity.
II.INVESTMENTS
This section of the Investment Policy identifies policies, types of investments, and related
matters pertaining to instruments in which the City will invest its idle funds.
A.Investment Standards
The City of Gilroy operates its temporary pooled idle cash investments under the
Prudent Investor Standard, California Government Code, Section 53600.3 1, and with
additional guidance from the provisions of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, California
Probate Code Section 16045, et seq 2. This affords the City a broad spectrum of
investment opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable
under current legislation of the State of California (Government Code Section 53600, et
seq).
B.Eligible Securities
Subject to the Prudent Investor Standard and other applicable laws and regulations,
this policy permits investment in the following:
•Insured Certificates of Deposit (CD's) of California banks and/or savings and loan
associations, and/or savings with a Superior or Excellent ranking of 165 or more as
provided by IDC Financial Publishing Inc. or similar rating publication) which mature in
five (5) years or less, provided that the City's investments shall not exceed Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) per institution. If the investment exceeds the
insured $250,000.00, the funds are to be collateralized at 110% of the deposit in
government securities or 150% in mortgages. (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
1Governing bodies of local agencies (e.g., a City Council) or persons authorized to make investment
decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore
fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging,
selling, and managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the
circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated
needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in
the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity
needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part to an
overall strategy, a trustee is authorized to acquire investments as authorized by law.
6.2
p. 29 of 262
- 5 -
2
0
4
7
2The standard of care for trustees investing and managing trust assets is the Prudent Investor Standard and
takes into consideration the purposes, terms, distribution requirements and other circumstances of the trust, and in
satisfying this standard, the trustee is required to exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution in light of the facts and
circumstances existing at the time of a trustee's decision or action.
•Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits
•California Cooperative Liquid Assets Securities System (CLASS) (limited to 15% of the
portfolio)
•Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies
•Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCDs) placed with federal and state savings
and loan associations and federal and state chartered banks with an office in the
State of California. (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
•Bankers Acceptances (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
•Commercial paper (limited to 10% of the portfolio)
•Passbook Savings or Money Market Demand Deposits
•Securities or bonds purchased under a prior investment policy, which may or may
not meet the standards of this policy. (Such securities or bonds may be held or sold
under this Policy but additional purchases shall not be made.)
•Money Market Mutual Fund (with $1.00 net asset value and which invests only in
instruments allowed under Government Code Section 53600, et seq.) - (limited to
5% of the portfolio)
C.Investments Deemed Not Appropriate at this Time
The City of Gilroy Investment Policy does not permit investment in the following
instruments or securities:
•Corporate bonds or stocks
•Repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements
•Interest only or principal only strips
•Certificates of Deposit issued by institutions not operating within California
•Inverse floaters and range notes
•Financial futures or financial option contracts
•Securities lending or leveraging any portion of the portfolio
6.2
p. 30 of 262
- 6 -
2
0
4
7
D.Collateralization Requirements
Uninsured Time Deposits with banks and savings and loans shall be collateralized in the
manner prescribed by law for depositories accepting municipal investment funds.
E.Preformatted Wire Transfers
Wherever possible, the City will use preformatted wire transfers to restrict the transfer of
funds to preauthorized accounts only. When transferring funds to an account not
previously approved, the bank is required to call back a second employee for
confirmation that the transfer is authorized.
F.Qualification of Brokers, Dealers and Financial Institutions
The City Treasurer shall investigate brokers and dealers who wish to do business with
the City to determine if they are adequately capitalized, have any pending legal actions
against the firm or the individual broker, and that they market securities appropriate to
the City's needs.
The City shall annually send a copy of the current edition of the Policy to all institutions
and broker/dealers which are approved to handle City of Gilroy investments. Receipt of
the Policy, including confirmation that it has been received by persons handling the
City's accounts, shall be acknowledged in writing within thirty (30) days.
G.Diversification
The portfolio should consist of a prudent mix of various types of securities, issues and
maturities.
H.Confirmation
Receipts for confirmation of purchase or sale of authorized securities should be received
by the City Treasurer within five (5) days and include the following information: trade
date, par value, rate, price, yield, settlement date, description of securities purchased,
agency's name, net amount due, third party custodial information. These are minimum
information requirements.
I.Internal Controls
Investment duties shall be separated by having at least three persons perform the
following functions for any particular investment: the recordation of investments and
disbursements, confirmation receipts, the preparation of Treasurer's reports, wire
transfers, bank reconciliations and treasury reconciliations. An independent analysis by
the external auditor shall be conducted annually to screen internal control, account
activity, including verification of all securities, and compliance with policies and
procedures.
6.2
p. 31 of 262
- 7 -
2
0
4
7
J.Interest Earnings
All interest earned on investments authorized by this Policy shall be allocated quarterly
to all City funds based on the positive cash balances in each fund as a percentage of the
entire pooled portfolio.
III.SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES
A.Safekeeping Agreement
The City shall contract with a bank or banks with federally insured deposits for the
safekeeping services through a third party custodial agreement, (California Government
Code Section 53601)3 which includes delivery versus payment provisions, for securities
which are owned by the City as part of its investment portfolio.
B.Handling of City-Owned Securities and Time Deposit Collateral
All securities owned by the City shall be held by the City or by its third-party custodian,
except the collateral for time deposits in banks, savings banks, and savings and loan
associations. The collateral for time deposits in banks and savings and loans shall be
held in a trust account in the City of Gilroy's name. Dealers or brokers shall not hold
any securities for the City. A broker is not an approved depository under California
Government Code Section 53630 4 and Section 53608 5
C.Security Transfers
The authorization to release City's securities will be telephoned to the appropriate
depository or custodian by a Finance Department member other than the person who
initiated the transaction. A written confirmation outlining the details for the transaction
and confirming the telephone instructions will be sent to the bank within five (5)
working days. A confirming notice documenting the transaction will be sent by the
bank to the City within five (5) working days of the transaction.
3Section 53601. Authorized Investments, circumstances. A local agency purchasing or obtaining any
security . . . shall require delivery of the securities to the local agency . . . by book entry, physical delivery or by
third party custodial agreement.
4Section 53630(c) allows state or national banks, state or federal savings banks or savings and loan
associations, state or federal credit unions and federally insured industrial loan companies as approved depositories.
5Section 53608. Deposit of securities; delegation of authority. The legislative body of a local agency may
deposit for safekeeping with a federal or state association, a trust company or a state or national bank located within
this state or with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or any branch thereof within this state, or with any
Federal Reserve Bank or with any state or national bank located in any city designated as a reserve city by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the bonds, notes, bills, debentures, obligations, certificates or
indebtedness, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness in which the money of the local agency is invested
pursuant to this article or pursuant to other legislative authority. The local agency shall take from such financial
institution a receipt for securities so deposited. The authority of the legislative body to deposit for safekeeping may
be delegated by the legislative body to the treasurer of the local agency; the treasurer shall not be responsible for
securities delivered to and receipted for by a financial institution until they are withdrawn from the financial
institution by the treasurer.
6.2
p. 32 of 262
- 8 -
2
0
4
7
D.Verification of Security
Securities held by an agent of depository as collateral securing time deposits will be
verified in writing during the year by the City's independent auditors as part of the City's
annual independent audit. The City's independent auditors confirm the collateral
directly with the bank holding that collateral. Those securities held by that depository or
custodian as collateral are subject to audit by the bank's auditors.
IV.STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY
This section of the Policy defines the overall structure of the investment management
program.
A.Responsibilities of the Finance Department
The Finance Department, through its officers and representatives, is charged with the
responsibility for maintaining custody of all public funds and securities belonging to or
under the control of the City and for the deposit and investment of those funds in
accordance with principles of sound treasury management and in accordance with
applicable laws and ordinances.
B.Responsibilities and Ethics of the City Treasurer
1.Delegation of Authority
The authority to manage the City’s investment program is derived from the
California Government Code Section 53600, et seq, The City Council is responsible
for the management of the City’s funds, including the administration of this
investment policy. The authority of the City Council to invest or to reinvest funds,
or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, is hereby delegated to the City
Treasurer, who shall thereafter assume full responsibility for those transactions until
the delegation is revoked and shall make quarterly reports of those transactions to
the City Council. (California Government Code Section 53607).
2.Responsibilities
The City Treasurer is appointed by the City Administrator and is subject to his
direction and supervision. The City Treasurer is charged with the responsibility for
the purchase, sale, custody and investment of City funds, and the development of
procedures to implement this Investment Policy. In fulfilling his responsibilities, the
City Treasurer is subject to the Prudent Investor Standard and shall render reports
regarding compliance with the Investment Policy. The City Treasurer is further
responsible for the duties and subject to the powers imposed by and applicable to
City Treasurers under the general laws of the State of California.
6.2
p. 33 of 262
- 9 -
2
0
4
7
3.Ethical Conduct
The City Treasurer will demonstrate integrity in all public and personal
relationships, protect the public trust, and seek no favor or accept any personal gain
which would influence or appear to influence the conduct of the office of Treasurer.
C.Responsibilities of the City Administrator
The City Administrator is responsible for directing and supervising the City Treasurer.
He is responsible further to keep the City Council fully advised as to the financial
condition of the City and its compliance with this Policy.
D.Responsibilities of the City Council
The City Council shall consider and annually adopt a written investment policy. As
provided in that policy, the Council shall receive and review quarterly investment
reports and may annually delegate investment authority to the City Treasurer pursuant to
California Government Code Section 53607.
E.Responsibilities of the Investment Committee
There shall be an Investment Committee consisting of the City Administrator, City
Treasurer/Finance Director, and the Finance Manager. The committee shall meet
quarterly to discuss cash flow requirements, monthly and quarterly investment reports,
investment strategy, investment and banking procedures, significant investment related
work projects being undertaken in each department which will affect the cash flow
management of the City Treasurer and to review compliance with the investment
policies adopted by the City Council. This will require timely reports from the
department heads to the City Treasurer concerning significant future cash flow
requirements.
V.REPORTING
The City Treasurer shall prepare a quarterly investment report, including a succinct
management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment
portfolio and transactions made over the past quarter by month. This management summary
will be prepared in a manner which will allow the City Administrator and City Council to
ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period are in conformance with
the City's Investment Policy.
The quarterly investment report will include the following:
A.A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting quarter showing the:
1.type of investment
2.institution
3.date of maturity
6.2
p. 34 of 262
- 10 -
2
0
4
7
4.amount of deposit or cost of the security
5.rate of return
B.Unrealized gain or loss resulting from appreciation or depreciation by listing the cost
and market value of securities over one year in duration.
C.Average yield of return on the City's investments.
D.Maturity aging for the investments.
E.Compliance of the investment portfolio with the Investment Policy.
F.A statement denoting the ability of the City to meet expenditure requirements for the
next six months.
VI.REVIEW OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
A.Statement of Policy
As set forth in California Code Section 53646(a), the City Administrator shall annually
render to the City Council a statement of investment policy, which shall be considered
by the Council at a public meeting.
B.Policy Review
This Investment Policy shall be reviewed annually by the City Council at a public
meeting in accordance with state law to ensure its consistency with respect to the overall
objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Proposed amendments to the Policy shall be
prepared by the City Treasurer and after review by the Investment Committee shall be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration at a public meeting.
Any recommended modifications or amendments shall be presented to the City Council
for their consideration and adoption.
VII.AUTHORITY
This Policy was duly adopted by authority of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on the
1st day of July 2015 and was most recently re-adopted on October 7, 2024.
6.2
p. 35 of 262
Page 1 of 1
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Claim of Jennifer Figueroa/Melvin Ketchum (The City
Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the
Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Administrative Services
Submitted By:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/
Administrative Services Director
Prepared By:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/
Administrative Services Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal
counsel, this claim is recommended for rejection.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal
counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the October
7, 2024 meeting:
•Claim of Jennifer Figueroa/Melvin Ketchum
Attachments:
1. Claim of Jennifer Figueroa/Melvin Ketchum
6.3
p. 36 of 262
6.3
p. 37 of 262
6.3
p. 38 of 262
Page 1 of 3
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Addition of Gilroy Library Improvements Project to
the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in
Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25)
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Finance
Submitted By:Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
Prepared By:Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the addition of the Gilroy Library Improvements Project to the City’s CIP
program.
2. Adopt a resolution to amend the FY25 budget to appropriate $800,000 from Fund
405 – Gilroy Community Library, for the design phase of the project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Gilroy issued General Obligation Bonds in 2009 and 2010 to build the Gilroy
Library facility. There remains approximately $5.4 million in unspent project funds. Over
the years, there had been plans to expend the funds to make additional improvements
to the facility but were halted during the onset of the COVID pandemic. The County
library and City staff resumed the conversation on the topic over the last year and
County library staff have prepared a conceptual proposal for improvements to expend
the remaining project funds. The Library Commission reviewed this item at their August
14, 2024 meeting and made the recommendation that the City Council add the project
to the City’s CIP and move the project forward. Therefore, staff are bringing forth this
item to formally add the Library Improvements project to the City’s CIP program, and
appropriate $800,000 for the design phase in FY25.
BACKGROUND
10.1
p. 39 of 262
Addition of Gilroy Library Improvements Project to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
in Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25)
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 October 7, 2024
On November 4, 2008, the voters of the City of Gilroy approved ballot Measure F for the
construction of public library improvements adjacent to City Hall. Measure F provided
for the authorization to issue general obligation bonds for up to $37 million. It was
anticipated that the authorization would be split between two series of bonds. The first
series was issued in May 2009, and the second was issued in August 2010.
Subsequently, the City spent the bond proceeds on the construction of the 53,000
square feet two-level new library facility, which opened in April 2012. The library facility
is owned by the City but is operated by the Santa County Library District. Approximately
$5.4 million of the bond proceeds remain unspent.
Over the years, there had been plans to expend the remaining bond proceeds to make
additional improvements to the facility, but these were halted during the onset of the
COVID pandemic.
The Library Commission’s adopted work plan for the current biennial budget cycle, fiscal
years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, includes making recommendations to the City Council
on potential capital improvements to the City’s library facility based on the needs
identified by the Santa Clara County Library staff, to be funded by the remaining library
bond proceeds.
ANALYSIS
The County library staff have prepared a conceptual proposal for consideration which
includes improvements to both levels of the building. The conceptual proposal includes
ideas for revamping the circulation and reference desks to make them compliant with
the current Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, expanding the current
children’s area and the teen study room, creating a new community room on the ground
level, adding a maker space area, adding an integrated building management control
system, and other improvements throughout the facility. The conceptual proposal is
attached to this staff report.
City staff, including the CIP engineering team, supports moving the initiative forward.
Staff has also consulted the City’s municipal finance advisors on the unspent bond
proceeds to confirm that the funds can be spent in the manner proposed. It is important
to note that not all items in the conceptual proposal will qualify to be funded by the bond
proceeds under the bond covenants. Particularly, items classified as repairs or
equipment and furnishing which are not fixtures to the property, may not be paid for with
bond proceeds. Thus, the utilization of the unspent bond proceeds will be limited to the
structural improvements or replacement of major systems that improve the real property
overall. The library staff understands these limitations and has expressed the County
Library District’s interest and desire to contribute financially to the project for the non-
qualifying items.
10.1
p. 40 of 262
Addition of Gilroy Library Improvements Project to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
in Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25)
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 October 7, 2024
The Library Commission reviewed this item at their August 14, 2024, meeting, and
unanimously recommended that the City Council add the project to the City’s CIP in
FY25 and move the project forward.
Staff recommends the City Council add the project to the CIP and adopt a resolution to
appropriate $800,000 for the design phase in FY25.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide to not make the improvements utilizing the unspent
project funds. An alternative would be to return the funds to the Gilroy taxpayers in the
form of reduced future tax levies for the annual debt service of the outstanding bonds.
This is not recommended, as the needed improvements have been carefully identified
by the library staff and should the City decide to make these improvements in the future,
the project would likely need to be financed. Based on the current market condition, the
financing will likely carry a higher borrowing cost or interest rate compared to the lower
interest rate the existing bonds carry. There is a financial incentive to utilizing the
unspent project funds for these improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The improvements to the library facility will be fully funded by the remaining project
funds of $5.4 million. Approximately $800,000, is recommended to be appropriated for
the design phase. Pending City Council approval, the project will undergo a design
process, including the preparation of cost estimates, through which a final budget will be
developed and include any financial contributions that the County Library District will
commit towards the project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This staff report was included in the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. Should the
City Council add the project to the City’s CIP, public participation will be planned to
solicit community input via the design process.
Attachments:
1. Conceptual Ideas
2. Resolution
10.1
p. 41 of 262
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2024-
2025 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE GILROY COMMUNITY
LIBRARY FUND (405)
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a
budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and the
City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 5, 2023;
and
WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed
amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for the City of Gilroy in the staff
report dated October 7, 2024, for the Gilroy Library Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the expenditure appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in Fund 405 – Gilroy Community Library Fund shall be
increased by $800,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2024 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
10.1
p. 42 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Library Improvement Project Budget Amendment
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BETH MINOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2024-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a
City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of
said held on Council held Monday, October 7, 2024, with a quorum present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official
Seal of the City of Gilroy this October 8, 2024.
____________________________________
Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)
10.1
p. 43 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 1
GILROY LIBRARY
FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE
OCTOBER 2023
DRAFT
10.1
p. 44 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
01
Identified Operational / Design Issues
02
Proposed Solutions
DRAFT
10.1
p. 45 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 3
BOND LANGUAGE
WHAT CAN BE COVERED BY BOND FUNDS
1. BOND INDUSTRY CONSENSUS IS THAT
THE TERM “REAL PROPERTY” MEANS THAT
ANYTHING THAT IS TRULY PORTABLE
MAY NOT BE FINANCED WITH GO BOND
PROCEEDS.
2. ITEMS LIKE VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT,
AND FURNISHINGS THAT ARE NOT
FIXTURES (PERMANENTLY AFFIXED TO
THE PROPERTY, NOT EASILY REMOVABLE
WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY)
MAY NOT BE FINANCED WITH GO BOND
PROCEEDS.
3. THE TERM “IMPROVEMENT” DOES
NOT INCLUDE ORDINARY REPAIRS,
MAINTENANCE COSTS, OR SUPPLIES AND
THESE ITEMS MAY NOT BE FINANCED
WITH GO BOND PROCEEDS.
4. DEFERRED OR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE
EFFORTS (REHABILITATION,
PRESERVATION) PROBABLY MAY BE
FINANCED WITH GO BOND PROCEEDS.
5. DEFERRED MAINTENANCE TYPICALLY
INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF MAJOR
SYSTEMS OR BUILDING COMPONENTS,
SUCH THAT THE PROJECT IS CLASSIFIED
AS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE REAL
PROPERTY AND ALLOWING THE USE OF GO
BOND PROCEEDS. FOR EXAMPLE, FUNDS
COULD NOT BE USED TO PATCH OR REPAIR
A ROOF ON A BUILDING BUT COULD BE
USED TO REPLACE IT.
6. SUCH POTENTIALLY ALLOWABLE
COSTS MAY INCLUDE LABOR COSTS,
PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, REAL
ESTATE APPRAISERS, AND BROKERS, AS
WELL AS REAL ESTATE CLOSING COSTS.
DRAFT
10.1
p. 46 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 4
01 IDENTIFIED OPERATIONAL / DESIGN ISSUES
DRAFT
10.1
p. 47 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 5
EXISTING CONDITION | LEVEL 1
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
MEETING ROOM
MULTI-USE ROOM
READING PROGRAM ROOM
ELECTRICAL ROOMLOBBY
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
DATA / TELECOM
CIRCULATION DESK
CIRCULATION SERVICESCHILDREN’S STAFF WORK RMSTAFF BREAK RM
STAFF LOCKER
RM
STAFF ENTRANCE REFERENCE DESK
HOMEWORK AREA
ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ROOM
CHILDREN’S
REFERENCE AND COMPUTERS
CHILDREN’S LIBRARIAN
BOOK DROP
COMMUNITY LIBRARIAN VESTIBULE
VESTIBULE
COFFEE NOOK
COMPUTER STORAGE / SYSTEMS RM
CIRCULATION OFFICE
CHILDREN’S AREA TODDLER / PARENTS EXTERIOR PATIOSTORAGE
INABILITY TO CONTROL PUBLIC ACCESS TO STAFF AREA.
PROJECT TO BE DONE INTERDEPENDENTLY.
NON-COMPLIANT FRONT APPROACH ADA ACCESS AND HEIGHT ISSUE W/
AUTOMATED CHECK OUT USE
PROPOSEREMOVE CIRCULATION DESK AND
PROVIDE FURNITURE SOLUTION
UNDERUTILIZED OUTDOOR COVERED AREA
PROPOSE
EXPAND CHILDREN’S AREA
UNDERUTILIZED OUTDOOR COVERED AREA
PROPOSE
EXPAND TO ACCOMMODATE COMMUNITY ROOM
MATERIAL HAZARD DUE TO CHIPPED
COUNTER. OPTIMIZE USE OF DESK.
PROJECT TO BE DONE INTERDEPENDENTLY.
PROPOSEFURNITURE SOLUTION
DRAFT
10.1
p. 48 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 6
EXISTING CONDITION | LEVEL 2
QUIET STUDY ROOM
OPEN TO BELOW
COMPUTER ROOMTEEN STUDY ROOMADULT MULTIMEDIA
REFERENCE DESK
OPEN TO BELOW
TEEN AREAADULT STAFF WORKROOM
SUPERVISING LIBRARIANS
OFFICE
DATA /
TELECOM
LARGE TYPE
COMPUTER AREA
NEW PERIODICALS
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES / NEW READER
ELS / CITIZENSHIP
ELEC.
MEETING ROOM
ELECTRICALCUSTODIAL
COMMUNITY ROOM STORAGE
SPACE NEEDS UPDATE
PROPOSE
EXPANSION
UNDERUTILIZED ROOM
PROPOSE
MAKER SPACE
SE CORNER IS “VISUALLY HIDDEN” FROM STAFF AND NOT EASY TO CONTROL FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT
PROPOSE4 SMALL MEETING ROOMS AND READING AREA
DESKTOP COMPUTERS NOT USED ANYMORE. REFERENCE DESK TOO LARGE.
PROPOSEREMOVE REFERENCE DESK AND PROVIDE FURNITURE SOLUTION
DRAFT
10.1
p. 49 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 7
EXISTING CONDITION | BUILDING SECTION
INTEGRATED BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM + FAN CONTROLS + OPERABLE NORTH FACING CLERESTORIES AND CURRENTLY NOT
FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY TO HELP ASSIST MECHANICAL SYSTEM WITH CLIMATE CONTROL
DRAFT
10.1
p. 50 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 8
02 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
DRAFT
10.1
p. 51 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 9
01 CUSTOM LAY IN CARPET FLOORING
02 RESILIENT FLOORING
03 PORCELAIN TILE FLOORING
04 EXTERIOR FRAMED WALL; EIFS
05 EXTERIOR STOREFRONT SYS.
06 FRAMELESS INTERIOR STOREFRONT
07 SOLID WALL
08 FRAMED WOOD ACOUSTICAL CEILING
09 PAINT EXISTING WOOD FRAMING
10 DEMO EXISTING LIGHTS
11 DEMO CEILING & PATCH GYP
12 DEMO WOOD CEILING & PATCH GYP
13 ADD NEW WOOD CEILING
14 ADD LIGHTS & ACOUSTICAL CLOUD
15 PATCH FLOORING
16 ADD POWER
17 NEW FINISHES
18 INTERIOR WOOD CLADDING
19 NEW SINK
20 NEW DISHWASHER
21 NEW DIGITAL DISPLAY
22 NEW GLASS MARKER BOARD
23 NEW FOLDING PARTITION
24 NEW DOOR
25 NEW READING FURNITURE
26 NEW MAKER SPACE FURNITURE
27 NEW MAKER SPACE EQUIPMENT
28 NEW TEEN ROOM FURNITURE
MULTI-USE ROOM
READING PROGRAM ROOMCIRCULATION SERVICES
CHILDREN’S STAFF WORK RMSTAFF BREAK RM
STAFF LOCKER RM
STAFF ENTRANCE
CHILDREN’S REFERENCE DESK
HOMEWORK AREA
CHILDREN’S AREA CAPACITY 120AREA: 2,200 SFPREVIOUS AREA: 740 SF
COMMUNITY ROOMCAPACITY 110AREA: 2,050 SFPREVIOUS AREA: 1,200 SF
PLAYSPACE EXTERIOR PATIO
ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ROOM
STORAGE
CHILDREN’S REFERENCE AND COMPUTERS
CHILDREN’S LIBRARIAN
BOOK DROPCOMMUNITY LIBRARIAN VESTIBULE
VESTIBULE
COMPUTER STORAGE / SYSTEMS RM
CIRCULATION OFFICE
04
05
09 24
05
19
05 05
20
03
02
02
10
21
18
11
1404
04
23
24
19
ELECTRICAL ROOM
BUILDING
MAINTENANCE
DATA / TELECOM
MODIFIED CONDITION | LEVEL 1
LOBBY
STORAGE
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
DRAFT
10.1
p. 52 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 10
01 CUSTOM LAY IN CARPET FLOORING
02 RESILIENT FLOORING
03 PORCELAIN TILE FLOORING
04 EXTERIOR FRAMED WALL; EIFS
05 EXTERIOR STOREFRONT SYS.
06 FRAMELESS INTERIOR STOREFRONT
07 SOLID WALL
08 FRAMED WOOD ACOUSTICAL CEILING
09 PAINT EXISTING WOOD FRAMING
10 DEMO EXISTING LIGHTS
11 DEMO CEILING & PATCH GYP
12 DEMO WOOD CEILING & PATCH GYP
13 ADD NEW WOOD CEILING
14 ADD LIGHTS & ACOUSTICAL CLOUD
15 PATCH FLOORING
16 ADD POWER
17 NEW FINISHES
18 INTERIOR WOOD CLADDING
19 NEW SINK
20 NEW DISHWASHER
21 NEW DIGITAL DISPLAY
22 NEW GLASS MARKER BOARD
23 NEW FOLDING PARTITION
24 NEW DOOR
25 NEW READING FURNITURE
26 NEW MAKER SPACE FURNITURE
27 NEW MAKER SPACE EQUIPMENT
28 NEW TEEN ROOM FURNITURE
OPEN TO BELOW
ADULT MULTIMEDIA
OPEN TO BELOW
PROVIDE POWER & HVAC IN NEW MEETING ROOMSPROVIDE POWER & HVAC IN NEW MEETING ROOMS
TEEN AREA
ADULT STAFF WORKROOM
OFFICE
DATA / TELE LARGE TYPE
NEW PERIODICALS
ELS / CITIZENSHIP
READING AREA
ELEC.
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
NEW SMALL MEETING ROOM
NEW SMALL MEETING ROOM
PROVIDE POWER AT READING NICHES
ADD ADDITIONAL POWER FOR MAKER SPACE EQUIPMENT ALONG WALLS
EXPAND TEEN STUDY ROOM. MODIFY
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
SYSTEMS 02
01
0716
07
06
06
22
22
22
22
01
24
01 08
01
01
08 08
08
08
22
QUIET STUDY ROOM
MAKER SPACE
MEETING ROOM
ELECTRICALCUSTODIAL
COMMUNITY ROOM
STORAGE
MODIFIED CONDITION | LEVEL 2
1616
28 17
26
27
06 25
1607
15
16
DRAFT
10.1
p. 53 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 11
LEVEL 2 | PRECEDENT IMAGES
TEEN SPACE MAKER SPACE
TEEN SPACE MAKER SPACE DRAFT
10.1
p. 54 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 12
LEVEL 2 | PRECEDENT IMAGES
SMALL MEETING ROOM / STUDY ROOM MIXED READING AREA
SMALL MEETING ROOM / STUDY ROOM MIXED READING AREA DRAFT
10.1
p. 55 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 13
COMMUNITY ROOM | RELOCATE + ENLARGE + OUTDOOR CONNECTION
DRAFT
10.1
p. 56 of 262
GILROY LIBRARY | Feasibility Study UPDATE | October 2023 SCCLD | Steinberg Hart 14
DRAFT
10.1
p. 57 of 262
Page 1 of 2
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee and Appointment of
Members for the Gilroy Gardens Lease Negotiations
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Administration
Submitted By:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
Prepared By:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Develop a Financially Resilient Organization
Promote Economic Development Activities
RECOMMENDATION
Council:
1. Create an ad hoc committee for the negotiations regarding the lease agreement
with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park; and
2. Appoint three members of the City Council to the created ad hoc committee.
BACKGROUND
The City has had a lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park, Inc. (Gilroy Gardens)
since February 2008, when the City purchased the property, improvements, and other
assets (Property) from Gilroy Gardens. The City entered the lease for two years initially,
and through 11 amendments the lease was extended through February of 2023. With
no additional signed amendments, the lease transitioned to a month-to-month holdover
status per the lease agreement.
ANALYSIS
The City and Gilroy Gardens desire to enter negotiations regarding the lease of the
Property. As the lease has been amended 11 times, it is prudent to create a new lease
to incorporate changes over the last 16 years.
10.2
p. 58 of 262
Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee and Appointment of Members for the Gilroy Gardens Lease
Negotiations
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 October 7, 2024
For efficiency, it is recommended that an ad hoc committee consisting of three council
members and the City Administrator is proposed to be the negotiation team for the City.
Three members allows the committee to be ad hoc and to meet with greater flexibility as
it would not be a Brown Act committee.
This item requests Council to authorize the creation of the ad hoc committee, and to
appoint three members of the City Council to serve on this committee. The Council may
create the ad hoc committee under Section 900 as a temporary committee. It is
expected that this committee would operate for no more than 90 days. Creation of such
a committee can be done by motion with at least four affirmative votes. The Council
may appoint the three members by a majority vote.
All committee recommendations must be approved the entire City Council in an open
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may modify or reject the recommendation. This is not recommended as the
negotiation process with Gilroy Gardens will be better served by a Council committee
involved in discussions and the recommendation of terms as the negotiations progress.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no anticipated costs for this item. Any negotiated terms will be evaluated for
fiscal impacts at the time of consideration of the City Council.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, staff will coordinate with the appointed members to commence the
negotiation process.
10.2
p. 59 of 262
Page 1 of 3
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Authorization for Council Travel to the League of
California Cities Annual Conference, Selection of
Voting Delegate, and Direction Regarding the
Proposed League Resolution
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Administration
Submitted By:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
Prepared By:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Council:
1. Authorize Travel for Council Members Armendariz and Tovar, and Mayor
Blankley to attend the League of California Cities (League) Annual Conference.
2. Select a traveling council member as a voting delegate to vote on the proposed
League resolution.
3. Identify if Council desires to vote no or abstain in voting on the League
resolution.
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled to take place from
October 16-18, 2024, in Long Beach. As a member agency of the League of California
Cities, Gilroy has the opportunity to participate not only in the conference for the
educational seminars, but also in the consideration of a resolution that establishes
League policy at the General Assembly meeting on Friday, October 18th at 8:30 AM.
At this time, Mayor Blankley, Council Member Armendariz, and Council Member Tovar
are planning on attending the Conference.
10.3
p. 60 of 262
Authorization for Council Travel to the League of California Cities Annual Conference, Selection
of Voting Delegate, and Direction Regarding Proposed League Resolutions
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 October 7, 2024
ANALYSIS
Authorization of Council Travel
Pursuant to the City’s Travel and Expense Policy, travel for Council Members must be
approved by the City Council. At this time, there are three members of the City Council
planning to attend, and staff recommends Council authorization of their travel. The
Conference presents an opportunity to learn of key issues facing cities, and to learn of
ways other cities have resolved issues or made improvements to their communities that
might be transferrable to Gilroy.
Authorized travel is estimated to total $6,588 for all three attendees. This cost will be
paid from existing appropriations for professional development and meeting expenses.
This cost includes for each member the event registration ($700), airfare ($470), hotel
($834), and per diem for meals and incidentals at the U.S. General Services
Administration rates for Los Angeles County ($192).
Appointment of Voting Delegate
To vote in the General Assembly, each city in the League may appoint a voting delegate
to represent the city and cast a vote. Each city may also appoint up to two alternates to
vote in lieu of the voting delegate in the event that the delegate is not able to be present
at the General Assembly.
League Resolution
Attached is the resolution packet for the 2024 Conference. There is one resolution that
is policy related for consideration. Should a council member determine that they wish to
pull the resolution for discussion or to provide direction to not approve the item, then
during this report a member may do so. Staff has briefly reviewed the resolution, and
the resolution does not create either a financial or operational impact on the City. For
that reason, staff is not issuing a recommendation on the resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose not to approve the Council travel and not appoint a voting
delegate. This is not recommended as the conference grants the ability to learn best
practices to bring back to Gilroy, as well as being an event that sparks new ideas to
explore in delivering services to the community.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Authorized travel expenses are estimated to cost $6,588. No budget action is requested
as there is sufficient appropriations already approved for Council professional
development and meeting expenses.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting.
10.3
p. 61 of 262
Authorization for Council Travel to the League of California Cities Annual Conference, Selection
of Voting Delegate, and Direction Regarding Proposed League Resolutions
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 October 7, 2024
NEXT STEPS
Should Council appoint a voting delegate and any alternates, staff will submit the
name(s) to the League.
Attachments:
1. 2024 League Resolution Packet.
10.3
p. 62 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
10.3
p. 63 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Information on 2024 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, the Cal Cities President has referred the submitted
resolution to the Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy
Committee. The committee will meet on Oct. 3 at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the
resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions
Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register
for the meeting here.
A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting are
on page three of this packet.
Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference)
On Oct. 17 at 1:30 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the
resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.
The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities
caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten
additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment
period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program
for the location.
A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its
meeting are on page three of this packet.
Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference)
The General Assembly will convene on Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. to consider any
qualified resolutions. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must
have checked-in at the voting delegate booth.
Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the
evening of Oct. 17. For more information on voting and discussion procedures
during the General Assembly, see page four of this packet.
Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals
during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates
from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are
due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting
delegates who have checked-in at the voting delegate booth can receive more
information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite.
1
10.3
p. 64 of 262
Sixty days before the Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit policy proposals on issues of importance to cities. The resolution must have the concurrence of at least five additional member cities or individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates debate and consider general and petitioned resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy development is a member-informed process, grounded in the voices and experiences of city officials throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly
Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly.
2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 2
10.3
p. 65 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was
assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The below table shows what
recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.
Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve
Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly.
3
10.3
p. 66 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:
Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are
calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and
the Resolutions Committee.
For General Resolutions:
Policy Committee Recommendation Resolutions Committee Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:
Policy Committee Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar Disqualified Does not proceed to General Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the
General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the
Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will
be taken on the whole calendar. It an item is set aside, it will be opened for
discussion, followed by a vote.
Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions
Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions
Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General
Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.
Voting Procedures:
Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote
first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome a vote will be taken by
an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll
call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General
Assembly.
4
10.3
p. 67 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
2024 Resolution
1. Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All
Levels submitted by City of Glendora
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
ii. Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
iii. Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
iv. Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
v. John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
• Referred to Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy
Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
5
10.3
p. 68 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Fair and Equal
Treatment of All Governmental
Officials at All Levels submitted by
City of Glendora
6
10.3
p. 69 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT
LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE
FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Source: City of Glendora
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
City Officials: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales,
Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff,
Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos
Verdes
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy
Committee
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities
objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting
authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not
also apply to elected officials of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city
elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the
State of California include, but are not limited to:
California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act,
Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[]
that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public
agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is
the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local
agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly
requires all government agencies to consider the environmental
consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or
committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then
rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials;
7
10.3
p. 70 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the
Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected
officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development
project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of
California;
Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city
and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for
state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a
contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject
to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to
establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for
each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a
committee for one election for another election.
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities now
calls upon the Governor and the California Legislature to adopt a policy,
practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what
applies to one applies to all.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly,
assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2024 in Long
Beach, California, that the League calls upon the Governor of the State of
California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including
all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers
of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
8
10.3
p. 71 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
9
10.3
p. 72 of 262
July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the
California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in
California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not
approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California
cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members
of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to
laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under
the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of
support (attached):
✓Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.
Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora
10
10.3
p. 73 of 262
11
10.3
p. 74 of 262
12
10.3
p. 75 of 262
13
10.3
p. 76 of 262
14
10.3
p. 77 of 262
15
10.3
p. 78 of 262
2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
16
10.3
p. 79 of 262
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Johnnie Pina, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the
Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California
Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the
following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign
into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California
cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to
members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not
apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative
branch under the California Constitution.”
Background:
This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules
limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do
not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not
limited to:
•California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act,
Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;
•“One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
•Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political ReformAct (the “Act”); and
•Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county
candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide
office.
Ralph M. Brown Act
The California Attorney General’s (AG) Office defines The Ralph M. Brown Act
(Brown Act) as what governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The AG’s office
states the Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance
should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public
bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and
information gathering on the other.
The Ralph M. Brown Act governs local agencies, the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government code
17
10.3
p. 80 of 262
9027 governs the state Legislature. The California Constitution also mandates
open meetings for state agencies, boards, and commissions. Specifically, the
Constitution requires that each local agency comply with the Brown Act (Article
I, section 3(b)(7)): and that the proceedings of each house of the Legislature be
open and public (with exceptions for employment matters; matters affecting
security; confer with legal counsel; and to meet as a caucus (Article IV, section
7).
Although fairly detailed requirements apply to state agencies and other state
bodies, they do not apply to the Legislature. The Legislature has Constitutional
authority to adopt rules for its proceedings that are consistent with the
requirement that the proceedings of each house and the committees be open
and public.
Another notable difference between the Legislature and a city council is the
ability for Legislators to have a caucus to discuss a bill, express how they will
vote, and to count votes. This is not allowed under the Brown Act. One other
difference is that the laws governing teleconferencing for members of the state
Legislature is far less flexible than it is for local bodies. However, state agencies
have more flexibility than locals in that regard.
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The Resolution cites the Legislature's action in exempting from CEQA the
reconstruction of the State Capitol Annex building. The State Legislature
enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, establishing it
as a public disclosure law for the environmental review of discretionary projects
and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts.
SB 174 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chaptered by Secretary of
State. Chapter 74, Statutes of 2024 was signed into law July 2, 2024. This bill
exempts the work performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this example the
Legislature exempted themselves as not being considered a “public agency,”
“state agency,” or “lead agency” under CEQA. A lead agency under CEQA is
the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project that is subject to CEQA.
Over the years, the Legislature has also created many CEQA exceptions and
exemptions for local projects involving local agencies as well.
The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Senate Bill No. 1439
SB 1439 (Glazer) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 848, Statutes of 2022
amends section 84308 and is aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices, in
part by prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a
18
10.3
p. 81 of 262
proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from
contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12 month
period. When the Levine Act was first enacted in 1982, Section 84308 applied to
appointed members of boards and commissions who were running for elective
office. SB 1439 expended this law to now apply to local elected officials. Since it
is focused on permits and licenses, it now applies to State agencies and local
agencies that approve permits and licenses. Section 84308 does not apply to
the Legislature or the Courts. It is important to note that unlike local governments, neither issue permits and licenses.
The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Assembly Bill No. 571
AB 571 (Mullin) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 556, Statutes of 2019
established default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the
same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate
and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permitted a county or city to
establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.
The Resolution cites AB 571 as an example of treating cities differently than the
State. The Fair Political Practices Commission clarifies in their AB 571 fact sheet
that under AB 571 a city may elect to have "no" contribution limit in which case
the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction. A city
or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit, AB 571
sets a default in line with contributions Assembly Members and Senators if a city
or county is silent on contribution limits. Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. Existing Cal Cities Policy: Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy
to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
We Believe:
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
• In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness,
respect, and civility. The spirit of honest public service is what builds
communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the
public trust.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local
autonomy. The active participation of all city officials increases Cal Cities’
effectiveness.
19
10.3
p. 82 of 262
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused
advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive,
visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.
Comments: Additional Examples
The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed many laws that apply
to local governments and do not apply to the state or the state Legislature. This
year AB 2561(McKinnor) was introduced, which requires local governments to
present in a public meeting a detailed report about their vacancy rates and
detailed information about their hiring practices. This is an attempt to address
public sector vacancy rates. This bill does not apply to the state in a time when
they are also dealing with high vacancy rates.
Additionally, there were several bills that aim to amend the Levine Act, which
now applies to local elected officials, to make changes to SB 1439, referenced
previously in the analysis. None of the bills would amend the law to be
applicable to Assembly Members or Senators.
AB 817 (Pacheco), co-sponsored by Cal Cities tried to bring parity to the Brown
Act by making the teleconference rules for state advisory bodies the same for
local advisory bodies but the Legislature struck the bill down.
Applying to elected officials or to the legislative body? Legislature or the State?
The resolution also states, “… applies solely to elected officials of California cities
and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of
the California State Assembly and Senate.”
This portion of the resolve clause is specifically speaking to local elected officials
and State Assembly Members and Senators. However, many of the “where as”
clauses are in reference to laws that apply to cities, the state and the Legislature
as government agencies and not specifically to the elected officials on the
governing bodies. For example, the Brown Act applies rules to the Legislative
body and not the individual council member. Additionally, the city council as a
whole is the lead agency under CEQA and not the individual council members. Inherent Powers of the Legislative Branch
The resolution also states, “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations
affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California
Constitution.”
It is unclear what inherent powers of the legislate branch under the California
Constitution means in this context. The legislative branch does have the power
20
10.3
p. 83 of 262
of preemption over cities and can state that a change in law is a matter of state
wide concern. This allows the legislative branch to apply new laws or amend
existing laws to apply to general law and charter cities. It seems like the last
sentence of the resolve clause could negate the rest of the resolve clause if not
clarified.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21
10.3
p. 84 of 262
Page 1 of 5
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title:Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development
Agreement Operating Memorandum
Meeting Date:October 7, 2024
From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department:Community Development
Submitted By:Sharon Goei, Community Development Director
Prepared By:Cindy McCormick, Planning Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Develop a Financially Resilient Organization
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution to approve Addendum #2 to the Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
2. Adopt a Resolution to approve the Fourth Operating Memorandum to the Glen
Loma Ranch Development Agreement.
3. Adopt a Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget to appropriate
$7,200,000 as revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for contribution towards the
new Fire Station and $1,046,337 as expenditures to be transferred out of the
Traffic Impact Fund for the Traffic Impact Fee Reimbursement policy amounts
assigned to the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glen Loma Ranch development covers approximately 359 acres of land and
includes, among other things, open space, a trail system, parks, and a fire station.
The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan forecasted a buildout of 1,693 residential dwelling
units, and up to 7.8 acres of commercial/retail uses. However, the project has built out
at lower land use intensity than anticipated, and several of the traffic related mitigation
measures associated with the Specific Plan will not be triggered by the current planned
buildout. Therefore, the City has prepared an Addendum to the Glen Loma Ranch
10.4
p. 85 of 262
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating Memorandum
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 5 October 7, 20241
7
7
4
Specific Plan EIR based on the reduced buildout and associated mitigation measures.
Furthermore, given a desire to develop a new fire station at Glen Loma Ranch, the City
has prepared an Operating Memorandum to the Glen Loma Ranch Development
Agreement, to specifically identify the timing for dedication of land and funding for the
fire station.
BACKGROUND
Glen Loma Development: The Glen Loma Ranch Development is an approximately
359-acre property located in the western rolling foothills of Gilroy between Santa Teresa
Boulevard and Uvas Creek. The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan was approved in 2005
after a process that involved City officials, City staff, and input from the local community.
On November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan
(“Specific Plan”) and certified the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR (“Specific Plan
EIR”). The Specific Plan forecasted a buildout of 1,693 dwelling units, and up to 7.8
acres of commercial/retail uses, with the majority of the commercial/retail acreage (6.8
acres) devoted to the Town Center area.
Glen Loma Development Agreement: The City of Gilroy and Glen Loma Ranch
entered into a Development Agreement dated November 21, 2005, for the development
of the Glen Loma Ranch project. The Development Agreement obligated Glen Loma
Ranch to construct several public improvements including a fire station and two parks.
Cydney Casper Park has been constructed. The second park, McCutchin Creek Park,
and the fire station have not been constructed.
Operating Memorandum: Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Development Agreement,
the City and Glen Loma Ranch may enter into subsequent operating memoranda to
make minor refinements and clarifications. After execution, the operating memoranda
become a part of the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement. To date, the City and
Glen Loma Ranch have entered into three operating memoranda.
Under the First Operating Memorandum, executed June 21, 2017, Section 4.4.1.1 of the
Development Agreement was modified to replace the originally contemplated 16.3-acre
City Park with two smaller parks (Cydney Casper Park and McCutchen Creek Park)
totaling 8.1 acres (3.3 acres and 4.8 acres) due to concerns about maintenance costs
associated with the acreage. The remaining 8.2 acres is to be preserved as open
space.
Under the Second Operating Memorandum, executed October 5, 2018, Section 4.4.1.2
of the Development Agreement was modified to require the fire station to be designed
and constructed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 1,100th residential
unit, rather than the 1,000th residential unit of the Glen Loma Ranch development.
Under the Third Operating Memorandum, executed June 21, 2022, Glen Loma Ranch
agreed to pay the City $2,336,791 in lieu of constructing the McCutchin Creek Park.
That payment has been provided to the City. The Operating Memorandum allows the
10.4
p. 86 of 262
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating Memorandum
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 5 October 7, 20241
7
7
4
City to use this payment towards the funding for the Glen Loma Ranch fire station
instead of the McCutchin Creek Park.
The Development Agreement obligates Glen Loma Ranch to dedicate a parcel of land
to the City for a fire station and to construct a fire station on that parcel, subject to an
overall cost cap that included the two parks. As the project has evolved over nearly 20
years, the exact scope and timing of the remaining obligations has been the subject of
disagreement between Glen Loma Ranch and the City. The proposed fourth operation
memorandum resolves those differences and provides the agreed upon timeline and
mechanism for the dedication of the parcel and the payment to the City of funds to
enable the City to take responsibility for the construction of the fire station on the
dedicated parcel.
ANALYSIS
The Glen Loma Ranch development project has built out at lower land use intensity
than anticipated, and several of the traffic related mitigation measures associated with
the Specific Plan will not be triggered by the current planned buildout. Therefore, the
City has prepared an Addendum to the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) based on the reduced buildout and associated mitigation
measures. Furthermore, given the desire to build a new fire station at Glen Loma
Ranch, the City has prepared an Operating Memorandum to the Glen Loma Ranch
Development Agreement, that specifically identifies the timing for dedication of land and
funding for the fire station.
Fire Station: The terms of the Fourth Operating Memorandum would obligate Glen
Loma Ranch to convey the fire station parcel to the City and pay the City $7,200,000 in
lieu of constructing the fire station and will be paid by Glen Loma Ranch as follows:
1. At adoption of the Fourth Operating Memorandum
$542,906 cash payment
$1,046,0337 assignment of Traffic Impact Fee reimbursement
$1,589,243 total
2. Upon final approval by the City Council of Tentative Map 24-03
$1,000,000
3. Upon recordation of final map relative to Tentative Map 24-03
$3,610,757
4. Upon earlier of (1) final approval by the City Council of Tentative Map 24-02,
or (2) June 2, 2025
$1,000,000
10.4
p. 87 of 262
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating Memorandum
City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 5 October 7, 20241
7
7
4
Current Planned Buildout: The Glen Loma Ranch development has built out at lower
land use intensity than anticipated. The current projected buildout is 1,467 residential
units, including potentially 192 units in the Olive Grove neighborhood. In addition to
fewer residential units, no commercial use is proposed in the Specific Plan area.
Glen Loma Traffic Analysis: An analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with the
adopted Specific Plan was conducted by Higgins Associates in the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report (2005 Traffic Impact Report). Since the Glen Loma
Ranch development has built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated, the
applicant hired Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer, to prepare a revised traffic analysis to
determine which mitigation measures would still be triggered. The Keith Higgins
analysis concluded that the current projected buildout does not trigger several of the
Phase 3 mitigation measures. The City of Gilroy then hired Fehr & Peers to conduct a
peer review of the analysis. The peer review concluded that Mitigation Measures 36, 37,
39, 41, 43, and 44 are not required and that Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied
through the installed signalization.
EIR Addendum: A public agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (e.g., substantial project changes causing new or more
severe environmental impacts than shown in the EIR) are present. Accordingly,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15164, the City has prepared an Addendum to the
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR regarding the reduced buildout and associated
mitigation measures. Under the current planned buildout, Mitigation Measures 36, 37,
39, 41, 43, and 44 are not required and Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied
through the installed signalization. A description of the current planned buildout and the
associated mitigation measures is included in the attached EIR Addendum.
ALTERNATIVES
Denial of the approval of the Operating Memorandum would result in no changes to the
Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement as it currently stands. This alternative is not
recommended, as the $7,200,000 would assist the City in funding the costs to construct
the new fire station. Denial of the EIR Addendum is not recommended because it is the
appropriate CEQA document for the City Council’s consideration of the Fourth
Operating Memorandum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Approval of this Operating Memorandum would assist in funding the construction of the
new fire station in the Glen Loma Ranch area. The City will receive $7,200,000 from
Glen Loma, subject to the terms and timing milestones in the Fourth Operating
Memorandum.
A total of $7,200,000 received will be deposited into the City’s Capital Projects Fund
(400) as contribution to the new Fire Station. $6,153,663 will be in the form of Cash
10.4
p. 88 of 262
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating Memorandum
City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 5 October 7, 20241
7
7
4
payments to the City Glen Loma, and the remaining $1,046,337 will be in the form of
assignment of the Traffic Impact Fee Reimbursement Policy amounts to the City from
the Traffic Impact Fund (425).
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Addendum #2 to the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan
EIR
2. Addendum #2 to the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR
3. Draft Resolution Approving the Fourth Operating Memorandum to Glen Loma Ranch
Development Agreement
4. Fourth Operating Memorandum to Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement
5. Budget Amendment Resolution
10.4
p. 89 of 262
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
APPROVING GLEN LOMA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) ADDENDUM #2
DETERMINING THAT MITIGATION MEASURES 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44,
AND THE REMAINING REQUIREMENT UNDER MITIGATION
MEASURE 34 WILL NOT BE REQUIRED UNDER THE CURRENT
PLANNED BUILDOUT OF 1,467 DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO
12,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES.
WHEREAS, the Glen Loma Ranch Development involves a 359.6-acre property located
in the western rolling foothills of Gilroy between Santa Teresa Boulevard and Uvas Creek; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan (Resolution 2005-82); and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted and certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan
(Resolution 2005-81); and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2005, the City of Gilroy approved a Development
Agreement setting forth certain rights and responsibilities of the City and the Developer (Glen
Loma Ranch) with regard to the Glen Loma Ranch project that is the subject of the Specific Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2014, the City of Gilroy City Council adopted an addendum to
the certified EIR (EIR Addendum #1), modifying Mitigation Measures #4, #23, #31, and deleting
Mitigation Measures #32, and #42 (Resolution 2014-19); and
WHEREAS, the adopted EIR, adopted EIR Addendum #1, the corresponding findings and
resolutions of approval, and the adopted mitigation monitoring program, are incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan forecasted a buildout of 1,693 dwelling
units, up to 7.8 acres of commercial/retail uses, and 145 acres of parks and open space with an
extensive trail system linking the various neighborhoods and a town center component; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with the anticipated
buildout of the Specific Plan area was conducted by Higgins Associates in the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the current planned buildout of the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan is
1,467 dwelling units and up to 12,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses, which is much less
intensive than the anticipated buildout allowed under the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a revised traffic analysis was completed by Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer,
and peer reviewed by Fehr & Peers, concluding that, under the current planned buildout, the
triggering conditions for EIR Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not met, and thus
they are not required to be implemented, and also that Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied
10.4
p. 90 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum #2
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 2 of 4
2
0
5
7
through the installed signalization; and
WHEREAS, under the current projected buildout, none of the conditions described in
CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the City has now prepared an Addendum (EIR Addendum #2) to the Glen
Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15164, finding that
1. The analysis and determination that Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, and
the remaining requirement under Mitigation Measure 34 will not be required under
the current planned buildout would not result in the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects and will not require major revisions to the certified EIR;
2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the certified EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
3. There is no new information that shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the
final certified EIR is appropriate, and that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary based
upon the substantial evidence provided in Addendum #2.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the original final certified EIR and EIR Addendum #1,
this EIR Addendum #2 properly provides environmental review for the City’s decision, as
documented in the Fourth Operating Memorandum to the Development Agreement, that the
triggering conditions for EIR Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not met, and thus
they are not required to be implemented, and also that Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied
through the installed signalization; and
10.4
p. 91 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum #2
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 3 of 4
2
0
5
7
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and concludes that EIR Addendum #2 was prepared
in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and the City Council has considered EIR
Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and EIR Addendum #1, prior to making a decision
to approve the Fourth Operating Memorandum to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the CEQA documents for this project, including
the final certified EIR, EIR Addendum #1, and EIR Addendum #2, is the Community Development
Department, Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, if the current projected buildout assumptions change, additional
environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required at the expense of the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1) The City Council hereby approves EIR Addendum #2 and certifies that it was
prepared in full compliance with CEQA, and that no further environmental analysis is
necessary in order to approve the Fourth Operating Memorandum to the Development
Agreement and to carry out the implementation of the provisions thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2024 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
______________________________
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
10.4
p. 92 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Glen Loma Ranch EIR Addendum #2
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 4 of 4
2
0
5
7
CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BETH MINOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2024-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City
Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held
on Council held Monday, Date, with a quorum present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
the City of Gilroy this Date.
____________________________________
Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)
10.4
p. 93 of 262
A D D E N D U M # 2 T O T H E C E R T I F I E D F I N A L E IR
G LEN L O M A R A N C H S PE C IFIC P LA N
State Clearinghouse Number 2003042018
City of Gilroy
October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 94 of 262
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Background................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Analysis Summary...................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Reduced Project Scope ............................................................................................................. 2
4.0 Phase III Mitigation Measures................................................................................................. 5
5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 5
6.0 Proposed CEQA Findings....................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Map of Intersections and Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures
Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout (Keith Higgins May 26, 2022)
Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with
Current Projected Buildout (CPB) (Keith Higgins June 7, 2022)
Appendix D Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study
(Fehr & Peers January 30, 2024)
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Current Buildout of Glen Loma Ranch ……………………………………………..3
Malvasia, Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, and Town Center MF / Flex……………….4
Current Projected Buildout Assumptions ………………………………………….5
10.4
p. 95 of 262
1.0 Project Background
Specific Plan and Specific Plan EIR
The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area is located in Gilroy, northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard
and southwest of Uvas Creek. On November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy certified the Glen Loma
Ranch Specific Plan EIR (hereinafter “Specific Plan EIR”) and adopted the Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan (hereinafter “Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan EIR included several traffic related mitigation
measures that would be triggered by “Phase 3” of the Specific Plan buildout. The locations of the
mitigation measures, described in Section 4.0 below are included in Appendix A (Intersections and
Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures).
EIR Addendum #1
On May 19, 2014, the City of Gilroy City Council adopted an addendum to the certified EIR (Specific
Plan EIR Addendum #1), modifying Mitigation Measures #4, #23, #31, and deleting Mitigation
Measures #32, and #42 (Resolution 2014-19).
The adopted Specific Plan EIR, adopted Specific Plan EIR Addendum #1, the corresponding findings
and resolutions of approval, and the adopted mitigation monitoring program, are incorporated herein
by reference.
When is an Addendum Required?
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 gives direction to lead agencies regarding addendum to an EIR. It
states:
a. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
c. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or
elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
1
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 96 of 262
2.0 Analysis Summary
An analysis of potential traffic impacts was conducted by Higgins Associates in the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report (2005 Traffic Impact Report). Since the 2005 Traffic Impact
Report was drafted, the project has built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated, and the
Current Projected Buildout (CPB) is 1,467 residential units, including potentially 192 units in the Olive
Grove neighborhood, as provided in Section 3.0 of this Addendum.
Given the reduced buildout, the applicant hired Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer, to prepare a “Glen
Loma Ranch Traffic Study for Remaining Traffic Mitigation Measures” (dated May 21, 2019) , followed by an1
updated Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout memorandum from Keith Higgins to the Glen
Loma Group dated May 26, 2022 (Appendix B), and Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections
Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB) dated June 7, 2022 (Appendix C). The
purpose of the applicant commissioned Keith Higgins memorandums was to evaluate the necessity
of the below-referenced mitigation measures (Section 4.0) based upon the reduced build-out scenario
of the Specific Plan. The June 7, 2022 Keith Higgins memorandum concluded that “Because the CPB
trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2 trip generation,
the Phases 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB”. The June 7, 2022
memorandum also concluded that “The major finding is that, due to the substantial reduction in CPB
traffic generation compared to the GLR Phases 1+2 analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the CPB does
not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures”. However, the analysis did conclude that Mitigation
Measure #35, requiring a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue
intersection, would still be required.
The City of Gilroy then hired Fehr & Peers to conduct a Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current
Projected Buildout Traffic Study memorandums dated May 26, 2022 and June 7, 2022, to confirm whether
the mitigation measures for Phase 3 are still required with the reduced CPB. The Peer review, dated
January 30, 2024, concluded that mitigation measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not required and
that Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied through the installed signalization (Appendix D).
The City of Gilroy also hired EMC Planning to determine if a change to the timing of the mitigation
measures could be accomplished with preparation of an addendum to the certified EIR.
3.0 Reduced Project Scope
The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan forecasted a build out of 1,693 dwelling units, and up to 7.8 acres
of commercial/retail uses, with the majority of the commercial/retail acreage (6.8 acres) devoted to
the Town Center area . As illustrated in Table 1 below, the current build-out of residential units within2
each of the 19 neighborhoods is lower than originally forecasted in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan.
1 A peer review dated March 6, 2020 and additional memorandums dated January 22, 2021, February 16, 2021, April 13,
2021, July 6, 2021, and January 7, 2022 were superseded by the 2022 memorandums and the 2024 Peer Review.
2 Glen Loma Specific Plan, pages 16-18
2
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 97 of 262
Table 1 – Current Buildout of Glen Loma Ranch
Neighborhood Name Specific Plan
Mid-Forecast
Tentative Map
Application #
Tentative Map
Approved Units
Difference
Olive Grove (Held by GUSD)
McCutchin Creek
Palomino
192
38
TBD
TM 16-01 26 -12
57 TM 16-01
TM 21-05
(Palomino I ) 33
(Palomino II) 04 -20
-10
-29
-14
Home Ranch (now Burgandy)
Wild Chestnut (now Provence)
Montonico (now Margaux)
Nebbiolo
62
72
98
97
TM 13-08
TM 13-08
TM 15-01
52
43
84
TM 18-02
TM 18-02
(Nebbiolo I ) 35
(Nebbiolo II) 67 +5
The Glen 27
185
47
TM 18-02
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
AS 17-37
23
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
158
-4
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
(see below)
+2
Malvasia
Canyon Creek
Rocky Knoll 33
Town Center Multi-Family
Town Center Affordable
Luchessa
189
156
54 TM 16-03
TM 13-08
TM 13-08
TM 16-03
TM 13-08
49 -5
Petite Sirah 85 77 -8
Mataro 61 51 -10
The Grove (now Blanc / Noir)
Vista Bella
78 64 -14
162 146 -16
Existing Build-Out Sub-Total 912 units
Specific Plan Mid-Forecast Total 1,693 units
The applicant is also proposing a reduced build out in the Malvasia, Cayon Creek, and Rocky Knoll
neighborhoods, and the remaining undeveloped Town Center flex area, as illustrated in Table 2 below.
It should be noted that the 46 residential units in the Malvasia I neighborhood have already been built
but are illustrated in Table 2 since the Specific Plan did not anticipate that the Malvasia neighborhood
would be built in two phases.
3
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 98 of 262
Table 2 – Malvasia, Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, and Town Center MF / Flex
Neighborhood Name Specific Plan
Mid-Forecast
Tentative Map
Application #
Tentative Map Difference
Proposed Units
Malvasia I 185 TM 18-02
TM 24-03
46
Malvasia II 23
40
21
-116
-7Canyon Creek 47
33
TM 24-03
TM 24-03Rocky Knoll -12
Town Center Multi-Family / Flex 189 TM 17-01
TM 24-02
3built 124
proposed 42 -22
Proposed Unit Sub-Total 296 units
Specific Plan Mid-Forecast Total 1,693 units
In addition to reducing the number of residential dwelling units in the Malvasia, Canyon Creek, Rocky
Knoll, and Town Center flex area, no commercial uses are currently proposed in the Tentative map
application for the Town Center area (TM 24-02) or anywhere else in the Specific Plan area. While
commercial uses are not required in the Specific Plan area, they are a desired use and therefore the
current projected build-out does includes up to 12,000 sf of non-residential uses (including office,
restaurant, and commercial).
As illustrated in Table 3 below, the current projected build out of the Glen Loma Specific Plan area is
1,467 units including 912 units from Table 1, 296 units from Table 2, 77 projected units held in reserve
by the Glen Loma Ranch Corporation (or its successor), and 192 forecasted units in the Olive Grove
neighborhood which is currently owned and being held in reserve by the Gilroy Unified School
District. It is not known if, when, or how many units may be built in the Olive Grove neighborhood,
or the remaining projected units.
Table 3 – Current Projected Buildout Assumptions
Current Non-Residential
Square FootageProjected Units
Current Build-Out from Table 1
Proposed Units from Table 2
Olive Grove Forecasted Units
Remaining Projected Units
Fire Station
912
286
192
77
7,350
12,000 sf of commercial uses
Total
12,000
1,467 units 19,350 square feet
3 TM 17-01 approved 125 units, however only 124 units were built.
4
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 99 of 262
4.0 Phase III Mitigation Measures
The 2022 Keith Higgins memorandums (Appendices B and C) and the 2024 Fehr and Peers Peer
Review (Appendix D) concluded that mitigation measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not required
and that Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied through the installed signalization, under the current
projected buildout (CPB) assumptions (Table 3), given the reduced CPB traffic generation compared
to the Background Phases 1+2 trips analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study. If the current projected
buildout assumptions change, additional environmental review will be required at the expense of the
applicant.
The locations of the mitigation measures, presented below, are included in Appendix A, Intersections
and Streets with Remaining Mitigation Measures.
MM-34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound
and westbound left turn lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
Note: This mitigation measure has been partially-completed. The intersection has been
signalized.
MM-35. Add a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
MM-36. Prepare a traffic management plan of the Miller Avenue street section southwest of the
intersection with Uvas Park Drive.
The project proponent shall be responsible for preparation of the plan. The plan shall be
subject to review and approval by the City staff and constructed by the project, prior to
issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
MM-37. Add second eastbound and westbound left turn lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First
Street intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
5
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 100 of 262
MM-39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and
southbound left-turn lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Note: This intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours with
implementation of this improvement. However, under General Plan Buildout Conditions,
the Tenth Street Bridge would be required to be constructed. With the Tenth Street
Bridge, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS C
during the PM peak hour with NO improvements, e.g. signalization and lane additions.
Therefore, the mitigation measure identified above would not be required under General
Plan Buildout Conditions, assuming the Tenth Street Bridge were constructed.
One option would be to only add the northbound left-turn lane as recommended in the
previous scenario (Background Plus Project Phases I and II) and consider LOS E as an
acceptable short-term level of service for this intersection. Another option is to implement
the mitigation measure above (signalize the intersection and add the left-turn lanes, which
would improve operations to LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours), with the
knowledge that the signal could be removed once the Tenth Street Bridge is constructed
at General Plan Buildout Conditions.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
MM-41. If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern
roundabout, add a second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge
to four lanes. This would result in LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
OR
If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right
turn lane was added, add a second westbound left turn lane and westbound through lane
and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
MM-43. Add second northbound and westbound left turn lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa
Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
MM-44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with
Santa Teresa Boulevard.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation
of this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
6
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 101 of 262
Party responsible for implementation: Project Proponent
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
5.0 Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions are presented:
1. Mitigation Measure 36, which requires preparation of a traffic management plan of the Miller
Avenue section southwest of the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection within
Christmas Hill Park, was not evaluated in the 2022 Higgins report. However, based upon
further research conducted by Fehr & Peers, it was determined that this mitigation measure is
not required under the current planned buildout (CPB) assumptions in Table 3. If the CPB
assumptions change, additional environmental review will be required at the expense of the
applicant.
2. Mitigation Measure 35, which requires adding a northbound left turn lane to the Uvas Park
Drive/Miller Avenue intersection, is required under CPB assumptions.
3. The analysis and peer review concluded that the following mitigation measures are not
required under the current planned buildout (CPB) assumptions in Table 3. If the CPB
assumptions change, additional environmental review will be required at the expense of the
applicant. Section 4.0 above provides information for the following mitigations measures.
a. Mitigation Measure 34 (The signalization mitigates the impact);
b. Mitigation Measure 36;
c. Mitigation Measure 37;
d. Mitigation Measure 39;
e. Mitigation Measure 41;
f. Mitigation Measure 43; and
g. Mitigation Measure 44.
4. Additional environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required if development is
proposed that exceeds the Current Projected Buildout (CPB) presented in Table 3 above, and
as further analyzed in Appendices B, C, and D.
6.0 Proposed CEQA Findings
The following CEQA findings are recommended:
1.None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred. These are:
a. The analysis and determination that Mitigation Measures 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44
will not be required under the current planned buildout (Table 3) would not result in
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects and will not require major revisions to the
certified EIR;
b. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the certified EIR due to
7
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 102 of 262
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
c. There is no new information that shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
2.
3.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (c), this addendum was not circulated
for public review.
The City Council considered Addendum #2, along with the final certified EIR and
Addendum #1, prior to making a decision on the request to eliminate the mitigation
measures.
4.The City Council has determined that this Addendum #2 to the final certified EIR is
appropriate, and that preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary based upon the
substantial evidence provided in Addendum #2.
7.0 Sources
Fehr & Peers. Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout Traffic Study. January 30,
2024.
Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout. May 26, 2022.
Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer. Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersections Mitigations in the 2005 EIR
with Current Projected Buildout (CPB). June 7, 2022.
8
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum #2 October 3, 2024
10.4
p. 103 of 262
AMap of Intersections and Streets with Remaining
Mitigation Measures
APPENDIX
10.4
p. 104 of 262
INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING MITIGATION MEASURES
GLEN LOMA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Santa Teresa at First Street
Mitigations #37 & #44
Princevalle at 10th Street
Mitigation #40
Uvas Park at Miller
Mitigations #35, #36, & #39 Monterey Road at Luchessa
Mitigation #43
Luchessa Bridge
Mitigation #41
10.4
p. 105 of 262
INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS WITH REMAINING MITIGATION MEASURES
GLEN LOMA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Santa Teresa at Fitzgerald
Mitigation #34
10.4
p. 106 of 262
BGlen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout
APPENDIX
10.4
p. 107 of 262
Keith HigginsTraffic Engineer
May 26, 2022
Glen Loma Group
c/o Augie Dent
7888 Wren Ave D143
Gilroy CA 95020
Re:Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout
Dear Augie:
The original 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan included a maximum of 1,690 dwelling units and
155,500 square feet of non-residential floor area. In connection with the original project approval, my
previous firm, Higgins Associates, prepared the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report
dated June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study).
Tje project has built out at lower intensity than the maximum anticipated under the original EIR and Specific
Plan approval, theCurrent Projected Buildout (CPB) for Glen Loma Ranch is as follows:
1. A maximum of 1,275 residential units on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher (953 units completed or
under construction, Vesting Tentative Maps in process for an additional 252 units, and up to an
additional 70 units, anticipated to be multi-family units located in the town center flex area).
2. A fire station in the town center flex area.
3. Commercial uses on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher in the Town Center that shall not ex ed
12,000 square feet.
4. The potential for 192 multi-family housing units on the Olive Grove site that is owned by the Gilroy Unified
School District.
This letter assesses whether the mitigations recommended for GLR Phases 1+2 in the original 2005 EIRwill
be adequate for the CPB. First, it compares the trip generation anticipated from the CPB with the trip
generation anticipated from GLR 1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study. Second, a comparison is provided between
the CPB and the GLR 1+2 AM and PM traffic assignments used to calculate levels of service and determine
corresponding mitigation measures at the 2005 Traffic Study study intersections and street segments.
A. CPB Trip Generation
The CPB is projected to generate 11,762 daily trips, 864 AM peak hour trips and 1,123 PM peak hour trips.
See Attachment 1, Row 2b.
2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM
10.4
p. 108 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
B. GLR 1+2 Trip Generation
The 2005 Traffic Study analyzed a development scenario referred to as the “Background Plus Project
Phases 1 and 2 Traffic Conditions” (GLR 1+2) which included 1,005 dwelling units and 111,500 square feet
of non-residential (primarily retail) floor area.
•
•
•
Phase 1 was projected to generate 4,272 daily trips with 344 in the AM peak hour and 455 in the
PM peak hour.
Phase 2 was forecasted to generate 11,766 daily trips including 642 in the AM peak hour and 1,116
in the PM peak hour.
Phases 1 and 2 were expected to generate a total of 16,038 daily trips, 986 AM peak hour trips and
1,571 PM peak hour trips.
The above are tabulated on Table 6, “Project Trip Generation,” of the 2005 Traffic Study which is included
herein as Attachment 2. The total GLR 1+2 is summarized in Attachment 1, Row 3c.
C. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment
It is important to emphasize that no internal trip reduction between residential and retail uses within GLR
was credited in the 2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis. All GLR 1+2 residential and non-residential trips
were assigned to and from locations external to the GLR as shown by Figure 14 of the 2005 Traffic Study,
included herein as Appendix A. The corresponding trip assignments at the GLR gateway intersections are
tabulated on Attachment 3, totalled on Attachment 4 and summarized on Attachment 1, Row 4. The
2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis was very conservative in not applying an internal trip reduction credit
and using even higher volumes for the actual intersection level of service analysis on which mitigation
recommendations were based.
D. Comparison of CPB with GLR 1+2 Trip Generation Estimates
Some important comparisons are:
•
•
•
Attachment 1, Row 5a, the current CPB is expected to generate 4,276 less daily trips, 122 less
AM peak hour trips and 448 less PM peak hour trips than the 2005 Traffic Study Phase 1+2
estimate.
The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 27%, 12% and
28%, respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 trip generation estimates, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 5b.
The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 17% and 30%,
respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 AM and PM peak hour trip assignments, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 6b.
The CPB will clearly generate substantially less traffic than anticipated for Phases 1+2 in the 2005
Traffic Study.
2
10.4
p. 109 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
E. GLR Trip Reduction Effect on Traffic Volumes on Access Routes
The reduction in overall GLR trip generation is largely due to the reduction in commercial land uses in the
Town Center, which is located in the central part of the GLR. As indicated on the “Percent of Total” column
on Attachment 2:
•
•
•
78% of GLR traffic was expected to impact the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue (15%), Santa Teresa
Boulevard / Miller Avenue (20%) and Luchessa Avenue / Thomas Road (42%) intersections, which
are the primary access routes to and from the Town Center.
The current non-residential land uses in the Town Center are expected to generate a total of about
575 daily trips with 24 during the AM peak hour and 53 during the PM peak hour, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 1j.
This is a reduction of 7,250 daily trips, 303 AM peak hour trips and 662 PM peak hour trips from the
7,825 daily, 327 AM peak hour and 715 PM peak hour trips expected from the Town Center non-
residential trips in GLR 1+2.
Again, all of the considerable GLR 1+2 non-residential trips were assumed to be external to the GLR, much
of which were expected to impact the Luchessa Avenue bridge and the Miller Avenue crossing of Uvas
Creek.
It is clear that the CPB will result in less traffic on the access routes including Thomas Road - Luchessa
Avenue, Miller Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard north and south of the GLR than the volumes
forecasted in the 2005 Traffic Study. The impacts from the CPB will be less than anticipated from GLR 1+2.
The mitigations recommended in the 2005 Traffic Study for GLR 1+2 will therefore adequately mitigate the
CPB impacts.
F. Current GLR Buildout Trip Generation Comparison with 2005 GLR Buildout
Finally, it should also be noted that:
•
•
The full buildout of the original GLR was anticipated to generate about 24,294 net daily trips with
1,435 during the AM Peak Hour and 2,399 during the PM Peak Hour (Attachment 1, Row 7c).
The CPB will generate less than one-half as much daily and more significant PM peak hour traffic
as the original proposal (Attachment 1, Rows 8 and 9).
G. Summary and Conclusion
Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2
trip generation, the GLR 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. No further traffic
studies are required. No Phase 3 traffic improvements, including construction of the 10th Street bridge or
the Luchessa Ave. bridge widening, are required for the Glen Loma Ranch CPB.
3
10.4
p. 110 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Attachments
4
10.4
p. 111 of 262
ITE
LAND USE
CODE
DAILY
TRIP
RATE
AM PEAK
HOUR
RATE
PM PEAK
HOUR
RATETRIP GENERATION RATES
Single-Family Detached Housing (per unit)
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (per unit)
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (per unit)
Senior Adult Housing - Attached (per unit)
210 8.77
7.41
0.72
0.45
0.36
0.20
1.16
0.73
0.94
0.93
0.53
0.44
0.27
1.15
7.80
3.81
220
221
252
710
931
820
5.44
3.69
General Office (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Quality Restaurant (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Shopping Center (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
9.74
83.84
37.75
AM PEAK
HOUR
TRIPS
PM PEAK
HOUR
TRIPS
PROJECT SIZE DAILY
TRIPSCURRENT CPB TOTAL Residential Commercial Municipal/Office
1. CPB Without Olive Grove
a. Single Family Homes
b. Townhomes
840 units
277 units
80 units
78 units
7,367
2,053
435
601
126
29
15
12
5
784
146
35c. Apartments
d. Senior Adult Housing - Attached
e. Fire Station
288 21
0 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
50 2
f. General Office 4,000 sq. ft.
4,000 sq. ft.
0
0
39 5
g. Quality Restaurant
h. Commercial
335 3 31
4,000 sq. ft.0 151 4 15
i. Subtotal 1,275 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 10,718
575
795
24
1,039
53j. Town Center Non-Residential (1e+f+g+h)
2. CPB With Olive Grove
a. Olive Grove Apartments
b. Subtotal (1i + 2a)
192 units 1,044 69 84
1,467 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.11,762 864 1,123
3. 2005 TRAFFIC STUDY PHASES 1+2 *
a. Phase 1 464 units 0 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
4,272
11,766
16,038
7,825
344
642
986
327
455
1,116
1,571
715
b. Phase 2 541 units 81,500 sq. ft.30,000
30,000c. Phases 1+2 (3a + 3b)
d. Town Center Non-Residential Subtotal
1,005 units 81,500 sq. ft.
4. Original Phases 1+2 Traffic Assignment per 2005 Traffic Study, Figure 14**1,037 1,605
5. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation
a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 3c)-4,276
-27%
-122 -448
b. Net Percent Difference (5a divided by 3c)-12%-28%
6. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment
a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 4)-173 -482
b. Net Percent Difference (6a divided by 4)-17%-30%
7. ORIGINAL GLR BUILDOUT *
a. Phase 3 Only 685 units 46,500 sq. ft.27,500 sq. ft.10,955
26,993
24,294
608 1,095
2,666
2,399
b. Buildout (3c + 8a)1,690 units 128,000 sq. ft.57,500 sq. ft.1,594
1,435c. Net Buildout (7b minus 10% Internal Trips)
8. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and Original Buildout (2b - 7c)-12,532
48%
-571
60%
-1,276
47%9. CPB as Percent of Original Buildout - With Olive Grove (2b divided by 8c)
Notes:
1. Trip generation rates - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual," 10th Edition, 2017.
2. Trip activity for all residential land uses utilize fitted curve equations. Cited trip rates are equivalent rates per housing unit.
3. CPB data cited from Glen Loma Ranch Traffic Study for Remaining Traffic Mitigation Measures Per the Glen Loma Ranch
Development Agreement Section 4.4.7, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, May 19, 2019. Commercial uses represent current CPB max. size.
4. * - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachment 2.
5. ** - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachments 3 and 4.
Attachment 1
Project Trip Generation
Comparison
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 112 of 262
Attachment 2 - 2005 Traffic Study
Table 6Project Trip Generation
PEK HOR TRIP RTES & DISTRIBUTIOꢶ
M PEK HOUR%PM PEK HOR
%ITELAND UꢀE
ꢛODE
DAILY TOTAL
TRIP PEAK
TOTAL
PEAKPROJECT
ꢀIZE OF OFRATEꢀ HOUR Dꢣꢄlv Trꢄns IN OUT HOUR Dꢾilv Trins IN OUT._�
TRIP GENERATION RATES
ꢀingle Famꢄꢤy Detachꢂd Housꢄng
Town HomesApartments
ꢀenior Housꢄng (Congrꢂgꢾte ꢛaꢍꢂ Facility)
Total ꢶumbeꢻ Housing Units
210231
220
793 Homes570 Units
177 Units15꣎ Units
9.57
5.866-72
꣎.75
0.670.510.16
8%
11%8%
0.25 ꣎.75 1.010.78꣎.62
꣎.25
11%13%9%
꣎.63 0.37
꣎.420.35
0.39
0.250.2꣎
0.45
0.75꣎.8꣎
꣎.55
0.58꣎.65
꣎.6112514.52 4%5%
1690 Unts
Generꢾꢤ Retꢣil - ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅlꢆ Retꢣil- Vidꢂo ꢀtore 814896
912495
ꢀANDAG931
93285꣎71꣎852
2꣎,꣎꣎꣎ ꢀF
4,0꣎꣎ ꢀF5,000 ꢀF
44.32
175.0꣎246.49
114.0꣎12꣎.꣎꣎
89.95127.151꣎2.24
11.01
0.꣎00.꣎꣎
12.341.624.8꣎
꣎.8111.523.25
1.5531.2꣎
꣎.00
0%0%
5%1%4%
1%9%
3%14%
6%꣎%
꣎.꣎00.꣎꣎
0.560.61
0.6꣎0.5꣎꣎.52
꣎.610.88
꣎.5꣎0.00
0.0꣎0.00
꣎.44꣎.39
0.4꣎꣎.50꣎.48
0.390.12
0.500.꣎꣎
2.7113.60
45.741.64
12.꣎07.491꣎.92
1꣎.45
1.49
6%8%
19%1%
10%8%9%10%14%
7%
0.440.46
꣎.5꣎꣎.29꣎.50
꣎.67꣎.61
0.510.17
0.490.44
0.560.54꣎.500.710.50
0.330.39
0.490.83
0.510.56
- BankCꢉmmunity BuꢄldꢄꢼgCommerꢡial/ꢀꢂrvicꢗRꢗstꢾurꢾnts - Quꢾlꢄty- High Turꢎovꢂr
ꢀupꢂnnꢾrkꢂt
5,0꣎꣎ ꢀF25,꣎00 ꢀF1꣎,꣎0꣎ ꢀF
1꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF34,꣎0꣎ ꢀf
35,0꣎0 ꢀF3,꣎00 SF
Offꢨces
Conveꢎiꢗnꢡꢂ Mꢣrkꢂt (Northern Commeꢰcꢄal)ꢀpecialty Retꢣiꢤ ꢇꢈꢉꢊꢋꢌꢍꢎ ꢛꢉmmꢂrciꢣl)
Tꢳtal Town Center & ꢏꢐꢑꢒꢓꢔꢕ Commꢓꢻcial
492.00
44.32 34.572.718144,50꣎ ꢀF155,500 SF 6%
Firꢪ ꢀtation2 3꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF 50.꣎꣎12.꣎꣎24%6.0꣎6.00 2.꣎꣎°4 /o 1.00 1.꣎0
-·NUMBER OF TRIPS.GENERTED
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HORITE
LAND UꢀEꢛODE
TOTALPEAK %TOTAL
TRIPꢀ TRIPꢀ PEAKIN OUT
%PROJECTꢀ!ZE DAILY OF OF TRIPꢀ TRIPꢀ
IN OUTTRIPꢀ HOUR Daꢄlv Trins HOUR Dꢾiꢤv TrinsPROJECT TRIPS • PHSE 1 (2005 tꢐ 20101
ꢀingle Fꢣmꢄly Dꢂtached Housing
Town Homꢗs 210231 405 Hꢭmꢗs59 Units 3,876
396
3꣎4
4꣎
8%
1꣎%
76
1꣎2283꣎4꣎946 11%
12%
258
27
151
19
TOTALPROJECT TRIPS - PHSE I (Residential only)464 Units 4,272 344 8%86 258 455 11%285 170
PROJECT TRIPS - PHASE 2 (2010 to 2014}
ꢀingle Fꢣmꢄly Detached Housing
Town HomꢂsApꢅrtments.
219231
22꣎
167 Homꢂs197 Units
177 Units541
1,5981,154
1,189
3,941
125
10꣎9꣎
8%
9%8%
8%
31
2꣎
18
69
94
8072
169
12211꣎
401
11%
11%9%
1꣎6
7972
257
63
4338Total Tꢻps Hꢷusing Units 315 246 10%
Genꢪral Retail - ꢀꢖꢗꢘiꢙlꢚ Rꢂtaꢄl
ꢛꢜꢝꢞꢟꢠꢡꢢꢣꢤꢥꢦꢂꢧꢨꢩꢪRꢂstꢅurꢾnts • Quality
814ꢀANDAG931932
85꣎71꣎852
814
1꣎,000 ꢀF12,500 ꢀF
2,500 ꢀF2,5꣎0 ꢀF
34,꣎00 ꢀF12,500 ꢀF
3,000 ꢀF4,500 SF
81,500 SF
4431,5꣎0
225318
3,476138
1,476199
0
602
2911119
94
꣎
0%
4%1%
9</03%
14%6%꣎%4%
꣎
361
1568
1747
꣎
꣎
24
1
1443
247
꣎
131
27
15019
27355
191꣎412
713
2
6%
10%8%
12
7513
16181
351
5
356
1
15
756
11174
1653
7
- Hꢄgh Turnovꢂr 8%ꢀupermarket 10%
14%7%
6%
9%
4%
9%
OfficesConvꢗnience Mꢅrket ꢫꢬꢭꢮꢯꢂꢰꢱ ꢛommꢂrcꢄaꢤ)
ꢀpꢂciꢾꢤty Rꢂtꢣil (Northern ꢛꢭmmercꢄꢾl)ꢲꢳꢴꢵ Tꢻips Tꢳwn Center & ꢶꢷꢸꢹꢺꢻꢼ Cꢷmmeꢻcial 7,775 315
12
184
6
357
1Fire Station2 3꣎,꣎00 ꢀꢽ5꣎24%6
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS • PHASE 2 11,766 642 5%259 383 1,116 614 502
PROJECT TRIPS· PHASE 3 {2014 tꢳ 20181
ꢀinglꢂ Famꢄly Dꢗtachꢂd HꢉusꢄꢎgTꢉwn Homes
ꢀenior Housing (Congregatꢂ Carꢂ ꢽꢾꢿꣀliꢚꣁ1
210
231
252
221 Hꢉmes
314 Units
15꣎ Units
2,115
1,84꣎678
16616꣎25
8%9%
4%
4232
11
12412814
223195
37
11%11%
5%
14꣎127
23
8368
14
Total TripsHousing Units 685 Units 4,633 351 8%85 266 455 10%290 165
ꢛommunity BuiꢤdingGꢪnꢪral Rꢓtail - ꢀpꢂciꢅꢤty Rꢟtꢣil
- Vꢄdꢂo ꢀtoꢍe
495814
896912
SANDAG931
5,꣎00 ꢀF1꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF
4,0꣎꣎ ꢀF5,0꣎꣎ ꢀF
12,500 ꢀF7,50꣎ ꢀF
7,5꣎꣎ ꢀF22,5꣎꣎ ꢀF
74,000 SF
57꣎4437꣎꣎
1,2321,50꣎
675954248
6,322
8
00
826꣎
686
35
257
1%꣎%
꣎꣏꣐꣑5%4%
1%9%
14%
4%
5꣎
꣎3536
345
31
155
30
꣎27
24341
4
827
54229
150
5682
34
640
1%6%
8%19%
1꣎%8%
9%14%
10%
212
25115
753850
6
15
29114751832
28
317
- Bꢙnk
Commerc!a!/ꢀerviceRestauꢰꢾnts - Qualꢄty
- High Turnovꢗr 932710Offiꢃꢪs 6
323Tꢷtal Trips Tꢷwn Cent꣄r & ꢶꢐꣂꣃ꣄ꣅ Cꢷmmerciaꢵ102
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS - PS 3
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS - BUILDOUT
Inteꢻnaꢵ Trips3 (-10%)
10,955
26,993
2,699
608
1,594
159
6%
6%
240
585
59
368
1,009
1꣎1
1,095
2,666
267
10%
10%
613
1,512
151
482
1,154
115
1690 Unts155 500 SFTOTAL PRIMARY PROJECT
BUILDOUTTRIPS
24,294 1,435 6%526 908 2,399 10%1,361 1,039
Notes:
Trip gonora1ion rates b!hd by Institute ofTransporation
E,
G" 7h Edition, 2003, unless noted1. Based on a Paper Pesened at the ITE 661h A Mooting on Somr Housing Trip Generation and Parking
Cc
2. Based on discussions with EngineerAnthony Holiday3. of non-rosiden1ial trips DUE TO Neghborhd District
Land Use HIGGINS
ASSOCIATES
10.4
p. 113 of 262
7. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Ballybunion Drive -
West Luchessa Avenue5. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Club Drive 9. Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive
192 7 56
(145)(5)(134)
122(92)
0(0)70(53)
3(2)
0(0)4(3)
14(34)
Ballybunion Dr.Miller Ave.Club Dr.W Luchessa Ave.
28(58)19(29)34(25)0(0)0(0)
86 3 81
(210)(6)(112)
10. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Miller Avenue - Tenth Street 11. Thomas Road / West Luchessa Avenue
107 149
(184)(411)
86(151)
0(0)21(33)137(379)
W. Luchessa Ave.Miller Ave.
Tenth St.
0(0)239(230)26(26)
91 265
(142)(256)
Attachment 3
Phase 1 and 2
Trip Assignment
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 114 of 262
AM Peak Hour
Out
Percent
of Total
PM Peak Hour
Out
Percent
of TotalInTotalInTotal
A. Figure 14 - Trip Assignment - Phase 1 + Phase 2
Intersection
No. Name
5
7
9
Santa Teresa / Club
Santa Teresa / Ballybunion
86
3
56
91
149
385
192
7
81
107
265
652
278
10
137
198
414
1,037
27%
1%
13%
19%
40%
100%
210
6
134
142
411
903
145
5
112
184
256
702
355
11
246
326
667
1,605
22%
1%
15%
20%
42%
100%
Uvas Park /Miller
10 Santa Teresa / Miller
11 Luchessa /
Total
Thomas
B. Table 6 - Project Trip Generation Totals
GLR Phase 1
GLR Phase 2
Phases 1+2
86
259
345
258
383
641
344
642
986
285
614
899
170
502
672
455
1,116
1,571
C. Trip Assignment Increase Above
Trip Generation 40 11 51 4 30 34
D. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment as
Percent of GLR 1+2 Trip 112%102%105%100%104%102%
Source: "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study), Table 6 and
Figure 14.
Attachment 4
Glen Loma Ranch
Phase 1+2 Trip Assignments
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 115 of 262
APPENDIX A -
2005 TRAFFIC
STUDY,
FIGURE 14
10.4
p. 116 of 262
CGlen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigation
Measures in the 2005 EIR with
Current Projected Buildout (CPB)
APPENDIX
10.4
p. 117 of 262
Keith HigginsTraffic Engineer
June 7, 2022
Glen Loma Group
c/o Augie Dent
7888 Wren Avenue D143
Gilroy, CA 95020
Re: Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout
(CPB)
Dear Augie:
This letter is in response to a request by Jon Biggs, Gilroy Interim Planning Director, to analyze the effect of the
reduced trip generation from the Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout (CPB) on project traffic
distribution, assignment and traffic operations at the following intersections and streets with remaining mitigation
measures.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation 34)
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations 37 and 44)
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 and 39)
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation 40)
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 41)
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (Associated with Mitigation 41)
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 43)
The locations of these intersections are shown on Attachment A. For reference, the original 2005 Project
mitigations for these seven intersections are excerpted in Attachment B.
A. CPB Trip Generation Summary
My letter to you dated May 26, 2022 indicated that the CPB will generate about 11,762 daily trips with 864 in the
AM peak hour and 1,123 in the PM peak hour. These are about 27% less daily trips and 17% less AM traffic and
30% less PM traffic than was anticipated for Glen Loma Ranch Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2). The CPB is also
expected to generate about 60% less AM peak hour traffic and 40% less PM peak hour traffic than the 24,294
daily, 1,435 AM and 2,399 PM trips anticipated for the original Glen Loma Ranch Buildout.
2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM
10.4
p. 118 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
B. CPB Traffic Volume Forecasts
The CPB AM and PM peak hour trip assignments to the study intersections are illustrated on Attachment C
using the same trip distribution and assignment assumptions used in the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic
Impact Report,” June 6, 2005, prepared by my previous firm, Higgins Associates, (2005 Traffic Study). CPB
volumes are added to the 2005 Traffic Study Background volumes, the base volumes for the analysis of Phases
1+2 impacts. The resulting CPB volumes are depicted on Attachment D.
C. Background Plus CPB Traffic Operations
Attachment E provides a summary table with Background plus Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2) levels of service and
recommended mitigation measures used as the basis for the mitigation measures described in Attachment B. It
also tabulates levels of service and recommended mitigation measures with the lower CPB volumes. The results
by intersection are as follows.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation
34)
The Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue intersection had four-way stop control at the time when the
2005 Traffic Study was prepared. The mitigation included the installation of a traffic signal for Phases 1+2 traffic
conditions. The traffic signal was installed many years ago. No additional mitigations were identified to
accommodate Phases 1+2. The CPB will result in less traffic at this intersection, with slightly improved traffic
operations compared to what was expected with Phases 1+2 impacts. No additional mitigations are required for
the CPB.
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations
37 &44)
The Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) intersection was expected to operate at LOS C
under Phases 1+2 conditions. CPB traffic operations will be slightly better than what was expected under the
Phases 1 + 2 condition. Mitigations 37 and 44 were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at
this intersection by the CPB.
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 & 39)
Phases 1+2 mitigation at the Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive intersection included the installation of a
northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane. This mitigation will be required for the CPB as well, although traffic
volumes will be lower than expected with Phases 1+2. Mitigation 39 was identified for Phase 3 impacts and
thus is not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation
40)
The Princevalle Street / 10th St intersection was signalized in 2005. The mitigation at this intersection included
adding left turn traffic signal phasing (left turn arrows) on all four intersection approaches to better accommodate
the high amount of pedestrian traffic before and after school hours at Gilroy High School and Glen View
2
10.4
p. 119 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
Elementary School. The left turn phasing was installed many years ago. No additional mitigation is required for
the CPB at this intersection.
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation
41)
The mitigation at the Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was the conversion of an all-way stop
controlled channelized intersection to a one lane roundabout. This was constructed in 2015. It was adequate
mitigation for Phases 1+2 and will adequately mitigate the lower volumes now anticipated for the CPB. No
additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection.
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (indirectly associated
withMitigation 41 and Luchessa Avenue bridge widening)
The Princevalle / Luchessa Avenue intersection had stop control and no eastbound Luchessa Avenue left turn
lane in 2005. Mitigation was recommended to include a traffic signal and eastbound left turn lane, which were
installed in 2016. This mitigation is adequate to accommodate Phases 1+2. It will operate better with the lower
volume CPB. No additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection.
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation
43)
The Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was determined in the 2005 EIR to not require mitigation to
accommodate Phases 1+2 impacts. The impacts for the CPB will be reduced from the impacts expected under
Phases 1 + 2. It will therefore operate acceptably with no mitigation for the CPB. Mitigation 43 was identified for
Phase 3 impacts and thus is not triggered at this intersection for the CPB.
D. Summary and Conclusion
Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2 trip
generation, the Phases 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. The specific CPB mitigations
at each study intersection are summarized below.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue – No additional mitigations are required for
the CPB.
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) – Mitigations at this
intersection were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive – The existing mitigation measure to construct a
northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane will be required for the CPB.
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is
required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is
required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional
mitigation is required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
3
10.4
p. 120 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigations at this intersection were identified for
Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
The major finding is that, due to the substantial reduction in CPB traffic generation compared to the GLR Phases
1+2 analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the CPB does not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Attachments
4
10.4
p. 121 of 262
10.4
p. 122 of 262
10.4
p. 123 of 262
Attachment B
Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections
from the
Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan
SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014This information is provided for reference only.
3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project
34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left
tum lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
Note: MM 34 partially implemented – the signal was built at this location and is operational.
35. Add a northbound left tum lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
37. Add second eastbound and westbound left tum lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left-tum
lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase Ill.
40. Convert the signal phasing at the Princevalle Street/Tenth Street intersection from permitted phasing to
protected phasing.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Note: MM 40 has been implemented – the signal modification was installed at this location and is
operational.
41. If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a
second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in
LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
OR
If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right tum lane was
added, add a second westbound left tum lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue
Bridge to four lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
10.4
p. 124 of 262
Attachment B
Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections
from the
Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan
SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014This information is provided for reference only.
3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project (continued)
42. Signalize the Princevalle Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection and add an eastbound left tum lane.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Note: MM 42 complete – the project was built and is operational.
43. Add second northbound and westbound left tum lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa
Boulevard.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
10.4
p. 125 of 262
3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.
0(0)
0(0)14(12)
0(0)
12(24)0(0)
0(0)
12(25)0(0)
Tenth St.First St.Miller Ave.0(0)23(41)16(20)28(18)
0(0)28(18)0(0)0(0)5(10)
17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.
114 (265)114 (265)
0(0)
110(256)
0(0)
24(56)0(0)114(265)
Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.
198 (161)
7(8)99(83)51(39)11(6)198(161)22(18)192(154)
199 (162)
Attachment C
Project Trip Assignment
Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 1 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 126 of 262
1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.
0(0)
0(0)
15(30)
Fitzgerald Ave.
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Attachment C
Project Trip Assignment
Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 2 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 127 of 262
3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.
270(344)
155(285)246(218)
25(27)
123(79)56(12)
101(126)
347(536)115(79)
Tenth St.First St.Miller Ave.41(96)220(275)111(77)
36(52)67(27)164(102)
107(14)428(376)126(14)
17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.
597 (764)596 (764)
93(107)
424(671)
24(92)
103(258)92(285)193(297)
Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.
703 (477)
171(65)136(128)237(152)216(218)274(180)98(24)533(413)
704 (478)
Attachment D
Background Plus Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 1 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 128 of 262
1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.
18(20)
6(8)
222(494)
Fitzgerald Ave.
4(0)
4(10)
5(11)
Attachment D
Background Plus Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 2 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 129 of 262
Attachment E
Remaining Glen Loma Ranch Intersections
Levels of Service with GLR Phases 1+2 and
CPB Background + Phases 1+2
(2005 TIA)Level of
Service
Standard
2005
Intersection
Control
Background + CPB
Operations
Type
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
AM PM AM PM
Intersection Del LOS Del
14.8 B
LOS
35.2 E
Del LOS
14.7 B
Del LOS
1 Santa Teresa Fitzgerald County: LOS D All-Way Stop Improvements in place in 2005 31.4 D
City: LOS C
Improvements Already Implemented
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
Traffic Signal
21.1 C+ 30.5 C
Traffic Signal
21.0 C+29.6 C
Traffic Signal already
installed. None Required.GLR EIR Mitigation N.A.
Traffic Signal already installed.
None Required.Recommended CPB Mitigation
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
N.A.
3 Santa Teresa First City: LOS C Signal Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
25.0 C 25.3 C 25.0 C 25.1 C
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required N.A.
Recommended CPB Mitigation N.A.None Required
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With NB Uvas Left Only
9 Miller Uvas City: LOS C All-Way
Stop
28.8 D
24.9 C
46.2 E
24.0 C
21.3 C
19.5 C
44.0 E
23.4 C
Add NB Uvas Left Turn LaneGLR EIR Mitigation N.A.
Add NB Uvas Left Turn LaneRecommended CPB Mitigation N.A.
Traffic Signal
with No Left
Turn Phases
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
GLR EIR Mitigation
13 Princevalle
17 Thomas
Tenth City: LOS C
City: LOS C
10.1 B+
LT Phasing all 4 directions is
already in place.
9.1 A 10.2 B+
LT Phasing all 4 directions is
already in place.
9.2 A
Recommended CPB Mitigation
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
Luchessa All-Way
Stop
60.8 F
6.9 A
114.1 F
8.7 A
51.1 F
6.6 A
64.7 F
6.9 A
GLR EIR Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout
Recommended CPB Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout
25.0 D
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Princevalle Improvements in place in 2005
Stop Sign
18 Princevalle Luchessa
Luchessa
City: LOS D 28.4 D 34.9 D 25.8 D
Improvements Already Implemented Traffic Signal Traffic Signal
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required
Recommended CPB Mitigation None Required
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 200519 Monterey
Notes:
Signal 23.9 C 29.4 C 23.4 C 28.0 C
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required
Recommended CPB Mitigation None Required
1. Delays under Background + Phases 1+2 were verified in analysis model, prior to use under Background + CPB,
to either match exactly the values in 2005 report or to be no more than 1.0 seconds different.
10.4
p. 130 of 262
Appendix 1
Level of Service Calculations
10.4
p. 131 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.646
15.1
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
10 101010444 10
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
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:
User Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 225 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 386 465 15 201 5 225
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
5 156 156 195 509 14 41Final Sat.: 578 631 720 508 546
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
0.01 0.61 0.65 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44
**** **** **** ****
8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7
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: 8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
A C
16.3
1.00
16.3
C
C A B
12.2
1.00
12.2
B
B A A
9.6
1.00
9.6
A
A B B
13.7
1.00
13.7
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 132 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.646
25.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Ignore
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270
89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
89 518 148 445 590 44
0
41 220 56 249 155 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.4 14.8 14.8 15.3 22.6 22.6 6.2 12.5 12.5 15.4 21.7 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.48 0.08 0.26 0.65 0.18 0.65 0.26 0.00
Uniform Del: 29.5 25.2 23.8 24.9 19.0 16.4 29.7 26.7 24.4 24.8 18.1 0.0
IncremntDel: 2.0 1.8 0.7 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 4.3 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
6
C
3
C B-B
1
C
1
C
6
C
1
C B-A
06563
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 133 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.906
28.8
D0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
User Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj:0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 116 266
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 116 266
13
0
13 413 67
0
67
43 74 179 59 132 26
0
26
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 13 413 43 74 179 59 132
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 116 266
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 148 341
0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12
16 14 455 74 70 119 289 118 263 53
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.50 0.50 0.50
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5
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: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
D D
27.3
1.00
27.3
D
D E E
41.5
1.00
41.5
E
E C C
18.7
1.00
18.7
C
C C C
16.5
1.00
16.5
C
C
AllWayAvgQ: 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 134 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.419
10.1
B+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Tenth St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0 00000000
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
PCE Adj:
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
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: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 994 806 1750 1555 245 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11
Uniform Del: 13.2 14.6 14.6 13.3 14.3 14.3 6.6 8.1 6.7 6.7 7.6 6.6
IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7
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: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
1
B
4
B
4
B
2
B
4
B
4
A
1
A
5
A
1
A
1
A
4
A
1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 135 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.133
60.8
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 115 0 431 0 315 102 405 216 0
115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0
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: 115
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 115
0 431 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 405 216 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 431 0 315 102 405 216
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 115
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 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:
Final Sat.: 126
0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.35 0.00
0 471 0 490 542 357 191 0000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.91 xxxx 0.91 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.64 0.19 1.13 1.13 xxxx
**** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 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: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 0.0
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
E *
42.8
1.00
42.8
E
E ****C
18.9
1.00
18.9
C
B F F
104.7
1.00
104.7
F
*
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
AllWayAvgQ: 5.6 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 14.5 14.5 14.5
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 136 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):5.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 28.4]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Sign
Include
1 0 0 0 1
Uncontrolled
Include
0 1 0 0 0
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 74
74
0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94
94
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 173 172 573 0 0 448
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
74
0 173 172 573 0
0
0
0 448 94
0
94
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 173 172 573 0 448
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1412 xxxx 495 542 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 154 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 132 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 xxxx 0.30 0.17 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.8 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 62.5 xxxx 13.9 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *B A *****
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 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
28.4
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 137 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
37
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.437
23.9
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 256 245 351
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 256 245 351
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
000000000000
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 256 245 351
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.18
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1473 327
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.07
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.2 30.5 41.3 9.8 9.0 29.8 20.7 27.0 58.2 10.8 17.1 26.8
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.16 0.39 0.44 0.19 0.44 0.39 0.25
Uniform Del: 22.5 21.1 16.5 37.6 38.0 21.3 29.3 25.4 6.4 36.8 31.9 23.9
IncremntDel: 0.5 0.1 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.2
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2
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: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2
LOS by Move: C+ C+
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
7
D D+C+
2
C
4
C
6
A
3
D+ C-C
3623334
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 138 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.980
36.2
E
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
7
0
10
1
10
1
7
0
10
0
10
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
10 10
1! 0
10
010110100
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 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:
User Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8
0
8
244
0
244
231
0
231
21 403 0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
11
0
11
507
0
507
8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0
21 403
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
452 485 535 460 492 202 223 517 20008
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.02 0.50 0.43 0.05 0.82 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.98 0.98 0.98
**** **** **** ****
10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
0.0
AdjDel/Veh: 10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0
*
0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
B C
15.5
1.00
15.5
C
B B D
32.9
1.00
32.9
D
*B
11.1
1.00
11.1
B
B F F
58.5
1.00
58.5
F
F
0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 7.4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 139 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
44
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.584
25.3
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd.
North Bound South Bound
First St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344
111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
111 356 86
0
373 481 39
0
96 275 40
0
223 285 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 111 356 86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 111 356
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
Green Time:
0.06 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.00
**** **** **** ****
8.5 11.2 11.2 14.2 16.9 16.9 8.7 17.3 17.3 15.3 23.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.58 0.30 0.58 0.52 0.09 0.44 0.58 0.09 0.58 0.44 0.00
Uniform Del: 28.9 27.2 25.9 25.2 23.0 20.6 28.4 23.2 20.3 24.5 17.9 0.0
0.0
0.0
IncremntDel: 2.4 1.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.6
0.0
1.4 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
1.4 1.9
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
2.3 0.5
0.0 0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
5
C
2
C
5
C
5
C+
1
C
3
C
6
C+
1
C
6
B-
5 0
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 140 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.056
46.2
E0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
00000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
168 445 10
0
13 325 141
0
91
0
35
0
109
0
12
0
90
0
27
00000
Reduced Vol: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 168 445
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
0.27 0.71 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21
159 422 16 396 172 189 73 227 41 311 939
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:1.06 1.06 1.06 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29
**** **** **** ****
76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
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: 76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
F F
76.9
1.00
76.9
F
F D D
30.1
1.00
30.1
D
D C C
15.7
1.00
15.7
C
C B B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 11.1 11.1 11.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 141 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.428
9.1
A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Tenth St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
000
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
1
0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
114 101 73
0
102 119 16
0
14 383 14
0
79 548 126
000000000
Reduced Vol: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1587 213 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.07
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.43 0.11
Uniform Del: 19.2 19.9 19.9 19.1 19.4 19.4 3.2 4.0
0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
3.3 4.5
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.7
0.0
0.3 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.5
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.5
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: 19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2
A
3.4 4.7 3.5
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
B-
2
C+
3
C+
3
B-
2
B-
2
B-
2
A
0
A
3
A
1
A
50 1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 142 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.348
114.1
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
00000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 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:
User Adj:
38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
38
0
38
0
0
0
297
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
0
249
32
0
32
467 411 0
0
0
0 0
467 411
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 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:
Final Sat.:
0.11 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 0.00
71 553 561 630 346 305 000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
0.54 xxxx 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.44 0.05 1.35 1.35 xxxx
********
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh: 14.9 0.0 14.9
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
14.9 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 0.0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0 0.0
*
0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 0.0
*B *
14.9
1.00
14.9
B
B ***B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
A F F
184.3
1.00
184.3
F
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 31.8 31.8 31.8
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 143 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 34.9]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol:0 0 0 72
72
0 97
97
67 478 0 0 780
780
107
107
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 67 478 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
72
0
0
0
97
0
97
67 478 0
0
0
0
0
0
780
0
780
107
0
107
0 0
67 478
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1446 xxxx 834
371
371
887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 147 xxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 137 xxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.53 xxxx 0.26 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ:xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.5 xxxx 1.0 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 57.6 xxxx 18.1 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *C B *****
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 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
34.9
D
*B *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 144 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
56
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.680
29.4
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
377 261 138
0
35 275 229
0
164 170 220
0
285 282 92
000000000
Reduced Vol: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 377 261
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1357 443
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.22 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.21
Crit Moves: ****
Green Time: 28.5 29.5 55.3
************
8.6 9.6 22.0 12.4 14.2 42.7 25.8 27.5 36.1
Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.68 0.54 0.68 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.68 0.52
Uniform Del: 26.8 21.8
IncremntDel: 3.4 0.1
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
7.3 37.6 38.7 29.6 36.9 35.1 14.2 27.4 27.4 20.4
0.1
0.0
0.6 4.7
0.0 0.0
1.3
0.0
7.6 2.6
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
1.6 3.4
0.0 0.0
0.7
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 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: 30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 21.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
11
C+
3
A
2
D+
1
D
5
C
7
D
6
D+
5
B
4
C
8
C
11
C+
9
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 145 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:33:25 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.471
21.1
C+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
7 10
Protected
Include
7 10
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 225 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 386 465 15 201 5 225
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1717 46 137
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13
**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3
Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.53 0.64 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.64
Uniform Del: 22.6 16.8 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.6 3.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
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: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
LOS by Move: C+B
7
B-
9
C C+C+
4
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
6
C
6
C
6HCM2kAvgQ:0 0 4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 146 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:14:09 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.895
24.9
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
011000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
User Adj:
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
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
116 266 13
0
13 413 67
0
43
0
74
0
179
0
59 132 26
0000000
Reduced Vol: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
PCE Adj:
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
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: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12
449 459 22 14 461 75 72 124 301 123 275 55
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.26 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.48 0.48 0.48
**** **** **** ****
12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh: 12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
B C
16.6
1.00
16.6
C
C E E
39.9
1.00
39.9
E
E C C
17.9
1.00
17.9
C
C C C
15.8
1.00
15.8
C
C
0.3 1.1 1.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 147 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:24:00 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.9 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 115 0 429 0 315 102 404 216 0
115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0
0 0 0
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 115
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 115
0 429 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 404 216 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 429 0 315 102 404 216
PCE Adj:
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
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: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:115
0
0
0
115
0 429 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 404 216 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 429 0 315 102 404 216
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
315
1030
0
1030
544
0.53
7.3
A
735
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
404
982
0
982
417
0.42
6.3
A
115
1138
0
1138
620
0.54
6.9
A
xxxxxx
*
3.2 xxxx 2.1 3.4
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 148 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:35:24 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.599
30.5
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
7 10
Protected
Include
7 10
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0
0
0
0 10 11 507 8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 244 231 21 403 0 10 11 507
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 905 995 1801 28 71
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
0.00 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.28
**** **** ****
Green Time: 7.0 17.2 17.2 11.7 21.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.60 0.57 0.08 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.77 0.77 0.77
Uniform Del: 33.4 28.3 28.1 29.5 26.8 0.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
IncremntDel: 0.1 2.4 1.8 0.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.5 5.5 5.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0
LOS by Move: C-C
6
C
6
C C-
0 11
A
0
A
0
C
1
C
1
C C C
14HCM2kAvgQ:0 14 14
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 149 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:16:21 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.822
24.0
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 168 445
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 168 445
10
0
10
13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
0
27
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90
PCE Adj:
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
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 512 541
1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21
12 16 399 173 189 73 226 42 311 93
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.33 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7
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: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B D
26.3
1.00
26.3
D
D D D
28.6
1.00
28.6
D
D B B
15.0
1.00
15.0
B
B B B
12.7
1.00
12.7
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 150 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:26:49 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):8.8 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
38
0
38
0
0
0
297
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
0
249
32
0
32
467 411 0
0
0
0 0
467 411
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:38
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
0
0
0
249
32
0
0
0
32
467 411 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
467 411
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
249
1066
0
1066
335
0.31
4.9
A
916
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
467
948
0
948
281
0.30
5.4
A
38
1179
0
1179
878
0.74
11.3
B
xxxxxx
*
1.4 xxxx 1.2 7.3
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 151 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.636
14.7
B
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
7
0
10
1
10
1
7
0
10
0
10
0
4
0
4
1! 0
4
0
10 10
1! 0
10
01011000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
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:
User Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5
0
5
380
0
380
459
0
459
15 197 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5
0
5
222
0
222
6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0
15 197
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
581 633 722 510 548 157 157 196 509 14 416
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.01 0.60 0.64 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh:
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
****
8.9 16.2 15.6
****
9.7 12.3 12.3
****
9.5 9.5
****
9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8.9 16.2 15.6 9.7 12.3 12.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
A C
15.8
1.00
15.8
C
C A B
12.1
1.00
12.1
B
B A A
9.5
1.00
9.5
A
A B B
13.5
1.00
13.5
B
B
0.0 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 152 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
48
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.637
25.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd.
North Bound South Bound
First St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Ignore
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:88 495 289
289
445 578 87
87
41 220 111
111
246 155 270
270
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:
User Adj:
88 495 445 578 41 220 246 155
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
88 495 145
0
145
445 578 44
0
44
41 220 56
0
56
246 155 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 495 445 578 41 220 246 155
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:88 495 145 445 578 44 41 220 56 246 155 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
Green Time:
0.05 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00
**** **** **** ****
7.4 14.3 14.3 15.5 22.4 22.4 6.3 12.7 12.7 15.4 21.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.64 0.40 0.64 0.47 0.08 0.26 0.64 0.17 0.64 0.26 0.00
Uniform Del: 29.5 25.5 24.1 24.7 19.1 16.6 29.7 26.5 24.2 24.7 18.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
IncremntDel: 1.9 1.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.7
0.0
2.0 0.3
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
0.9 3.9
0.0 0.0
0.3
0.0
3.5 0.2
0.0 0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 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: 31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 0.0
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
6
C
3
C
6
B-
5
B
1
C
1
C
6
C
1
C
6
B-
3 0
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 153 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.810
21.3
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
00000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
User Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
108 253 12
0
12 392 59
0
36
0
67
0
164
0
56 123 25
0000000
Reduced Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 108 253
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12
155 364 17 15 484 73 67 124 304 123 271 55
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.70 0.70 0.70 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.45
**** **** **** ****
21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
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: 21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
C C
21.0
1.00
21.0
C
C D D
28.0
1.00
28.0
D
D C C
15.4
1.00
15.4
C
C B B
14.5
1.00
14.5
B
B
1.7 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 154 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.421
10.2
B+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Tenth St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
000
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
1
0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:95 147 130
130
117 202 32
32
107 428 126
126
115 347 101
101
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:
User Adj:
95 147 117 202 107 428 115 347
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
95 147 130
0
130
117 202 32
0
32
107 428 126
0
126
115 347 101
0
101
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 147 117 202 107 428 115 347
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 1750 955 845 1750 1554 246 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11
Uniform Del: 12.8 14.3 14.3 13.0 13.9 13.9 6.9 8.4
0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0
7.0
0.1
0.0
7.0 7.9
0.1 0.2
0.0 0.0
6.9
0.1
0.0
IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0
0.3
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1 7.0 8.1 6.9
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: 12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1
A
7.0 8.1 6.9
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
1
B
4
B
4
B
2
B
4
B
4
A
1
A
5
A
1
A
41 1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 155 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.071
51.1
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
00000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 113 429 274 98 404 193 0
113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
0 0 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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
113
0
0
0
0
429
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
274
98
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0 0
Reduced Vol: 113 404 193
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 113
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 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:
Final Sat.:
0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.32 0.00
126 478 491 543 377 180 000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
0.90 xxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 0.18 1.07 1.07 xxxx
**** ****
0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AdjDel/Veh: 39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
*
0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4 0.0
*LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
E *
39.4
1.00
39.4
E
E ***C
16.2
1.00
16.2
C
B F F
83.4
1.00
83.4
F
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
5.1 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 11.4 11.4 11.4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 156 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):5.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.0]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 73
73
0 172
172
171 533 0 0 424
424
93
93
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 171 533 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
0
73
0
0
0
172
0
172
171 533 0
0
0
0
0
0
424
0
424
93
0
93
0 0
171 533
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1346 xxxx 471 517 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 169 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 146 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx 0.29 0.16 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ:xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.4 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxControl Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 52.4 xxxx 13.4
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *B A *****
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
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
25.0
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 157 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
37
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.448
23.4
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
269 244 351
0
83 106 83
0
136 267 216
0
92 103 24
000000000
Reduced Vol: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 269 244
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.19
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1460 340
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07
**** **** **** ****
9.5 6.0 26.3 20.3 28.2 61.4 10.6 18.4 28.0
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.16 0.34 0.45 0.18 0.45 0.34 0.23
Uniform Del: 21.2 21.6 17.2 37.8 40.3 23.6 29.2 24.7 5.2 37.0 30.6 23.0
Crit Moves:
Green Time: 33.2 29.7 40.3
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.1
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.4
0.0
1.7 1.1
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
1.6 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 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: 21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 23.2
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C+
6
C+
2
B
7
D
3
D
2
C
2
C
4
C
6
A
2
D+
3
C
3
C
3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 158 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.943
31.4
D
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
10 101010444 10
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 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:
User Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0
0
0
0 10 11 494 8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 223 223 21 389 0 10 11 494
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
0 206 226 524 21Final Sat.: 454 487 538 464 497 0 8
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.02 0.46 0.41 0.05 0.78 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.94 0.94 0.94
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4
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: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B C
14.4
1.00
14.4
B
B B D
28.5
1.00
28.5
D
**B
10.8
1.00
10.8
B
B E E
49.4
1.00
49.4
E
E
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 6.1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 159 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
43
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.570
25.1
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344
107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 107 321
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 107 321
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
82 373 462 39
0
96 275 39 218 285 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 107 321
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.06 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.00
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.3 10.4 10.4 14.5 16.6 16.6 8.9 17.8 17.8 15.3 24.2 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.57 0.31 0.57 0.51 0.09 0.43 0.57 0.09 0.57 0.43 0.00
Uniform Del: 28.9 27.7 26.6 24.9 23.2 20.8 28.3 22.8 19.9 24.4 17.6 0.0
IncremntDel: 2.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.4 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 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: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 0.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
4
C
2
C
5
C
5
C+
1
C
3
C
6
C+
1
C B-A
055
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 160 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.044
44.0
E0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
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:0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 164 468
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 164 468
11
0
14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
0
28
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 164 468
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 157 449
0.25 0.73 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23
10 17 429 161 142 74 279 47 309 106
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
1.04 1.04 1.04 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6
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: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
F F
71.7
1.00
71.7
F
F D D
27.3
1.00
27.3
D
D B B
13.7
1.00
13.7
B
B B B
12.6
1.00
12.6
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 10.8 10.8 10.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 161 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.421
9.2
A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Tenth St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0 00000000
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 114 101
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 117 16
0
14 375 14
0
79 536 126
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1583 217 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.07
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2
Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.07 0.42 0.11
Uniform Del: 19.0 19.7 19.7 18.9 19.2 19.2 3.3 4.1 3.3 3.4 4.5 3.5
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6
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: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6
LOS by Move: B- C+
HCM2kAvgQ:
C+
3
B- B-B-
2
A
0
A
3
A
0
A
1
A
5
A
12322
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 162 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.138
64.7
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 28 0 297 0 180 24 467 297 0
28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
28
0
0 297 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 180 24 467 297 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 28 0 297 0 180 24 467 297
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 28
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 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:
Final Sat.:
0.09 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.39 0.00
55 0 588 0 565 635 410 261 0000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
0.51 xxxx 0.51 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 0.04 1.14 1.14 xxxx
**** ****
Delay/Veh: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 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: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 0.0
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B *
13.9
1.00
13.9
B
B ****B
11.3
1.00
11.3
B
A F F
100.5
1.00
100.5
F
*
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 17.2 17.2 17.2
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 163 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):3.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.8]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Sign
Include
1 0 0 0 1
Uncontrolled
Include
0 1 0 0 0
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 72
72
0 93
93
65 413 0 0 671 107
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 65 413 0 0 671 107
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
72
0
0
0
93
0
93
65 413 0
0
0
0 671 107
0 0 0 0 0
65 413 0 671 107
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1268 xxxx 725 778 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 188 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 177 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.41 xxxx 0.22 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxx 0.8 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 38.8 xxxx 15.7 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***E *C A *****
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 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
25.8
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 164 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
50
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.627
28.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 356 281 138
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 356 281 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
000000000000
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 356 281 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.26
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1327 473
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.20 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves: ******** **** ****
Green Time: 29.2 31.2 56.9 8.4 10.4 20.9 10.5 12.7 41.9 25.8 27.9 36.3
Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.63 0.44 0.63 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.63 0.48
Uniform Del: 25.8 20.8 6.6 37.7 38.0 29.6 37.9 36.1 14.7 27.4 26.6 19.9
IncremntDel: 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.9 0.8 6.1 2.9 0.2 1.6 2.3 0.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C C+
10
A
2
D+
1
D
5
C
5
D
5
D
5
B
4
C
8
C
9
C+
83
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 165 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:38:16 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.466
21.0
C+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
7 10
Protected
Include
7 10
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 222 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 380 459 15 197 5 222
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1715 46 139
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13
**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3
Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.52 0.63 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.63
Uniform Del: 22.6 16.7 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4 3.4 3.4
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9
LOS by Move: C+B
7
B-
9
C C+C+
4
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
6
C
6
C
6HCM2kAvgQ:0 0 4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 166 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:54:34 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.832
23.4
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
User Adj:
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
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 164 468
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 164 468
11
0
11
14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
0
28
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83
PCE Adj:
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
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: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 532 563
1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23
13 17 431 162 142 74 279 47 309 106
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.31 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
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: 12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B D
26.5
1.00
26.5
D
D D D
26.2
1.00
26.2
D
D B B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
B B B
12.2
1.00
12.2
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 167 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:05:31 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.6 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 113 429 274 98 404 193 0
113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
0 0 0 0 0
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 113
113
0
0
0
0
429
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
274
98
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0 0
404 193
PCE Adj:
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
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: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:113
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
0
0
274
98
0
0
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
404 193
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
274
1052
0
1052
542
0.52
7.0
A
710
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
404
982
0
982
372
0.38
5.9
A
113
1139
0
1139
597
0.52
6.6
A
xxxxxx
*
3.0 xxxx 1.8 3.2
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 168 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:40:44 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.582
29.6
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
7 10 10
4.0
1
7 10 10
4.0
0
10 10 10
4.0
0
10
4.0 4.0
1! 0
10 10
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8
0
8
223
0
223
223
0
223
21 389 0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
11
0
11
494
0
494
8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0
21 389
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 905 995 1798 29 73
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
Green Time: 7.0 16.9 16.9 11.8 21.8
Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.55 0.55 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** ****
0.0 10.0 10.0 29.2 29.2 29.20.0
Uniform Del: 33.4 28.2 28.2 29.4 26.6 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 31.0 31.0 22.2 22.2 22.2
IncremntDel: 0.1 1.7
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
1.7
0.0
0.1 6.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
4.6 4.6
0.0 0.0
4.6
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8
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: 33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0
A
0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C-
0
C
6
C
6
C
0
C-
11
A
0
C
1
C
1
C
13
C
13
C
130
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 169 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:57:47 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.808
19.5
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 108 253
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 108 253
12
0
12
12 392 59
0
59
36 67 164 56 123 25
0
25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 392 36 67 164 56 123
PCE Adj:
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
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 472 484
1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12
23 15 485 73 69 128 314 128 282 57
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.23 0.52 0.52 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.44
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2
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: 12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B C
14.8
1.00
14.8
B
C D D
28.1
1.00
28.1
D
D C C
15.1
1.00
15.1
C
C B B
14.2
1.00
14.2
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.3 0.9 0.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 170 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:07:08 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.9 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 28 0 297 0 180 24 467 297 0
28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
0 0 0
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 28
28
0
0 297 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 180 24 467 297 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 297 0 180 24 467 297
PCE Adj:
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
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: 28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:28
0
0
0
28
0 297 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 180 24 467 297 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 297 0 180 24 467 297
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
180
1103
0
1103
325
0.29
4.6
A
792
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
467
948
0
948
204
0.22
4.8
A
28
1185
0
1185
764
0.64
8.4
A
xxxxxx
*
1.2 xxxx 0.8 5.0
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 171 of 262
DPeer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current
Projected Buildout Traffic Study
APPENDIX
10.4
p. 172 of 262
Memorandum
Date:
To:
January 30, 2024
Cindy McCormick, and Sharon Goei, City of Gilroy
Teri Wissler Adam, EMC Planning Group
Jing Yang, Elynor Zhou, and Franziska Church, Fehr & Peers
cc:
From:
Subject:Peer Review of the 2022 Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout
Traffic Study
SJ23-2256
This is an update of the December 13, 2023 version of this memorandum with corrections and
providing clarifications to mitigation measures that are either still required or that are no longer
necessary. The changes are summarized below:
a. Table 2, Intersection #1, clarifying that the outstanding mitigation requiring the
eastbound left and westbound left turn lanes are no longer needed.
b. Table 2, Intersection #35, correcting the conclusion that the northbound left turn lane
has not been constructed and that it is still required.
This memorandum summarizes Fehr & Peers’ peer review comments on the following
supplemental reports prepared for the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan project:
•
•
Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022
Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current
Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022
After the original Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in 2005
(“2005 Traffic Study”), the project was developed at lower density. The purpose of the peer review
is to help inform which mitigation measures from the 2005 Traffic Study would still be required
with the reduced development assumptions.
60 S. Market Street | Suite 700 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
10.4
p. 173 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 2 of 8
Project Understanding
Background
Glen Loma Ranch (GLR) is a 359.6-acre property located in the City of Gilroy, California. The site is
bordered by Uvas Creek to the north, Santa Terea Boulevard to the west and south, and existing
residential development to the east. The proposed development for GLR consists primarily of
residential use with other land uses including open space, commercial, office, etc. The 2005 Traffic
Study by Higgins Associates included 1,690 dwelling units and 155,500 square feet of non-
residential uses. It evaluated 23 intersections within the City of Gilroy and proposed intersection
improvements to address deficiencies. The development was evaluated in three phases
(Phase 1 to 3).
Since the 2005 Traffic Study, the project has built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated,
and the Current Projected Buildout (CPB) includes 1,275 residential units, potentially 192 units at
Olive Grove Apartments, a fire station, and 12,000 sf of non-residential uses (including office,
restaurant, and commercial).
In 2022, Keith Higgins prepared a traffic study for the CPB (Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected
Buildout and Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with
Current Projected Buildout (CPB)). The 2022 CPB traffic study evaluated trip generation and
assignment for the lower land use intensity and compared it with results for the Background
Phase 1+2 and Buildout (Phase 1 to 3) scenarios from the 2005 Traffic Study. The 2022 CPB traffic
study concluded that since the CPB generates substantially less traffic than anticipated for Phase
1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study, the 2005 Background phase 1+2 mitigation measures will
adequately mitigate the lower land use intensity of the CPB and none of the mitigation measures
identified for Phase 3 are required.
Scope of Review
The purpose of this peer review is to confirm whether the mitigation measures for Phase 3 are still
required with the reduced project descriptions of CPB. The peer review focuses on the 2022 CPB
traffic study documented in the reports Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout and Glen
Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected
Buildout (CPB). The memos are enclosed as Attachment A and Attachment B. The approved
2005 Traffic Study and the supplemental studies from 2019 to 2021 were used as references in
this review.
The peer review will cover the following intersections (numbering based on the 2005 Traffic
Study) that have remaining mitigation measures. The intersections are also included in the 2022
CPB traffic study.
10.4
p. 174 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 3 of 8
•
•
•
•
•
#1 Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue
#3 Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street
#9 Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue
#17 Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue
#19 Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue
The scope of review includes:
•
•
•
•
•
Trip generation assumptions
Trip distribution and assignment
Level of service calculations
Comparison of study results with the previously prepared document
Identification of project impacts in relation to the City’s significance criteria and the
reduced project
•Necessity of the transportation mitigation measures in the current context
Peer Review Findings
The following summarizes the key findings of our review of the 2022 CPB traffic study on reduced
project descriptions in CPB.
Trip Generation
Most of the trip generation estimates are consistent with Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) trip generation rates. Trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition
were applied to CPB land uses. Table 1 includes the peer review comments for each of the land
uses in CPB listed in Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout letter. In the
CPB analysis, trip generation for residential land uses utilized the fitted curve equations whereas
the trip generation for non-residential land uses used the average rates. Attachment C shows the
comparison of trip generation for two non-residential land uses, general office and commercial,
when fitted curve equations are used instead of average rates.
10.4
p. 175 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 4 of 8
Table 1: Trip Generation Peer Review
CPB Land Use1 Size1 ITE Trip Generation Code1 Peer Review Comments
Single Family
Homes
840 units 210 Single-Family Detached Agree with trip generation estimate.
Housing (per unit)
Townhomes 277 units
80 units
78 units
220 Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise) (per unit)
Agree with trip generation estimate.
Agree with trip generation estimate.
Agree with trip generation estimate.
Apartments 221 Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise) (per unit)
Senior Adult
Housing -
Attached
252 Senior Adult Housing -
Attached (per unit)
Fire Station 7,350 sq. ft. 575 Fire and Rescue Station ITE only provides PM peak hour rates and
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)source for AM peak hour rates was not
provided in the 2022 CPB traffic study.
Based on engineering judgement, the
number of AM peak hour trips included in
the study is reasonable and no further
refinement is needed.
General Office 4,000 sq. ft. 710 General Office
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Fitted curve will result in higher trip
generation estimates than average rates;
but difference is negligible and would not
change the conclusions of the results. See
Attachment C.
Quality
Restaurant
4,000 sq. ft. 931 Quality Restaurant
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Agree with trip generation estimate.
Commercial 4,000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Fitted curve will result in higher trip
generation estimates than average rates;
however, average rates provide more
reasonable estimates and no further
refinements are needed. See Attachment C.
Olive Grove
Apartments
192 units 221 Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise) (per unit)
Agree with trip generation estimate.
Notes:
1. From Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022.
Source: Keith Higgins, 2022; Fehr & Peers, 2023.
The 2022 CPB traffic study assumes no internal trip reduction between residential and non-
residential uses under CPB. This results in a conservative estimate of trip generation. Even though
our assessment of internalization and mode shift lead to less than 10% of trip reduction credit,
the conservative approach of no reduction is reasonable.
10.4
p. 176 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 5 of 8
Project Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Impacts & Mitigations
The 2022 CPB traffic study concluded that due to the substantial reduction in CPB traffic
generation compared to the Background Phases 1+2 trips analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the
CPB does not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures. Since the LOS for the impacted
intersections was not close to exceeding the LOS threshold, assigning the additional office trips
from using fitted curve equations (25 trips in the morning peak hour) to the intersections is
unlikely to result in a change of LOS grade. The trip assignment of the additional trips results in
approximately 5 to 10 more trips in individual movements which will not trigger the impact
threshold. Therefore, the remaining mitigation measures are not required and the 2022 CPB traffic
study conclusion does not change. The remaining eight mitigation measures for the five impacted
intersections are summarized in Table 2.
10.4
p. 177 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 6 of 8
Table 2: Remaining Intersection Mitigations
Mitigation Description of Mitigation 2022 CPB Traffic Study Conclusion
for CPB2IntersectionStatus Peer Review Comments for CPBNo. 1 Measures from 2005 TIA1
#1 Santa Teresa
Boulevard/
Fitzgerald
34 Signalize intersection Intersection
signalized
The intersection has been signalized The outstanding mitigation
and no additional mitigation
measures are needed for CPB
requiring the eastbound left and
westbound left turn lanes are no
longer needed. The signalization
mitigates the impact from CPB
Add eastbound left and westbound
left turn lanesAvenue
#3 Santa Teresa
Boulevard/First
Street
37
44
35
36
Add second eastbound left and
westbound left turn lanes
No mitigation
measures built
The mitigation can be eliminated
because is it not triggered by CPB
No additional mitigation measures
needed
Add one eastbound and westbound No mitigation
through lane
The mitigation can be eliminated
because is it not triggered by CPB
No additional mitigation measures
neededmeasures built
#9 Uvas Park
Drive/Miller
Avenue
Add a northbound left turn lane No mitigation
measures built
The mitigation measure is required The mitigation measure is required
for the CPB for the CPB
Prepare a traffic management plan of No mitigation
the Miller Avenue section southwest measures built
of the intersection (within Christmas
Hill Park)
Not mentioned in the 2022 study
but addressed in the Glen Loma
Ranch Traffic Study Update, Gilroy,
CA – Detailed Responses to Peer
Review, February 16, 2021
No additional mitigation measures
needed
39
41
Signalize intersection
Add northbound and southbound
left turn lanes
No mitigation
measures built
The mitigation can be eliminated
because is it not triggered by CPB
No additional mitigation measures
needed
#17 Thomas
Road/Luchessa
Avenue
Add a second lane to the
roundabout if the intersection is
converted to a one-lane roundabout to roundabout
Intersection has The mitigation can be eliminated
been converted because is it not triggered by CPB
No additional mitigation measures
needed
Widen Luchessa Avenue Bridge to
four lanes
10.4
p. 178 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 7 of 8
Mitigation Description of Mitigation 2022 CPB Traffic Study Conclusion
for CPB2IntersectionStatus Peer Review Comments for CPBNo. 1 Measures from 2005 TIA1
#19 Monterey
Street/Luchessa
Avenue
43 Add second northbound and
westbound left turn lanes
No mitigation
measures built
The mitigation can be eliminated
because is it not triggered by CPB
No additional mitigation measures
needed
Notes:
1. From Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan SCN 2003042018 March 24, 2014.
2. From Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022.
Source: EMC Planning Group Inc., 2014; Keith Higgins, 2022; Fehr & Peers, 2023.
10.4
p. 179 of 262
Melissa Durkin
January 30, 2024
Page 8 of 8
Attachment List
•
•
Attachment A: Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022
Attachment B: Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR
with Current Projected Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022
•Attachment C: Trip Generation Comparison Table for General Office and Commercial
Land Uses
10.4
p. 180 of 262
Attachment A: Glen Loma Ranch –
Current Projected Buildout, May 26,
2022
10.4
p. 181 of 262
Keith HigginsTraffic Engineer
May 26, 2022
Glen Loma Group
c/o Augie Dent
7888 Wren Ave D143
Gilroy CA 95020
Re:Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout
Dear Augie:
The original 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan included a maximum of 1,690 dwelling units and
155,500 square feet of non-residential floor area. In connection with the original project approval, my
previous firm, Higgins Associates, prepared the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report
dated June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study).
Tje project has built out at lower intensity than the maximum anticipated under the original EIR and Specific
Plan approval, theCurrent Projected Buildout (CPB) for Glen Loma Ranch is as follows:
1. A maximum of 1,275 residential units on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher (953 units completed or
under construction, Vesting Tentative Maps in process for an additional 252 units, and up to an
additional 70 units, anticipated to be multi-family units located in the town center flex area).
2. A fire station in the town center flex area.
3. Commercial uses on lands controlled by Filice/Christopher in the Town Center that shall not exceed
12,000 square feet.
4. The potential for 192 multi-family housing units on the Olive Grove site that is owned by the Gilroy Unified
School District.
This letter assesses whether the mitigations recommended for GLR Phases 1+2 in the original 2005 EIRwill
be adequate for the CPB. First, it compares the trip generation anticipated from the CPB with the trip
generation anticipated from GLR 1+2 in the 2005 Traffic Study. Second, a comparison is provided between
the CPB and the GLR 1+2 AM and PM traffic assignments used to calculate levels of service and determine
corresponding mitigation measures at the 2005 Traffic Study study intersections and street segments.
A. CPB Trip Generation
The CPB is projected to generate 11,762 daily trips, 864 AM peak hour trips and 1,123 PM peak hour trips.
See Attachment 1, Row 2b.
2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM
10.4
p. 182 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
B. GLR 1+2 Trip Generation
The 2005 Traffic Study analyzed a development scenario referred to as the “Background Plus Project
Phases 1 and 2 Traffic Conditions” (GLR 1+2) which included 1,005 dwelling units and 111,500 square feet
of non-residential (primarily retail) floor area.
•
•
•
Phase 1 was projected to generate 4,272 daily trips with 344 in the AM peak hour and 455 in the
PM peak hour.
Phase 2 was forecasted to generate 11,766 daily trips including 642 in the AM peak hour and 1,116
in the PM peak hour.
Phases 1 and 2 were expected to generate a total of 16,038 daily trips, 986 AM peak hour trips and
1,571 PM peak hour trips.
The above are tabulated on Table 6, “Project Trip Generation,” of the 2005 Traffic Study which is included
herein as Attachment 2. The total GLR 1+2 is summarized in Attachment 1, Row 3c.
C. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment
It is important to emphasize that no internal trip reduction between residential and retail uses within GLR
was credited in the 2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis. All GLR 1+2 residential and non-residential trips
were assigned to and from locations external to the GLR as shown by Figure 14 of the 2005 Traffic Study,
included herein as Appendix A. The corresponding trip assignments at the GLR gateway intersections are
tabulated on Attachment 3, totalled on Attachment 4 and summarized on Attachment 1, Row 4. The
2005 Traffic Study GLR 1+2 analysis was very conservative in not applying an internal trip reduction credit
and using even higher volumes for the actual intersection level of service analysis on which mitigation
recommendations were based.
D. Comparison of CPB with GLR 1+2 Trip Generation Estimates
Some important comparisons are:
•
•
•
Attachment 1, Row 5a, the current CPB is expected to generate 4,276 less daily trips, 122 less
AM peak hour trips and 448 less PM peak hour trips than the 2005 Traffic Study Phase 1+2
estimate.
The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 27%, 12% and
28%, respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 trip generation estimates, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 5b.
The CPB daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation totals are about 17% and 30%,
respectively, below the GLR Phase 1+2 AM and PM peak hour trip assignments, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 6b.
The CPB will clearly generate substantially less traffic than anticipated for Phases 1+2 in the 2005
Traffic Study.
2
10.4
p. 183 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
E. GLR Trip Reduction Effect on Traffic Volumes on Access Routes
The reduction in overall GLR trip generation is largely due to the reduction in commercial land uses in the
Town Center, which is located in the central part of the GLR. As indicated on the “Percent of Total” column
on Attachment 2:
•
•
•
78% of GLR traffic was expected to impact the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue (15%), Santa Teresa
Boulevard / Miller Avenue (20%) and Luchessa Avenue / Thomas Road (42%) intersections, which
are the primary access routes to and from the Town Center.
The current non-residential land uses in the Town Center are expected to generate a total of about
575 daily trips with 24 during the AM peak hour and 53 during the PM peak hour, as indicated on
Attachment 1, Row 1j.
This is a reduction of 7,250 daily trips, 303 AM peak hour trips and 662 PM peak hour trips from the
7,825 daily, 327 AM peak hour and 715 PM peak hour trips expected from the Town Center non-
residential trips in GLR 1+2.
Again, all of the considerable GLR 1+2 non-residential trips were assumed to be external to the GLR, much
of which were expected to impact the Luchessa Avenue bridge and the Miller Avenue crossing of Uvas
Creek.
It is clear that the CPB will result in less traffic on the access routes including Thomas Road - Luchessa
Avenue, Miller Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard north and south of the GLR than the volumes
forecasted in the 2005 Traffic Study. The impacts from the CPB will be less than anticipated from GLR 1+2.
The mitigations recommended in the 2005 Traffic Study for GLR 1+2 will therefore adequately mitigate the
CPB impacts.
F. Current GLR Buildout Trip Generation Comparison with 2005 GLR Buildout
Finally, it should also be noted that:
•
•
The full buildout of the original GLR was anticipated to generate about 24,294 net daily trips with
1,435 during the AM Peak Hour and 2,399 during the PM Peak Hour (Attachment 1, Row 7c).
The CPB will generate less than one-half as much daily and more significant PM peak hour traffic
as the original proposal (Attachment 1, Rows 8 and 9).
G. Summary and Conclusion
Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2
trip generation, the GLR 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. No further traffic
studies are required. No Phase 3 traffic improvements, including construction of the 10th Street bridge or
the Luchessa Ave. bridge widening, are required for the Glen Loma Ranch CPB.
3
10.4
p. 184 of 262
Glen Loma Group
May 26, 2022
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Attachments
4
10.4
p. 185 of 262
ITE
LAND USE
CODE
DAILY
TRIP
RATE
AM PEAK
HOUR
RATE
PM PEAK
HOUR
RATETRIP GENERATION RATES
Single-Family Detached Housing (per unit)
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (per unit)
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (per unit)
Senior Adult Housing - Attached (per unit)
210 8.77
7.41
0.72
0.45
0.36
0.20
1.16
0.73
0.94
0.93
0.53
0.44
0.27
1.15
7.80
3.81
220
221
252
710
931
820
5.44
3.69
General Office (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Quality Restaurant (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Shopping Center (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
9.74
83.84
37.75
AM PEAK
HOUR
TRIPS
PM PEAK
HOUR
TRIPS
PROJECT SIZE DAILY
TRIPSCURRENT CPB TOTAL Residential Commercial Municipal/Office
1. CPB Without Olive Grove
a. Single Family Homes
b. Townhomes
840 units
277 units
80 units
78 units
7,367
2,053
435
601
126
29
15
12
5
784
146
35c. Apartments
d. Senior Adult Housing - Attached
e. Fire Station
288 21
0 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
50 2
f. General Office 4,000 sq. ft.
4,000 sq. ft.
0
0
39 5
g. Quality Restaurant
h. Commercial
335 3 31
4,000 sq. ft.0 151 4 15
i. Subtotal 1,275 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 10,718
575
795
24
1,039
53j. Town Center Non-Residential (1e+f+g+h)
2. CPB With Olive Grove
a. Olive Grove Apartments
b. Subtotal (1i + 2a)
192 units 1,044 69 84
1,467 units 12,000 sq. ft.7,350 sq. ft.11,762 864 1,123
3. 2005 TRAFFIC STUDY PHASES 1+2 *
a. Phase 1 464 units 0 sq. ft.0 sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
4,272
11,766
16,038
7,825
344
642
986
327
455
1,116
1,571
715
b. Phase 2 541 units 81,500 sq. ft.30,000
30,000c. Phases 1+2 (3a + 3b)
d. Town Center Non-Residential Subtotal
1,005 units 81,500 sq. ft.
4. Original Phases 1+2 Traffic Assignment per 2005 Traffic Study, Figure 14**1,037 1,605
5. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation
a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 3c)-4,276
-27%
-122 -448
b. Net Percent Difference (5a divided by 3c)-12%-28%
6. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment
a. Net Numerical Difference (2b - 4)-173 -482
b. Net Percent Difference (6a divided by 4)-17%-30%
7. ORIGINAL GLR BUILDOUT *
a. Phase 3 Only 685 units 46,500 sq. ft.27,500 sq. ft.10,955
26,993
24,294
608 1,095
2,666
2,399
b. Buildout (3c + 8a)1,690 units 128,000 sq. ft.57,500 sq. ft.1,594
1,435c. Net Buildout (7b minus 10% Internal Trips)
8. Net Difference Between CPB With Olive Grove and Original Buildout (2b - 7c)-12,532
48%
-571
60%
-1,276
47%9. CPB as Percent of Original Buildout - With Olive Grove (2b divided by 8c)
Notes:
1. Trip generation rates - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual," 10th Edition, 2017.
2. Trip activity for all residential land uses utilize fitted curve equations. Cited trip rates are equivalent rates per housing unit.
3. CPB data cited from Glen Loma Ranch Traffic Study for Remaining Traffic Mitigation Measures Per the Glen Loma Ranch
Development Agreement Section 4.4.7, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, May 19, 2019. Commercial uses represent current CPB max. size.
4. * - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Generation - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachment 2.
5. ** - 2005 Traffic Study Trip Assignment - "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005. See Attachments 3 and 4.
Attachment 1
Project Trip Generation
Comparison
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 186 of 262
Attachment 2 - 2005 Traffic Study
Table 6Project Trip Generation
PEK HOR TRIP RTES & DISTRIBUTIOꢶ
M PEK HOUR%PM PEK HOR
%ITELAND UꢀE
ꢛODE
DAILY TOTAL
TRIP PEAK
TOTAL
PEAKPROJECT
ꢀIZE OF OFRATEꢀ HOUR Dꢣꢄlv Trꢄns IN OUT HOUR Dꢾilv Trins IN OUT._�
TRIP GENERATION RATES
ꢀingle Famꢄꢤy Detachꢂd Housꢄng
Town HomesApartments
ꢀenior Housꢄng (Congrꢂgꢾte ꢛaꢍꢂ Facility)
Total ꢶumbeꢻ Housing Units
210231
220
793 Homes570 Units
177 Units15꣎ Units
9.57
5.866-72
꣎.75
0.670.510.16
8%
11%8%
0.25 ꣎.75 1.010.78꣎.62
꣎.25
11%13%9%
꣎.63 0.37
꣎.420.35
0.39
0.250.2꣎
0.45
0.75꣎.8꣎
꣎.55
0.58꣎.65
꣎.6112514.52 4%5%
1690 Unts
Generꢾꢤ Retꢣil - ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅlꢆ Retꢣil- Vidꢂo ꢀtore 814896
912495
ꢀANDAG931
93285꣎71꣎852
2꣎,꣎꣎꣎ ꢀF
4,0꣎꣎ ꢀF5,000 ꢀF
44.32
175.0꣎246.49
114.0꣎12꣎.꣎꣎
89.95127.151꣎2.24
11.01
0.꣎00.꣎꣎
12.341.624.8꣎
꣎.8111.523.25
1.5531.2꣎
꣎.00
0%0%
5%1%4%
1%9%
3%14%
6%꣎%
꣎.꣎00.꣎꣎
0.560.61
0.6꣎0.5꣎꣎.52
꣎.610.88
꣎.5꣎0.00
0.0꣎0.00
꣎.44꣎.39
0.4꣎꣎.50꣎.48
0.390.12
0.500.꣎꣎
2.7113.60
45.741.64
12.꣎07.491꣎.92
1꣎.45
1.49
6%8%
19%1%
10%8%9%10%14%
7%
0.440.46
꣎.5꣎꣎.29꣎.50
꣎.67꣎.61
0.510.17
0.490.44
0.560.54꣎.500.710.50
0.330.39
0.490.83
0.510.56
- BankCꢉmmunity BuꢄldꢄꢼgCommerꢡial/ꢀꢂrvicꢗRꢗstꢾurꢾnts - Quꢾlꢄty- High Turꢎovꢂr
ꢀupꢂnnꢾrkꢂt
5,0꣎꣎ ꢀF25,꣎00 ꢀF1꣎,꣎0꣎ ꢀF
1꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF34,꣎0꣎ ꢀf
35,0꣎0 ꢀF3,꣎00 SF
Offꢨces
Conveꢎiꢗnꢡꢂ Mꢣrkꢂt (Northern Commeꢰcꢄal)ꢀpecialty Retꢣiꢤ ꢇꢈꢉꢊꢋꢌꢍꢎ ꢛꢉmmꢂrciꢣl)
Tꢳtal Town Center & ꢏꢐꢑꢒꢓꢔꢕ Commꢓꢻcial
492.00
44.32 34.572.718144,50꣎ ꢀF155,500 SF 6%
Firꢪ ꢀtation2 3꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF 50.꣎꣎12.꣎꣎24%6.0꣎6.00 2.꣎꣎°4 /o 1.00 1.꣎0
-·NUMBER OF TRIPS.GENERTED
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HORITE
LAND UꢀEꢛODE
TOTALPEAK %TOTAL
TRIPꢀ TRIPꢀ PEAKIN OUT
%PROJECTꢀ!ZE DAILY OF OF TRIPꢀ TRIPꢀ
IN OUTTRIPꢀ HOUR Daꢄlv Trins HOUR Dꢾiꢤv TrinsPROJECT TRIPS • PHSE 1 (2005 tꢐ 20101
ꢀingle Fꢣmꢄly Dꢂtached Housing
Town Homꢗs 210231 405 Hꢭmꢗs59 Units 3,876
396
3꣎4
4꣎
8%
1꣎%
76
1꣎2283꣎4꣎946 11%
12%
258
27
151
19
TOTALPROJECT TRIPS - PHSE I (Residential only)464 Units 4,272 344 8%86 258 455 11%285 170
PROJECT TRIPS - PHASE 2 (2010 to 2014}
ꢀingle Fꢣmꢄly Detached Housing
Town HomꢂsApꢅrtments.
219231
22꣎
167 Homꢂs197 Units
177 Units541
1,5981,154
1,189
3,941
125
10꣎9꣎
8%
9%8%
8%
31
2꣎
18
69
94
8072
169
12211꣎
401
11%
11%9%
1꣎6
7972
257
63
4338Total Tꢻps Hꢷusing Units 315 246 10%
Genꢪral Retail - ꢀꢖꢗꢘiꢙlꢚ Rꢂtaꢄl
ꢛꢜꢝꢞꢟꢠꢡꢢꢣꢤꢥꢦꢂꢧꢨꢩꢪRꢂstꢅurꢾnts • Quality
814ꢀANDAG931932
85꣎71꣎852
814
1꣎,000 ꢀF12,500 ꢀF
2,500 ꢀF2,5꣎0 ꢀF
34,꣎00 ꢀF12,500 ꢀF
3,000 ꢀF4,500 SF
81,500 SF
4431,5꣎0
225318
3,476138
1,476199
0
602
2911119
94
꣎
0%
4%1%
9</03%
14%6%꣎%4%
꣎
361
1568
1747
꣎
꣎
24
1
1443
247
꣎
131
27
15019
27355
191꣎412
713
2
6%
10%8%
12
7513
16181
351
5
356
1
15
756
11174
1653
7
- Hꢄgh Turnovꢂr 8%ꢀupermarket 10%
14%7%
6%
9%
4%
9%
OfficesConvꢗnience Mꢅrket ꢫꢬꢭꢮꢯꢂꢰꢱ ꢛommꢂrcꢄaꢤ)
ꢀpꢂciꢾꢤty Rꢂtꢣil (Northern ꢛꢭmmercꢄꢾl)ꢲꢳꢴꢵ Tꢻips Tꢳwn Center & ꢶꢷꢸꢹꢺꢻꢼ Cꢷmmeꢻcial 7,775 315
12
184
6
357
1Fire Station2 3꣎,꣎00 ꢀꢽ5꣎24%6
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS • PHASE 2 11,766 642 5%259 383 1,116 614 502
PROJECT TRIPS· PHASE 3 {2014 tꢳ 20181
ꢀinglꢂ Famꢄly Dꢗtachꢂd HꢉusꢄꢎgTꢉwn Homes
ꢀenior Housing (Congregatꢂ Carꢂ ꢽꢾꢿꣀliꢚꣁ1
210
231
252
221 Hꢉmes
314 Units
15꣎ Units
2,115
1,84꣎678
16616꣎25
8%9%
4%
4232
11
12412814
223195
37
11%11%
5%
14꣎127
23
8368
14
Total TripsHousing Units 685 Units 4,633 351 8%85 266 455 10%290 165
ꢛommunity BuiꢤdingGꢪnꢪral Rꢓtail - ꢀpꢂciꢅꢤty Rꢟtꢣil
- Vꢄdꢂo ꢀtoꢍe
495814
896912
SANDAG931
5,꣎00 ꢀF1꣎,0꣎꣎ ꢀF
4,0꣎꣎ ꢀF5,0꣎꣎ ꢀF
12,500 ꢀF7,50꣎ ꢀF
7,5꣎꣎ ꢀF22,5꣎꣎ ꢀF
74,000 SF
57꣎4437꣎꣎
1,2321,50꣎
675954248
6,322
8
00
826꣎
686
35
257
1%꣎%
꣎꣏꣐꣑5%4%
1%9%
14%
4%
5꣎
꣎3536
345
31
155
30
꣎27
24341
4
827
54229
150
5682
34
640
1%6%
8%19%
1꣎%8%
9%14%
10%
212
25115
753850
6
15
29114751832
28
317
- Bꢙnk
Commerc!a!/ꢀerviceRestauꢰꢾnts - Qualꢄty
- High Turnovꢗr 932710Offiꢃꢪs 6
323Tꢷtal Trips Tꢷwn Cent꣄r & ꢶꢐꣂꣃ꣄ꣅ Cꢷmmerciaꢵ102
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS - PS 3
TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS - BUILDOUT
Inteꢻnaꢵ Trips3 (-10%)
10,955
26,993
2,699
608
1,594
159
6%
6%
240
585
59
368
1,009
1꣎1
1,095
2,666
267
10%
10%
613
1,512
151
482
1,154
115
1690 Unts155 500 SFTOTAL PRIMARY PROJECT
BUILDOUTTRIPS
24,294 1,435 6%526 908 2,399 10%1,361 1,039
Notes:
Trip gonora1ion rates b!hd by Institute ofTransporation
E,
G" 7h Edition, 2003, unless noted1. Based on a Paper Pesened at the ITE 661h A Mooting on Somr Housing Trip Generation and Parking
Cc
2. Based on discussions with EngineerAnthony Holiday3. of non-rosiden1ial trips DUE TO Neghborhd District
Land Use HIGGINS
ASSOCIATES
10.4
p. 187 of 262
7. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Ballybunion Drive -
West Luchessa Avenue5. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Club Drive 9. Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive
192 7 56
(145)(5)(134)
122(92)
0(0)70(53)
3(2)
0(0)4(3)
14(34)
Ballybunion Dr.Miller Ave.Club Dr.W Luchessa Ave.
28(58)19(29)34(25)0(0)0(0)
86 3 81
(210)(6)(112)
10. Santa Teresa Boulevard / Miller Avenue - Tenth Street 11. Thomas Road / West Luchessa Avenue
107 149
(184)(411)
86(151)
0(0)21(33)137(379)
W. Luchessa Ave.Miller Ave.
Tenth St.
0(0)239(230)26(26)
91 265
(142)(256)
Attachment 3
Phase 1 and 2
Trip Assignment
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 188 of 262
AM Peak Hour
Out
Percent
of Total
PM Peak Hour
Out
Percent
of TotalInTotalInTotal
A. Figure 14 - Trip Assignment - Phase 1 + Phase 2
Intersection
No. Name
5
7
9
Santa Teresa / Club
Santa Teresa / Ballybunion
86
3
56
91
149
385
192
7
81
107
265
652
278
10
137
198
414
1,037
27%
1%
13%
19%
40%
100%
210
6
134
142
411
903
145
5
112
184
256
702
355
11
246
326
667
1,605
22%
1%
15%
20%
42%
100%
Uvas Park /Miller
10 Santa Teresa / Miller
11 Luchessa /
Total
Thomas
B. Table 6 - Project Trip Generation Totals
GLR Phase 1
GLR Phase 2
Phases 1+2
86
259
345
258
383
641
344
642
986
285
614
899
170
502
672
455
1,116
1,571
C. Trip Assignment Increase Above
Trip Generation 40 11 51 4 30 34
D. GLR 1+2 Trip Assignment as
Percent of GLR 1+2 Trip 112%102%105%100%104%102%
Source: "Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report," Higgins Associates, June 6, 2005 (2005 Traffic Study), Table 6 and
Figure 14.
Attachment 4
Glen Loma Ranch
Phase 1+2 Trip Assignments
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 189 of 262
APPENDIX A -
2005 TRAFFIC
STUDY,
FIGURE 14
10.4
p. 190 of 262
Attachment B: Glen Loma Ranch –
Comparison of Intersection Mitigations
in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected
Buildout (CPB), June 7, 2022
10.4
p. 191 of 262
Keith HigginsTraffic Engineer
June 7, 2022
Glen Loma Group
c/o Augie Dent
7888 Wren Avenue D143
Gilroy, CA 95020
Re: Glen Loma Ranch – Comparison of Intersection Mitigations in the 2005 EIR with Current Projected Buildout
(CPB)
Dear Augie:
This letter is in response to a request by Jon Biggs, Gilroy Interim Planning Director, to analyze the effect of the
reduced trip generation from the Glen Loma Ranch Current Projected Buildout (CPB) on project traffic
distribution, assignment and traffic operations at the following intersections and streets with remaining mitigation
measures.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation 34)
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations 37 and 44)
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 and 39)
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation 40)
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 41)
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (Associated with Mitigation 41)
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation 43)
The locations of these intersections are shown on Attachment A. For reference, the original 2005 Project
mitigations for these seven intersections are excerpted in Attachment B.
A. CPB Trip Generation Summary
My letter to you dated May 26, 2022 indicated that the CPB will generate about 11,762 daily trips with 864 in the
AM peak hour and 1,123 in the PM peak hour. These are about 27% less daily trips and 17% less AM traffic and
30% less PM traffic than was anticipated for Glen Loma Ranch Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2). The CPB is also
expected to generate about 60% less AM peak hour traffic and 40% less PM peak hour traffic than the 24,294
daily, 1,435 AM and 2,399 PM trips anticipated for the original Glen Loma Ranch Buildout.
2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020T 408.201.2752 KEITH@KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM
10.4
p. 192 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
B. CPB Traffic Volume Forecasts
The CPB AM and PM peak hour trip assignments to the study intersections are illustrated on Attachment C
using the same trip distribution and assignment assumptions used in the “Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic
Impact Report,” June 6, 2005, prepared by my previous firm, Higgins Associates, (2005 Traffic Study). CPB
volumes are added to the 2005 Traffic Study Background volumes, the base volumes for the analysis of Phases
1+2 impacts. The resulting CPB volumes are depicted on Attachment D.
C. Background Plus CPB Traffic Operations
Attachment E provides a summary table with Background plus Phases 1+2 (Phases 1+2) levels of service and
recommended mitigation measures used as the basis for the mitigation measures described in Attachment B. It
also tabulates levels of service and recommended mitigation measures with the lower CPB volumes. The results
by intersection are as follows.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue (Mitigation
34)
The Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue intersection had four-way stop control at the time when the
2005 Traffic Study was prepared. The mitigation included the installation of a traffic signal for Phases 1+2 traffic
conditions. The traffic signal was installed many years ago. No additional mitigations were identified to
accommodate Phases 1+2. The CPB will result in less traffic at this intersection, with slightly improved traffic
operations compared to what was expected with Phases 1+2 impacts. No additional mitigations are required for
the CPB.
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) (Mitigations
37 &44)
The Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) intersection was expected to operate at LOS C
under Phases 1+2 conditions. CPB traffic operations will be slightly better than what was expected under the
Phases 1 + 2 condition. Mitigations 37 and 44 were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at
this intersection by the CPB.
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive (Mitigations 35 & 39)
Phases 1+2 mitigation at the Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive intersection included the installation of a
northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane. This mitigation will be required for the CPB as well, although traffic
volumes will be lower than expected with Phases 1+2. Mitigation 39 was identified for Phase 3 impacts and
thus is not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street (Mitigation
40)
The Princevalle Street / 10th St intersection was signalized in 2005. The mitigation at this intersection included
adding left turn traffic signal phasing (left turn arrows) on all four intersection approaches to better accommodate
the high amount of pedestrian traffic before and after school hours at Gilroy High School and Glen View
2
10.4
p. 193 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
Elementary School. The left turn phasing was installed many years ago. No additional mitigation is required for
the CPB at this intersection.
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation
41)
The mitigation at the Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was the conversion of an all-way stop
controlled channelized intersection to a one lane roundabout. This was constructed in 2015. It was adequate
mitigation for Phases 1+2 and will adequately mitigate the lower volumes now anticipated for the CPB. No
additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection.
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue (indirectly associated
withMitigation 41 and Luchessa Avenue bridge widening)
The Princevalle / Luchessa Avenue intersection had stop control and no eastbound Luchessa Avenue left turn
lane in 2005. Mitigation was recommended to include a traffic signal and eastbound left turn lane, which were
installed in 2016. This mitigation is adequate to accommodate Phases 1+2. It will operate better with the lower
volume CPB. No additional mitigation is required for the CPB at this intersection.
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue (Mitigation
43)
The Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue intersection was determined in the 2005 EIR to not require mitigation to
accommodate Phases 1+2 impacts. The impacts for the CPB will be reduced from the impacts expected under
Phases 1 + 2. It will therefore operate acceptably with no mitigation for the CPB. Mitigation 43 was identified for
Phase 3 impacts and thus is not triggered at this intersection for the CPB.
D. Summary and Conclusion
Because the CPB trip generation and traffic assignments are substantially less than the original GLR 1+2 trip
generation, the Phases 1+2 mitigation measures will adequately mitigate the CPB. The specific CPB mitigations
at each study intersection are summarized below.
1. Study Intersection 1 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / Fitzgerald Avenue – No additional mitigations are required for
the CPB.
2. Study Intersection 3 – Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street (State Route 152) – Mitigations at this
intersection were identified for Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
3. Study Intersection 9 – Miller Avenue / Uvas Park Drive – The existing mitigation measure to construct a
northbound Uvas Park Drive left turn lane will be required for the CPB.
4. Study Intersection 13 – Princevalle Street / Tenth Street – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is
required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
5. Study Intersection 17 – Thomas Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional mitigation is
required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
6. Study Intersection 18 – Princevalle Street / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigation is complete. No additional
mitigation is required by the CPB from what has already been installed.
3
10.4
p. 194 of 262
Glen Loma Group
June 7, 2022
7. Study Intersection 19 – Monterey Road / Luchessa Avenue – Mitigations at this intersection were identified for
Phase 3 impacts and thus are not triggered at this intersection by the CPB.
The major finding is that, due to the substantial reduction in CPB traffic generation compared to the GLR Phases
1+2 analyzed in the 2005 Traffic Study, the CPB does not trigger any Phase 3 mitigation measures.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Attachments
4
10.4
p. 195 of 262
10.4
p. 196 of 262
10.4
p. 197 of 262
Attachment B
Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections
from the
Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan
SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014This information is provided for reference only.
3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project
34. Signalize the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Fitzgerald Avenue intersection and add eastbound and westbound left
tum lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
Note: MM 34 partially implemented – the signal was built at this location and is operational.
35. Add a northbound left tum lane to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase II.
37. Add second eastbound and westbound left tum lanes to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
39. Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection and add northbound and southbound left-tum
lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase Ill.
40. Convert the signal phasing at the Princevalle Street/Tenth Street intersection from permitted phasing to
protected phasing.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Note: MM 40 has been implemented – the signal modification was installed at this location and is
operational.
41. If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was converted to a one lane modern roundabout, add a
second lane to the roundabout and widen the Luchessa Avenue Bridge to four lanes. This would result in
LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
OR
If the Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue intersection was signalized and a northbound right tum lane was
added, add a second westbound left tum lane and westbound through lane and widen the Luchessa Avenue
Bridge to four lanes.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
10.4
p. 198 of 262
Attachment B
Transportation Mitigation Measures for the Subject Intersections
from the
Addendum to the Certified Final EIR – Glen Loma Ranch Specific
Plan
SCN 2003042018, Dated: March 24, 2014This information is provided for reference only.
3.8 Transportation/Traffic Mitigations for Subject Intersections – Full 2005 Project (continued)
42. Signalize the Princevalle Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection and add an eastbound left tum lane.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
Note: MM 42 complete – the project was built and is operational.
43. Add second northbound and westbound left tum lanes at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
44. Add an eastbound and westbound through lane on First Street at its intersection with Santa Teresa
Boulevard.
The project proponent shall be responsible for paying for the design and implementation of this mitigation
measure, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase III.
10.4
p. 199 of 262
3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.
0(0)
0(0)14(12)
0(0)
12(24)0(0)
0(0)
12(25)0(0)
Tenth St.First St.Miller Ave.0(0)23(41)16(20)28(18)
0(0)28(18)0(0)0(0)5(10)
17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.
114 (265)114 (265)
0(0)
110(256)
0(0)
24(56)0(0)114(265)
Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.
198 (161)
7(8)99(83)51(39)11(6)198(161)22(18)192(154)
199 (162)
Attachment C
Project Trip Assignment
Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 1 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 200 of 262
1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.
0(0)
0(0)
15(30)
Fitzgerald Ave.
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Attachment C
Project Trip Assignment
Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 2 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 201 of 262
3. Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.9. Miller Ave. / Uvas Park Dr.13. Princevalle St. / Tenth St.
270(344)
155(285)246(218)
25(27)
123(79)56(12)
101(126)
347(536)115(79)
Tenth St.First St.Miller Ave.41(96)220(275)111(77)
36(52)67(27)164(102)
107(14)428(376)126(14)
17. Thomas Road / Luchessa Ave.18. Princevalle St. / Luchessa Ave.19. Monterey Rd. / Luchessa Ave.
597 (764)596 (764)
93(107)
424(671)
24(92)
103(258)92(285)193(297)
Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.Luchessa Ave.
703 (477)
171(65)136(128)237(152)216(218)274(180)98(24)533(413)
704 (478)
Attachment D
Background Plus Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 1 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 202 of 262
1. Santa Teresa Blvd. / Fitzgerald Ave.
18(20)
6(8)
222(494)
Fitzgerald Ave.
4(0)
4(10)
5(11)
Attachment D
Background Plus Current Project Buildout
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
(Page 2 of 2)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
10.4
p. 203 of 262
Attachment E
Remaining Glen Loma Ranch Intersections
Levels of Service with GLR Phases 1+2 and
CPB Background + Phases 1+2
(2005 TIA)Level of
Service
Standard
2005
Intersection
Control
Background + CPB
Operations
Type
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
AM PM AM PM
Intersection Del LOS Del
14.8 B
LOS
35.2 E
Del LOS
14.7 B
Del LOS
1 Santa Teresa Fitzgerald County: LOS D All-Way Stop Improvements in place in 2005 31.4 D
City: LOS C
Improvements Already Implemented
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
Traffic Signal
21.1 C+ 30.5 C
Traffic Signal
21.0 C+29.6 C
Traffic Signal already
installed. None Required.GLR EIR Mitigation N.A.
Traffic Signal already installed.
None Required.Recommended CPB Mitigation
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
N.A.
3 Santa Teresa First City: LOS C Signal Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
25.0 C 25.3 C 25.0 C 25.1 C
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required N.A.
Recommended CPB Mitigation N.A.None Required
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With NB Uvas Left Only
9 Miller Uvas City: LOS C All-Way
Stop
28.8 D
24.9 C
46.2 E
24.0 C
21.3 C
19.5 C
44.0 E
23.4 C
Add NB Uvas Left Turn LaneGLR EIR Mitigation N.A.
Add NB Uvas Left Turn LaneRecommended CPB Mitigation N.A.
Traffic Signal
with No Left
Turn Phases
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
GLR EIR Mitigation
13 Princevalle
17 Thomas
Tenth City: LOS C
City: LOS C
10.1 B+
LT Phasing all 4 directions is
already in place.
9.1 A 10.2 B+
LT Phasing all 4 directions is
already in place.
9.2 A
Recommended CPB Mitigation
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 2005
Delay and LOS With Mitigations
Luchessa All-Way
Stop
60.8 F
6.9 A
114.1 F
8.7 A
51.1 F
6.6 A
64.7 F
6.9 A
GLR EIR Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout
Recommended CPB Mitigation 1-Lane Roundabout
25.0 D
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Princevalle Improvements in place in 2005
Stop Sign
18 Princevalle Luchessa
Luchessa
City: LOS D 28.4 D 34.9 D 25.8 D
Improvements Already Implemented Traffic Signal Traffic Signal
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required
Recommended CPB Mitigation None Required
Unmitigated Delay and LOS with
Improvements in place in 200519 Monterey
Notes:
Signal 23.9 C 29.4 C 23.4 C 28.0 C
GLR EIR Mitigation None Required
Recommended CPB Mitigation None Required
1. Delays under Background + Phases 1+2 were verified in analysis model, prior to use under Background + CPB,
to either match exactly the values in 2005 report or to be no more than 1.0 seconds different.
10.4
p. 204 of 262
Appendix 1
Level of Service Calculations
10.4
p. 205 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.646
15.1
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
10 101010444 10
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
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:
User Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 225 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 386 465 15 201 5 225
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
5 156 156 195 509 14 41Final Sat.: 578 631 720 508 546
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
0.01 0.61 0.65 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44
**** **** **** ****
8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7
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: 8.9 16.7 16.0 9.7 12.4 12.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 13.7 13.7 13.7
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
A C
16.3
1.00
16.3
C
C A B
12.2
1.00
12.2
B
B A A
9.6
1.00
9.6
A
A B B
13.7
1.00
13.7
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 206 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.646
25.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Ignore
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270
89 518 295 445 590 87 41 220 112 249 155 270
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
89 518 148 445 590 44
0
41 220 56 249 155 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FinalVolume: 89 518 148 445 590 44 41 220 56 249 155 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 7.4 14.8 14.8 15.3 22.6 22.6 6.2 12.5 12.5 15.4 21.7 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.48 0.08 0.26 0.65 0.18 0.65 0.26 0.00
Uniform Del: 29.5 25.2 23.8 24.9 19.0 16.4 29.7 26.7 24.4 24.8 18.1 0.0
IncremntDel: 2.0 1.8 0.7 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 4.3 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 31.4 27.1 24.5 27.0 19.3 16.5 30.6 31.0 24.6 28.6 18.4 0.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
6
C
3
C B-B
1
C
1
C
6
C
1
C B-A
06563
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 207 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.906
28.8
D0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
User Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj:0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 116 266
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 116 266
13
0
13 413 67
0
67
43 74 179 59 132 26
0
26
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 13 413 43 74 179 59 132
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 116 266
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 148 341
0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12
16 14 455 74 70 119 289 118 263 53
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.50 0.50 0.50
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5
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: 27.3 27.3 27.3 41.5 41.5 41.5 18.7 18.7 18.7 16.5 16.5 16.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
D D
27.3
1.00
27.3
D
D E E
41.5
1.00
41.5
E
E C C
18.7
1.00
18.7
C
C C C
16.5
1.00
16.5
C
C
AllWayAvgQ: 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 208 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.419
10.1
B+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Tenth St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0 00000000
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
PCE Adj:
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
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: 95 148 120 117 203 32 107 433 126 115 349 101
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.55 0.45 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 994 806 1750 1555 245 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11
Uniform Del: 13.2 14.6 14.6 13.3 14.3 14.3 6.6 8.1 6.7 6.7 7.6 6.6
IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7
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: 13.3 15.1 15.1 13.5 14.7 14.7 6.7 8.3 6.8 6.7 7.8 6.7
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
1
B
4
B
4
B
2
B
4
B
4
A
1
A
5
A
1
A
1
A
4
A
1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 209 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.133
60.8
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 115 0 431 0 315 102 405 216 0
115 0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 0
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: 115
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 115
0 431 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 405 216 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 431 0 315 102 405 216
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 115
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 431 0 0 0 0 315 102 405 216 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:
Final Sat.: 126
0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.35 0.00
0 471 0 490 542 357 191 0000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.91 xxxx 0.91 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.64 0.19 1.13 1.13 xxxx
**** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 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: 42.8 0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 10.7 104.7 105 0.0
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
E *
42.8
1.00
42.8
E
E ****C
18.9
1.00
18.9
C
B F F
104.7
1.00
104.7
F
*
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
AllWayAvgQ: 5.6 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 14.5 14.5 14.5
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 210 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):5.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 28.4]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Sign
Include
1 0 0 0 1
Uncontrolled
Include
0 1 0 0 0
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 74
74
0 173 172 573 0 0 448 94
94
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 173 172 573 0 0 448
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
74
0 173 172 573 0
0
0
0 448 94
0
94
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 173 172 573 0 448
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1412 xxxx 495 542 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 154 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 132 xxxx 579 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 xxxx 0.30 0.17 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.8 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 62.5 xxxx 13.9 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *B A *****
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 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
28.4
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 211 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:25:17 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
37
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.437
23.9
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
256 245 351 83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 256 245 351
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 256 245 351
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
000000000000
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 256 245 351
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
83 161 93 156 249 220 92 108 24
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.18
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1473 327
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.07
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.2 30.5 41.3 9.8 9.0 29.8 20.7 27.0 58.2 10.8 17.1 26.8
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.16 0.39 0.44 0.19 0.44 0.39 0.25
Uniform Del: 22.5 21.1 16.5 37.6 38.0 21.3 29.3 25.4 6.4 36.8 31.9 23.9
IncremntDel: 0.5 0.1 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.2
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2
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: 23.0 21.1 16.9 39.2 38.8 21.4 29.9 25.9 6.5 38.2 32.6 24.2
LOS by Move: C+ C+
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
7
D D+C+
2
C
4
C
6
A
3
D+ C-C
3623334
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 212 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.980
36.2
E
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
10 101010444 10
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 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:
User Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0
0
0
0 10 11 507 8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 244 231 21 403 0 10 11 507
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
0 202 223 517 20Final Sat.: 452 485 535 460 492 0 8
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.02 0.50 0.43 0.05 0.82 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.98 0.98 0.98
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5
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: 10.7 17.0 14.1 10.8 34.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 58.5 58.5 58.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B C
15.5
1.00
15.5
C
B B D
32.9
1.00
32.9
D
**B
11.1
1.00
11.1
B
B F F
58.5
1.00
58.5
F
F
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 7.4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 213 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
44
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.584
25.3
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344
111 356 171 373 481 78 96 275 80 223 285 344
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 111 356
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 111 356
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
86 373 481 39
0
96 275 40 223 285 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 111 356
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
86 373 481 39 96 275 40 223 285 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.06 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.00
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.5 11.2 11.2 14.2 16.9 16.9 8.7 17.3 17.3 15.3 23.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.58 0.30 0.58 0.52 0.09 0.44 0.58 0.09 0.58 0.44 0.00
Uniform Del: 28.9 27.2 25.9 25.2 23.0 20.6 28.4 23.2 20.3 24.5 17.9 0.0
IncremntDel: 2.4 1.5 0.6 1.4 0.6 0.1 1.4 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 31.2 28.7 26.6 26.6 23.6 20.7 29.8 25.1 20.4 26.9 18.4 0.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
5
C
2
C
5
C
5
C+
1
C
3
C
6
C+
1
C B-A
065
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 214 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.056
46.2
E0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
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: 168 445
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 168 445
10
0
13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
0
27
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 168 445
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 159 422
0.27 0.71 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21
16 396 172 189 73 227 41 311 939
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
1.06 1.06 1.06 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2
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: 76.9 76.9 76.9 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 13.2 13.2 13.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
F F
76.9
1.00
76.9
F
F D D
30.1
1.00
30.1
D
D C C
15.7
1.00
15.7
C
C B B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 11.1 11.1 11.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 215 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.428
9.1
A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Tenth St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0 00000000
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
114 101 73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 114 101
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 119 16
0
14 383 14
0
79 548 126
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 119 16 14 383 14 79 548 126
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1587 213 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.29 0.07
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.07 0.43 0.11
Uniform Del: 19.2 19.9 19.9 19.1 19.4 19.4 3.2 4.0 3.2 3.3 4.5 3.4
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.5
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: 19.6 20.6 20.6 19.4 19.9 19.9 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.5
LOS by Move: B- C+
HCM2kAvgQ:
C+
3
B- B-B-
2
A
0
A
3
A
0
A
1
A
5
A
12322
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 216 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.348
114.1
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 38 0 297 0 249 32 467 411 0
38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
38
0
0 297 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 249 32 467 411 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 38 0 297 0 249 32 467 411
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 38
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 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:
Final Sat.:
0.11 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.47 0.00
71 0 553 0 561 630 346 305 0000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
0.54 xxxx 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.44 0.05 1.35 1.35 xxxx
**** ****
Delay/Veh: 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 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: 14.9 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 8.6 184.3 184 0.0
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B *
14.9
1.00
14.9
B
B ****B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
A F F
184.3
1.00
184.3
F
*
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
AllWayAvgQ: 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 31.8 31.8 31.8
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 217 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 34.9]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Sign
Include
1 0 0 0 1
Uncontrolled
Include
0 1 0 0 0
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol:0 0 0 72
72
0 97
97
67 478 0 0 780 107
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 67 478 0 0 780 107
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
72
0
0
0
97
0
97
67 478 0
0
0
0 780 107
0 0 0 0 0
67 478 0 780 107
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1446 xxxx 834 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 147 xxxx 371 772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 137 xxxx 371 772 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.53 xxxx 0.26 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.5 xxxx 1.0 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 57.6 xxxx 18.1 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *C B *****
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 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
34.9
D
*B *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 218 of 262
Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:30:43 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
56
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.680
29.4
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
377 261 138 35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 377 261 138
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 377 261 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
000000000000
35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 377 261 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 229 164 170 220 285 282 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1357 443
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.22 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.21
Crit Moves: ******** **** ****
Green Time: 28.5 29.5 55.3 8.6 9.6 22.0 12.4 14.2 42.7 25.8 27.5 36.1
Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.68 0.54 0.68 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.68 0.52
Uniform Del: 26.8 21.8 7.3 37.6 38.7 29.6 36.9 35.1 14.2 27.4 27.4 20.4
IncremntDel: 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 4.7 1.3 7.6 2.6 0.2 1.6 3.4 0.7
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 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: 30.2 21.9 7.3 38.2 43.4 30.9 44.6 37.7 14.4 28.9 30.8 21.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C C+
11
A
2
D+
1
D
5
C
7
D D+B
4
C C C+
93658 11
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 219 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:33:25 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.471
21.1
C+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
7 10
Protected
Include
7 10
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 386 465 15 201 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 225 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 386 465 15 201 5 225
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 386 465 15 201 2 4 4 5 225 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1717 46 137
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13
**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3
Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.53 0.64 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.64
Uniform Del: 22.6 16.8 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 3.6 3.6
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
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: 22.6 17.6 19.7 28.8 20.6 20.6 26.0 26.0 26.0 29.1 29.1 29.1
LOS by Move: C+B
7
B-
9
C C+C+
4
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
6
C
6
C
6HCM2kAvgQ:0 0 4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 220 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:14:09 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.895
24.9
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
011000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
110 253 12 12 392 64 41 70 170 56 125 25
User Adj:
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
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
116 266 13
0
13 413 67
0
43
0
74
0
179
0
59 132 26
0000000
Reduced Vol: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
PCE Adj:
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
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: 116 266 13 13 413 67 43 74 179 59 132 26
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.84 0.14 0.15 0.25 0.60 0.27 0.61 0.12
449 459 22 14 461 75 72 124 301 123 275 55
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.26 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.48 0.48 0.48
**** **** **** ****
12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh: 12.8 18.2 18.2 39.9 39.9 39.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 15.8 15.8 15.8
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
B C
16.6
1.00
16.6
C
C E E
39.9
1.00
39.9
E
E C C
17.9
1.00
17.9
C
C C C
15.8
1.00
15.8
C
C
0.3 1.1 1.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 221 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 AM Thu May 26, 2022 12:24:00 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.9 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 115 0 429 0 315 102 404 216 0
115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0
0 0 0
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 115
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 115
0 429 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 404 216 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 429 0 315 102 404 216
PCE Adj:
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
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: 115 0 429 0 0 0 0 315 102 404 216 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:115
0
0
0
115
0 429 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 315 102 404 216 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 429 0 315 102 404 216
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
315
1030
0
1030
544
0.53
7.3
A
735
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
404
982
0
982
417
0.42
6.3
A
115
1138
0
1138
620
0.54
6.9
A
xxxxxx
*
3.2 xxxx 2.1 3.4
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 222 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:35:24 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.599
30.5
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
7 10 10
4.0
1
7 10 10
4.0
0
10 10 10
4.0
0
10
4.0 4.0
1! 0
10 10
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8
0
8
244
0
244
231
0
231
21 403 0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
11
0
11
507
0
507
8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0
21 403
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 244 231 21 403 0 0 10 11 507 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 905 995 1801 28 71
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
Green Time: 7.0 17.2 17.2 11.7 21.9
Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.60 0.57 0.08 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.77 0.77 0.77
0.00 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.28
**** **** ****
0.0 10.0 10.0 29.1 29.1 29.10.0
Uniform Del: 33.4 28.3 28.1 29.5 26.8 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 31.0 31.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
IncremntDel: 0.1 2.4
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
1.8
0.0
0.1 7.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
5.5 5.5
0.0 0.0
5.5
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 30.7 29.9 29.6 33.9 0.0
A
0.0 31.1 31.1 28.0 28.0 28.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C-
0
C
6
C
6
C
0
C-
11
A
0
C
1
C
1
C
14
C
14
C
140
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 223 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:16:21 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.822
24.0
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 168 445
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 168 445
10
0
10
13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
0
27
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90
PCE Adj:
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
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: 168 445 10 13 325 141 91 35 109 12 90 27
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 512 541
1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.68 0.29 0.39 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.70 0.21
12 16 399 173 189 73 226 42 311 93
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.33 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7
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: 12.9 31.2 31.2 28.6 28.6 28.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.7 12.7 12.7
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B D
26.3
1.00
26.3
D
D D D
28.6
1.00
28.6
D
D B B
15.0
1.00
15.0
B
B B B
12.7
1.00
12.7
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 0.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 224 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+Ph1+2 PM Thu May 26, 2022 12:26:49 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):8.8 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
38
0
38
0
0
0
297
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
0
249
32
0
32
467 411 0
0
0
0 0
467 411
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:38 0 297 0 0 0 0 249 32 467 411 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:38
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249
0
0
0
249
32
0
0
0
32
467 411 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
467 411
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
249
1066
0
1066
335
0.31
4.9
A
916
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
467
948
0
948
281
0.30
5.4
A
38
1179
0
1179
878
0.74
11.3
B
xxxxxx
*
1.4 xxxx 1.2 7.3
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 225 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.636
14.7
B
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
7
0
10
1
10
1
7
0
10
0
10
0
4
0
4
1! 0
4
0
10 10
1! 0
10
01011000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
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:
User Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5
0
5
380
0
380
459
0
459
15 197 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5
0
5
222
0
222
6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0
15 197
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
581 633 722 510 548 157 157 196 509 14 416
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.01 0.60 0.64 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh:
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
****
8.9 16.2 15.6
****
9.7 12.3 12.3
****
9.5 9.5
****
9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8.9 16.2 15.6 9.7 12.3 12.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
A C
15.8
1.00
15.8
C
C A B
12.1
1.00
12.1
B
B A A
9.5
1.00
9.5
A
A B B
13.5
1.00
13.5
B
B
0.0 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 226 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
48
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.637
25.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd.
North Bound South Bound
First St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Ignore
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:88 495 289
289
445 578 87
87
41 220 111
111
246 155 270
270
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:
User Adj:
88 495 445 578 41 220 246 155
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
88 495 145
0
145
445 578 44
0
44
41 220 56
0
56
246 155 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 495 445 578 41 220 246 155
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:88 495 145 445 578 44 41 220 56 246 155 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
Green Time:
0.05 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.00
**** **** **** ****
7.4 14.3 14.3 15.5 22.4 22.4 6.3 12.7 12.7 15.4 21.9 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.64 0.40 0.64 0.47 0.08 0.26 0.64 0.17 0.64 0.26 0.00
Uniform Del: 29.5 25.5 24.1 24.7 19.1 16.6 29.7 26.5 24.2 24.7 18.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
IncremntDel: 1.9 1.8
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.7
0.0
2.0 0.3
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
0.9 3.9
0.0 0.0
0.3
0.0
3.5 0.2
0.0 0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 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: 31.4 27.2 24.9 26.7 19.4 16.6 30.6 30.4 24.5 28.3 18.2 0.0
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
6
C
3
C
6
B-
5
B
1
C
1
C
6
C
1
C
6
B-
3 0
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 227 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.810
21.3
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
00000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
User Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
108 253 12
0
12 392 59
0
36
0
67
0
164
0
56 123 25
0000000
Reduced Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 108 253
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
0.29 0.68 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12
155 364 17 15 484 73 67 124 304 123 271 55
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.70 0.70 0.70 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.45
**** **** **** ****
21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
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: 21.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 14.5 14.5 14.5
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
C C
21.0
1.00
21.0
C
C D D
28.0
1.00
28.0
D
D C C
15.4
1.00
15.4
C
C B B
14.5
1.00
14.5
B
B
1.7 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 228 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.421
10.2
B+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Tenth St.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
000
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
0
0 0
4.0
1
0 0
4.0
1
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:95 147 130
130
117 202 32
32
107 428 126
126
115 347 101
101
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:
User Adj:
95 147 117 202 107 428 115 347
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
95 147 130
0
130
117 202 32
0
32
107 428 126
0
126
115 347 101
0
101
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 147 117 202 107 428 115 347
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:95 147 130 117 202 32 107 428 126 115 347 101
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.53 0.47 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 1750 955 845 1750 1554 246 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.06
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.34 0.11
Uniform Del: 12.8 14.3 14.3 13.0 13.9 13.9 6.9 8.4
0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0
7.0
0.1
0.0
7.0 7.9
0.1 0.2
0.0 0.0
6.9
0.1
0.0
IncremntDel: 0.1 0.4
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0
0.3
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1 7.0 8.1 6.9
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: 12.9 14.7 14.7 13.1 14.2 14.2 7.0 8.7 7.1
A
7.0 8.1 6.9
ALOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
B
1
B
4
B
4
B
2
B
4
B
4
A
1
A
5
A
1
A
41 1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 229 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.071
51.1
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
00000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 113 429 274 98 404 193 0
113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
0 0 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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
113
0
0
0
0
429
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
274
98
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0 0
Reduced Vol: 113 404 193
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 113
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 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:
Final Sat.:
0.21 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.32 0.00
126 478 491 543 377 180 000000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
0.90 xxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 0.18 1.07 1.07 xxxx
**** ****
0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
AdjDel/Veh: 39.4 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
*
0.0 18.2 10.6 83.4 83.4 0.0
*LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
E *
39.4
1.00
39.4
E
E ***C
16.2
1.00
16.2
C
B F F
83.4
1.00
83.4
F
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
5.1 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 11.4 11.4 11.4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 230 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):5.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.0]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 73
73
0 172
172
171 533 0 0 424
424
93
93
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 171 533 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
0
73
0
0
0
172
0
172
171 533 0
0
0
0
0
0
424
0
424
93
0
93
0 0
171 533
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1346 xxxx 471 517 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 169 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 146 xxxx 597 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx 0.29 0.16 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ:xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.4 xxxx 1.2 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxControl Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 52.4 xxxx 13.4
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***F *B A *****
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
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
25.0
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 231 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 4, 2022 14:48:04 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
37
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.448
23.4
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
1
0 0 0
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
269 244 351
0
83 106 83
0
136 267 216
0
92 103 24
000000000
Reduced Vol: 269 244 351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 269 244
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
351 83 106 83 136 267 216 92 103 24
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.19
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1460 340
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.15 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07
**** **** **** ****
9.5 6.0 26.3 20.3 28.2 61.4 10.6 18.4 28.0
Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.19 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.16 0.34 0.45 0.18 0.45 0.34 0.23
Uniform Del: 21.2 21.6 17.2 37.8 40.3 23.6 29.2 24.7 5.2 37.0 30.6 23.0
Crit Moves:
Green Time: 33.2 29.7 40.3
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.1
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
0.4
0.0
1.7 1.1
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
1.6 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 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: 21.6 21.7 17.6 39.5 41.4 23.8 29.8 25.2 5.3 38.6 31.2 23.2
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C+
6
C+
2
B
7
D
3
D
2
C
2
C
4
C
6
A
2
D+
3
C
3
C
3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 232 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.943
31.4
D
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
7 10
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
10 101010444 10
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 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:
User Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
1.00 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:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0
0
0
0 10 11 494 8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 223 223 21 389 0 10 11 494
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
0 206 226 524 21Final Sat.: 454 487 538 464 497 0 8
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.02 0.46 0.41 0.05 0.78 xxxx xxxx 0.05 0.05 0.94 0.94 0.94
**** **** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4
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: 10.5 15.5 13.4 10.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.8 49.4 49.4 49.4
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B C
14.4
1.00
14.4
B
B B D
28.5
1.00
28.5
D
**B
10.8
1.00
10.8
B
B E E
49.4
1.00
49.4
E
E
AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 6.1
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 233 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9003 Santa Teresa Blvd. / First St.
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
43
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.570
25.1
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd.First St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344
107 321 163 373 462 78 96 275 77 218 285 344
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 107 321
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 107 321
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
82 373 462 39
0
96 275 39 218 285 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 107 321
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
82 373 462 39 96 275 39 218 285 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.06 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.00
Crit Moves:**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 8.3 10.4 10.4 14.5 16.6 16.6 8.9 17.8 17.8 15.3 24.2 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.57 0.31 0.57 0.51 0.09 0.43 0.57 0.09 0.57 0.43 0.00
Uniform Del: 28.9 27.7 26.6 24.9 23.2 20.8 28.3 22.8 19.9 24.4 17.6 0.0
IncremntDel: 2.2 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.4 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 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: 31.1 29.1 27.3 26.1 23.7 20.9 29.6 24.4 20.0 26.5 18.1 0.0
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C
3
C
4
C
2
C
5
C
5
C+
1
C
3
C
6
C+
1
C B-A
055
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 234 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 4-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.044
44.0
E0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.Miller Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
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:0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 164 468
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 164 468
11
0
14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
0
28
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 164 468
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.: 157 449
0.25 0.73 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23
10 17 429 161 142 74 279 47 309 106
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
1.04 1.04 1.04 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** ****
Delay/Veh: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6
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: 71.7 71.7 71.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.6 12.6 12.6
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
F F
71.7
1.00
71.7
F
F D D
27.3
1.00
27.3
D
D B B
13.7
1.00
13.7
B
B B B
12.6
1.00
12.6
B
B
AllWayAvgQ: 10.8 10.8 10.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 235 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 5-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9013 Princevalle / Tenth
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
60
6
23
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.421
9.2
A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Tenth St.
East Bound
L - T - R
North Bound South Bound West Bound
L - T - RL - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0
Permitted
Include
0 00000000
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
114 101 73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 114 101
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 117 16
0
14 375 14
0
79 536 126
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 114 101
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 102 117 16 14 375 14 79 536 126
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92
Lanes: 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 1045 755 1750 1583 217 1750 1900 1750 1750 1900 1750
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.07 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.07
Crit Moves:**** ****
Green Time: 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2
Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.07 0.42 0.11
Uniform Del: 19.0 19.7 19.7 18.9 19.2 19.2 3.3 4.1 3.3 3.4 4.5 3.5
IncremntDel: 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6
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: 19.4 20.4 20.4 19.2 19.7 19.7 3.3 4.2 3.3 3.4 4.8 3.6
LOS by Move: B- C+
HCM2kAvgQ:
C+
3
B- B-B-
2
A
0
A
3
A
0
A
1
A
5
A
12322
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 236 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 6-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
1.138
64.7
F0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 28 0 297 0 180 24 467 297 0
28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
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:
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
28
0
0 297 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 180 24 467 297 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 28 0 297 0 180 24 467 297
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 28
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 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:
Final Sat.:
0.09 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.39 0.00
55 0 588 0 565 635 410 261 0000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
0.51 xxxx 0.51 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 0.04 1.14 1.14 xxxx
**** ****
Delay/Veh: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 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: 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 8.4 100.5 100 0.0
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
B *
13.9
1.00
13.9
B
B ****B
11.3
1.00
11.3
B
A F F
100.5
1.00
100.5
F
*
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
*
AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 17.2 17.2 17.2
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 237 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 7-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9018 Princevalle / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):3.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 25.8]
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Princevalle St.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Lanes:
Stop Sign
Include
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Sign
Include
1 0 0 0 1
Uncontrolled
Include
0 1 0 0 0
Uncontrolled
Include
0 0 0 1 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:0 0 0 72
72
0 93
93
65 413 0 0 671 107
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
0 0 0 0 65 413 0 0 671 107
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
FinalVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
72
0
0
0
93
0
93
65 413 0
0
0
0 671 107
0 0 0 0 0
65 413 0 671 107
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1268 xxxx 725 778 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 188 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 177 xxxx 429 848 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.41 xxxx 0.22 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxx 0.8 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 38.8 xxxx 15.7 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
***E *C A *****
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 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
*****
25.8
D
*A *****
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
xxxxxx
*
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 238 of 262
Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 4, 2022 14:50:35 Page 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9019 Monterey / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
90
12
50
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.627
28.0
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Monterey Rd.Luchessa Ave.
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement:L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
Protected
Ovl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
356 281 138 35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
PHF Volume: 356 281 138
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 356 281 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
000000000000
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
PCE Adj:
MLF Adj:
FinalVolume: 356 281 138
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 275 180 128 152 218 285 258 92
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.26
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 3800 1750 1750 1900 1750 1750 1327 473
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.20 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves: ******** **** ****
Green Time: 29.2 31.2 56.9 8.4 10.4 20.9 10.5 12.7 41.9 25.8 27.9 36.3
Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.63 0.44 0.63 0.57 0.27 0.57 0.63 0.48
Uniform Del: 25.8 20.8 6.6 37.7 38.0 29.6 37.9 36.1 14.7 27.4 26.6 19.9
IncremntDel: 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.9 0.8 6.1 2.9 0.2 1.6 2.3 0.5
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 28.0 20.9 6.7 38.4 40.8 30.4 43.9 39.0 14.9 28.9 28.8 20.4
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C C+
10
A
2
D+
1
D
5
C
5
D
5
D
5
B
4
C
8
C
9
C+
83
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 239 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Wed May 11, 2022 11:38:16 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
70
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.466
21.0
C+
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Santa Teresa Blvd Fitzgerald Ave
North Bound
L - T - R
South Bound
L - T - R
East Bound
L - T - R
West Bound
L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
7 10
Protected
Include
7 10
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0Lanes:
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
5 380 459 15 197 2
0
2
4
0
4
4
0
4
5 222 6
0
6
18
0
18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 380 459 15 197 5 222
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:5 380 459 15 197 2 4 4 5 222 6 18
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.07
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 19 585 585 731 1715 46 139
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves:
0.00 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13
**** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.9 26.7 26.7 7.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.3 14.3 14.3
Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.52 0.63 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.63
Uniform Del: 22.6 16.7 17.7 28.6 20.1 20.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.5 25.5
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4 3.4 3.4
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 22.6 17.5 19.5 28.8 20.5 20.5 26.0 26.0 26.0 28.9 28.9 28.9
LOS by Move: C+B
7
B-
9
C C+C+
4
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
6
C
6
C
6HCM2kAvgQ:0 0 4
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 240 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:54:34 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.832
23.4
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
01010000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
156 445 10 13 325 122 52 27 102 12 79 27
User Adj:
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
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
164 468 11
0
14 342 128
0
55
0
28
0
107
0
13
0
83
0
28
00000
Reduced Vol: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
PCE Adj:
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
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: 164 468 11 14 342 128 55 28 107 13 83 28
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.56 0.10 0.67 0.23
532 563 13 17 431 162 142 74 279 47 309 106
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.31 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** **** ****
12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh: 12.3 31.3 31.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
B D
26.5
1.00
26.5
D
D D D
26.2
1.00
26.2
D
D B B
13.2
1.00
13.2
B
B B B
12.2
1.00
12.2
B
B
0.4 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 241 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:05:31 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.6 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 113 429 274 98 404 193 0
113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
0 0 0 0 0
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol: 113
113
0
0
0
0
429
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
274
98
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0 0
404 193
PCE Adj:
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
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: 113 0 429 0 0 0 0 274 98 404 193 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:113
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274
0
0
0
274
98
0
0
0
98
404 193 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
404 193
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
274
1052
0
1052
542
0.52
7.0
A
710
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
404
982
0
982
372
0.38
5.9
A
113
1139
0
1139
597
0.52
6.6
A
xxxxxx
*
3.0 xxxx 1.8 3.2
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 242 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Wed May 11, 2022 11:40:44 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9001 Santa Teresa / Fitzgerald
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
80
12
49
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.582
29.6
C
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Santa Teresa Blvd
North Bound South Bound
Fitzgerald Ave
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Min. Green:
Y+R:
Protected
Include
Protected
Include
Split Phase
Include
Split Phase
Include
7 10 10
4.0
1
7 10 10
4.0
0
10 10 10
4.0
0
10
4.0 4.0
1! 0
10 10
4.0
0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lanes:1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
8
0
8
223
0
223
223
0
223
21 389 0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
11
0
11
494
0
494
8
0
8
20
0
20
0 0
21 389
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:8 223 223 21 389 0 0 10 11 494 8 20
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane:
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 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.95 0.01 0.04
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 905 995 1798 29 73
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:
Crit Moves: ****
Green Time: 7.0 16.9 16.9 11.8 21.8
Volume/Cap: 0.05 0.55 0.55 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.27
**** **** ****
0.0 10.0 10.0 29.2 29.2 29.20.0
Uniform Del: 33.4 28.2 28.2 29.4 26.6 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 31.0 31.0 22.2 22.2 22.2
IncremntDel: 0.1 1.7
InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0
1.7
0.0
0.1 6.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.0
4.6 4.6
0.0 0.0
4.6
0.0
Delay Adj:
Delay/Veh:
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8
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: 33.6 29.9 29.9 29.5 32.8 0.0
A
0.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 26.8 26.8
LOS by Move:
HCM2kAvgQ:
C-
0
C
6
C
6
C
0
C-
11
A
0
C
1
C
1
C
13
C
13
C
130
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 243 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB AM Thu Apr 28, 2022 16:57:47 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9009 Uvas Park / Miller
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec):
Loss Time (sec):
Optimal Cycle:
100
0
Critical Vol./Cap.(X):
Average Delay (sec/veh):
Level Of Service:
0.808
19.5
C0
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Uvas Park Dr.
North Bound South Bound
Miller Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Rights:
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Stop Sign
Include
Min. Green:
Lanes:
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
0
0
0
0
1! 0
0
01010000
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:AM Peak Hour
Base Vol:
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
User Adj:
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
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
108 253 12
0
12 392 59
0
36
0
67
0
164
0
56 123 25
0000000
Reduced Vol: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
PCE Adj:
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
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: 108 253 12 12 392 59 36 67 164 56 123 25
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
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:
Final Sat.:
1.00 0.95 0.05 0.02 0.85 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.61 0.12
472 484 23 15 485 73 69 128 314 128 282 57
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat:0.23 0.52 0.52 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.44
**** **** **** ****
12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh: 12.0 15.9 15.9 28.1 28.1 28.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 14.2 14.2 14.2
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
AllWayAvgQ:
B C
14.8
1.00
14.8
B
C D D
28.1
1.00
28.1
D
D C C
15.1
1.00
15.1
C
C B B
14.2
1.00
14.2
B
B
0.3 0.9 0.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 244 of 262
MITIG8 - Bkgnd+CPB PM Thu Apr 28, 2022 17:07:08 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
FHWA Roundabout Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #9017 Thomas / Luchessa
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh):6.9 Level Of Service: A
********************************************************************************
Street Name:
Approach:
Thomas Rd.
North Bound South Bound
Luchessa Ave.
East Bound West Bound
Movement:L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R L -T -R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control:
Lanes:
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
0
Yield Sign
1
Yield Sign
1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:PM Peak Hour
Base Vol:28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 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:
User Adj:
PHF Adj:
28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume:
Reduct Vol:
Reduced Vol:
PCE Adj:
28
0
28
0
0
0
297
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
0
180
24
0
24
467 297 0
0
0
0 0
467 297
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00MLF Adj:
FinalVolume:28 0 297 0 0 0 0 180 24 467 297 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
PCE Module:
AutoPCE:28
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
0
0
0
180
24
0
0
0
24
467 297 0
0
0
0
0
TruckPCE:
ComboPCE:
BicyclePCE:
AdjVolume:
0
0
0
0
0
0
467 297
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Delay Module: >> Time Period: 0.25 hours <<
CircVolume:
MaxVolume:
PedVolume:
AdjMaxVol:
ApproachVol:
ApproachV/C:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
Queue:
180
1103
0
1103
325
0.29
4.6
A
792
xxxxxx
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1.00
467
948
0
948
204
0.22
4.8
A
28
1185
0
1185
764
0.64
8.4
A
xxxxxx
*
1.2 xxxx 0.8 5.0
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CITY OF CAMPBELL
10.4
p. 245 of 262
Attachment C: Trip Generation
Comparison Table for General Office
and Commercial Land Uses
10.4
p. 246 of 262
Trip Generation Comparison Table for General Office and Commercial Land
Uses Trip Generation1
CPB Land Use Size ITE Code Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Fitted Curve Estimate
General Office [A]4,000 sq. ft
4,000 sq. ft
710
820
47 30 5
Commercial [B]674 154 50
2022 CPB Traffic Study Estimate2
General Office [C]39 5
4
5
Commercial [D]151 15
Difference
General Office [E] = [A] - [C]
Commercial [F] = [B] - [D]
Notes:
8 25 0
523 150 35
1. Use Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition rates.
2. From Attachment 1 of Glen Loma Ranch – Current Projected Buildout, May 26, 2022. Average rates are used for non-
residential land use.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.
10.4
p. 247 of 262
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
APPROVING THE FOURTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM TO THE
GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Glen Loma Ranch Development (the “Project”) involves a 359.6-acre
property located in the western rolling foothills of Gilroy between Santa Teresa Boulevard and
Uvas Creek; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan (Resolution 2005-82); and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the City of Gilroy adopted and certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Specific Plan
(Resolution 2005-81); and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2005, the City of Gilroy approved a Development
Agreement setting forth certain rights and responsibilities of the City and the Developer (“Glen
Loma Ranch”) with regard to the Project that is the subject of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2014, the City of Gilroy City Council adopted an addendum to
the certified EIR (Addendum #1), modifying Mitigation Measures #4, #23, #31, and deleting
Mitigation Measures #32, and #42 (Resolution 2014-19); and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Development Agreement, the City and Glen
Loma Ranch may enter into operating memoranda to make necessary clarifications and minor
modifications to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Development Agreement, the City Attorney
is authorized to make the determination when such clarifications or minor modifications may be
effectuated by means of an operating memorandum or whether a formal amendment to the
Development Agreement is necessary, and such clarifications or minor modifications that do not
increase the density or intensity of use or maximum height, bulk, size or architectural style of
proposed buildings within the project may be effectuated by operating memoranda; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the First Operating Memorandum was executed,
modifying Section 4.4.1.1 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2018, the Second Operating Memorandum was executed,
modifying Section 4.4.1.2 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Third Operating Memorandum was executed,
modifying Section 4.4.1.1 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy and Glen Loma Ranch now desire to execute a Fourth
Operating Memorandum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
10.4
p. 248 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Fourth Operating Memorandum to Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 2 of 3
2
0
6
3
WHEREAS, The City Attorney has determined, ant the Council hereby concurs that the
subject matter of the Fourth Operating Memorandum is appropriate for an operating memorandum;
and
WHEREAS, City has prepared Addendum #2 (“Addendum”) to the EIR, which concluded
that because the Project has been built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated in the 2005
Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Report, EIR Mitigation Measure 34 has been
satisfied through the installed signalization and EIR Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and
44 are not required and no new mitigation measures are required, provided that buildout of the
Project does not exceed in total 1467 residential units and 12,000 square feet of commercial space
(the “Current Projected Buildout”); and
WHEREAS, the Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the City Council’s
consideration of this Fourth Operating Memorandum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15164,
because it furnishes clarification to the obligations of Glen Loma Ranch and the City under the
Development Agreement, and none of the conditions that would require preparation of a
subsequent EIR as listed in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 apply; and
WHEREAS, if the Current Projected Buildout assumptions change, additional
environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required at the expense of the applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT:
1)The Fourth Operating Memorandum to the Glen Loma Development Agreement is
hereby approved.
2)The City Administrator is authorized to execute the Fourth Operating Memorandum
and to take all actions necessary or convenient to carry out its terms.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2024 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
______________________________
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
10.4
p. 249 of 262
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Fourth Operating Memorandum to Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement
City Council Regular Meeting | October 7, 2024
Page 3 of 3
2
0
6
3
CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BETH MINOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2024-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City
Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held
on Council held Monday, Date, with a quorum present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
the City of Gilroy this Date.
____________________________________
Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)
10.4
p. 250 of 262
Page 1 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
FOURTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – GLEN LOMA RANCH
WHEREAS, this Fourth Operating Memorandum to Development Agreement – Glen Loma Ranch (“Fourth Operating Memorandum”) City of Gilroy (“City”), Glen Loma Corporation (“Developer”), and the owners of Glen Loma Ranch (“Owners,” Owners
together with Developer are referred to as “GLR”), entered into a Development Agreement dated November 21, 2005 (the “Development Agreement”) for the development of the Glen Loma Ranch Project, an area composed of approximately 359 acres of land (of which approximately 185 acres will be developed) northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard and southwest of Uvas Creek, including, among other things, open space, a trail system, parks, a
fire station, residential neighborhoods, senior housing, and commercial uses (the “Approved Project”);
WHEREAS, the Approved Project is described in detail in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), as revised on May 19, 2014 by Ordinance No. 2014-07201, for which a full environmental impact report (the “EIR”) was prepared and certified by the
City;
WHEREAS, GLR had been processing a subdivision map which was submitted to the City on September 9, 2020 as TM 20-05 for three neighborhoods within the Approved Project and Specific Plan commonly known as Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, and Malvasia II;
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2024, GLR applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map, proposing single-family attached homes only and no commercial uses or parcel, in the Town Center Flex neighborhood, which as conditioned are in conformance with the Specific Plan (“TM 24-02”) and do not require a Specific Plan amendment;
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, GLR applied for a new Tentative Subdivision
Map to replace Tentative Map application TM 20-05, proposing single-family detached homes only and no townhomes in the Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, and Malvasia II neighborhoods, which, as conditioned are in conformance with the Specific Plan (TM 24-03)and do not require a Specific Plan amendment;
WHEREAS, Parcel Q on the Final Map entitled “Tract 10472 Town Center” filed in
Book 932 of Maps at Pages 55-61, Santa Clara County Records is intended to be dedicated to the City by GLR under Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.1.2 of the Development Agreement for the City’s construction and operation of a fire station at Glen Loma Ranch (the “Fire Station Parcel”);
WHEREAS, GLR has previously expended $673,472 for: (i) the architectural and
civil design of the fire station, (ii) the HCP fee payment covering the development of the fire station parcel, and (iii) the construction of the street frontage improvements for the Fire Station Parcel;
EXHIBIT A 10.4
p. 251 of 262
Page 2 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
WHEREAS, upon completion of development of the improvements associated with TM 24-02 and TM 24-03, GLR will have completed all development contemplated in the
Specific Plan on lands owned by GLR; WHEREAS, City and Developer/Owners entered into a Third Operating Memorandum to the Development Agreement, which modified Section 4.4.1.1 of the Development Agreement by requiring GLR to pay the City the amount of $2,336,791.00 in lieu of constructing the
McCutchin Creek Park, and GLR has made that payment to the City; WHEREAS, City has prepared Addendum #2 (“Addendum”) to the EIR (draft provided by City on September 25, 2024), which concluded that because the Approved Project has been built out at lower land use intensity than anticipated in the 2005 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan
Traffic Impact Report, EIR Mitigation Measure 34 has been satisfied through the installed signalization and EIR Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 44 are not required and no new mitigation measures are required, provided that buildout of the Project does not exceed in total 1467 residential units and 12,000 square feet of commercial space (the “Current Projected Buildout”), as reflected in the revised Exhibit D, attached;
WHEREAS, the Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the City Council’s consideration of this Fourth Operating Memorandum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, because it furnishes clarification to the obligations of GLR and the City under the Development Agreement, and none of the conditions that would require preparation of a
subsequent EIR as listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 apply; WHEREAS, the Addendum will also be used as the appropriate CEQA documentation for consideration of the Tentative Maps TM 24-02 and TM 24-03;
WHEREAS, since 2020 the City and GLR have been negotiating in good faith to resolve matters set forth in this Fourth Operating Memorandum with the understanding that GLR would forego all Traffic Impact Fee reimbursements and any other City reimbursements to discharge any obligations of GLR under the Development Agreement. Developer and Owners agreed that
any such funds received from the City would be held in a separate account at Morgan Stanley
and could not be withdrawn by Developer and Owners without the consent of the City unless the Development Agreement terminates. All funds held in the Morgan Stanley account shall be used to pay the City the amounts described in this Fourth Operating Memorandum as and when required herein.
WHEREAS Section 3.13 of the Development Agreement anticipates minor refinements and clarifications with respect to the obligations of City and GLR where such minor refinements and clarifications may be effectuated through operating memoranda approved by City and GLR, which, after execution, become a part of the Development Agreement;
WHEREAS, the City and GLR have had numerous meetings to discuss certain changes regarding the implementation of the Approved Project which are mutually desirable in order to implement the goals and funding for the fire station at Glen Loma Ranch;
WHEREAS, the City and GLR now desire to document such minor refinements and
clarifications to the Development Agreement through this Fourth Operating Memorandum as
10.4
p. 252 of 262
Page 3 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
permitted by Section 3.13 of the Development Agreement, and the City Attorney has determined that the use of an Operating Memorandum is appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY AND GLR agree as follows: 1) In lieu of the requirement contained in Section 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3 of the Development
Agreement for GLR to develop and construct a fire station as set forth therein, the City
and GLR shall proceed as follows: a) GLR shall cause the total amount of $7,200,000.00 (“Funding Obligation”) to be paid to the City as described herein. The Funding Obligation is
comprised of a combination of cash and GLR foregoing and assigning to the
City the Traffic Impact Fee (“TIF”) reimbursement policy amounts. The Funding Obligation total is $7,200,000 and will be executed in a series of Funding Obligation Steps as described in Section 1(a) ($1,589,243), Section 1(b) ($1,000,000), Section 1(c) ($3,610,757) and Section 1(d) ($1,000,000) of
this Fourth Operating Memorandum. Subject to the terms of this Fourth Operating Memorandum, GLC will convey the Fire Station Parcel and forego, release and pay funds to the City as follows: TIF Identified Reimbursements (“TIF Reimbursements”)
Seg. 18a $237,526.00 Seg. 19a $199,386.00
Seg. 22a $598,636.00
Int 29 $ 10,789.00 Cash Payment $542,906.00 (“SCVWD Reimbursement”) The above TIF Reimbursements and SCVWD Reimbursement totaling $1,589,243 shall be assigned and paid, respectively, to the City, and GLR shall convey the Fire Station parcel to the City upon the occurrence of item (i) below, and the receipt by GLR from the City of items (ii) through (v), below (the
“Written Confirmation Documents”): (i) The Addendum as described above is approved by the City Council as part of the approval of this Fourth Operating Memorandum by the City
Council.
(ii) City written confirmation to the terms set forth in Item g), below related to the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection.
(iii) City written confirmation that construction of a Zone 2 water tank contemplated in TM 13-08, Condition of Approval No. 80 shall not be
required.
(iv) City written confirmation that commercial uses will not be required in the Town Center Flex area.
10.4
p. 253 of 262
Page 4 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
(v) City written confirmation that TM 24-03 containing only single-family detached homes and TM 24-02 containing only single-family attached
homes are both consistent with the Specific Plan. b) GLR shall pay to the City $1,000,000.00 upon Final Approval by the City Council of the Tentative Map TM 24-03 as hereinafter described.
c) GLR shall pay the City $3,610,757 upon recordation of a Final Map relative to TM 24-03. d) GLR shall pay the City $1,000,000 upon the earlier to occur of (1) Final Approval by the City Council of the Tentative Map TM 24-02 or (2) June 2,
2025 (provided that the City and City Staff do not cause delays which result in delaying approvals beyond June 2, 2025).
e) The term “Final Approval” means, individually and collectively as to any City approval related to the Approved Project, (i) all statutory periods to
challenge the City approvals of this Operating Memorandum, the Addendum and any tentative or final subdivision maps pertaining to the Approved Project have expired without the filing of any legal challenge, and (ii) if any challenge to the City approvals of this Operating Memorandum, the Addendum or any tentative or final subdivision maps pertaining to the Approved Project has
been filed, then such challenge has been resolved by settlement, judgment, or dismissed with prejudice prior to the date that the Development Agreement terminates.
f) The payment/performance method for each of the above four Funding
Obligation Steps in Items 1) a) through d) shall be as follows:
(i) First Funding Obligation Step in Item 1(a):
The City shall establish an escrow account with a mutually agreeable escrow/title company (such as, for example, Chicago Title or Old Republic Title, “Escrow Holder”). The parties shall deposit into the
Escrow the following: 1) GLR: A fully executed assignment of the TIF
Reimbursements (the “Assignment”); cash in the amount of the SCVWD Reimbursement; and the fully executed grant deed (the “Deed”) in recordable form to the Fire Station Parcel and accompanying signed right-of-entry documents granting entry on the Fire Station Parcel to GLR for
the purposes of boundary conform grading and related activities (“Right-of-Entry”); 2) City: the Written Confirmation Documents and the signed Right-of-Entry documents. This Fourth Operating Memorandum shall constitute joint escrow instructions (but the parties shall execute such further instructions or other documents required by the Escrow Holder).
When all materials mentioned herein have been duly deposited into
Escrow, and the City Council has approved the Addendum as part of its approval of this Fourth Operating Memorandum and Escrow Holder is prepared to issue a policy of title insurance showing title to the Fire Station Parcel vested in the name of the City free and clear of any and all
monetary liens (property taxes and assessments shall be prorated) and
10.4
p. 254 of 262
Page 5 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
encumbrances save for the Development Agreement, Right-of-Entry agreement, and easements of record (the “Title Policy”), then escrow shall
close. Escrow Holder shall then release to City: the Assignment of the TIF Reimbursements to City, and cash in the amount of the SCVWD Reimbursement. Escrow Holder shall release to GLR the above referenced Right-of-Entry documents and the Written Confirmation Documents. The Escrow Holder shall record the Deed and issue to City the Title Policy in
the amount of not less than the fair market value of the Fire Station Parcel. Escrow costs shall be split in the manner customary in Santa Clara County. With respect to the dedication of the Fire Station Parcel, City agrees to cooperate with GLR and to sign gift tax forms (prepared by GLR) as may be requested by GLR from time to time.
(ii) Remaining Funding Obligation Steps in Items 1(b) thru 1(d):
For each remaining Funding Obligation Step, a separate escrow subfile shall be opened with Escrow Holder. This Fourth Operating Memorandum shall constitute joint escrow instructions with respect to each such escrow
file (but the parties shall execute such further instructions or other documents required by the Escrow Holder). Escrow costs for these subfiles shall be split between the parties. The escrow for each of these three funding obligations shall be handled as follows:
(A) Item 1(b). No later than ten calendar days prior to the date set for City Council consideration of Tentative Map TM 24-03, GLR shall deposit into Escrow the cash sum of $1,000,000. Interest on said funds shall accrue to the benefit of GLR. Immediately upon Final Approval of the Tentative Map TM
24-03, said cash sum shall be paid to the City. (B) Item 1(c). No later than ten calendar days prior to the date set for City Council consideration of the first final map relative to the Tentative Map TM 24-03, GLR shall deposit into Escrow
the cash sum of $3,610,757. Interest on said funds shall accrue to the benefit of GLR. Immediately upon recordation of said final map, the cash sum shall be paid to the City. GLR expressly waives any and all rights it might have under the Subdivision Map Act or other law that would require City to
approve or record said final map, unless said cash sum is paid in full to the City as required herein. (C) Item 1(d). No later than ten calendar days prior to the date set for City Council consideration of the Tentative Map TM 24-02
(and in any event not later than May 21, 2025), GLR shall deposit into Escrow the cash sum of $1,000,000. Interest on said funds shall accrue to the benefit of GLR. Immediately upon Final Approval of the Tentative Map TM 24-02 (or on
10.4
p. 255 of 262
Page 6 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
June 2, 2025, whichever occurs first subject to Paragraph (1)(d) above), said cash sum shall be paid to the City.
g) The City desires that the levee trail at the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Avenue intersection be realigned to cross at the intersection crosswalk location (the “Requested Improvements”). GLR agrees to include the Requested Improvements with the intersection improvement design they are required to
complete per Mitigation Measure #35, subject to the following:
i. The City will be the applicant for the application to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and will use its influence in forwarding the processing of all necessary approvals and permits for the Requested Improvements including with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
the US Army Corps of Engineers (collectively, “Necessary Approvals”).
ii. The timing for the construction of the intersection and the Requested Improvements shall be per the revised Exhibit D, attached.
iii. If the Necessary Approvals are not obtained by the City in time to
comply with the required triggering event in Exhibit D, then GLR will be allowed to construct the intersection without the Requested Improvements and will make a cash payment to the City equivalent to the bid amount for constructing the Requested Improvements.
2) In conformance with Sections 3.3, 3.7, and 14.11 of the Development Agreement and to achieve the mutual goal of the City and GLR to implement this Fourth Operating Memorandum, the City will accept submittals of, and commence with expeditious plan checking of the final maps, improvement plans and all accompanying documents prior to
approval of the respective tentative maps, to cause the improvement plans and final map
to be ready for City Council action. 3) The City and GLR will cooperate concerning the interface between the TM 24-02 neighborhood and the Fire Station parcel at their common boundary lines. Grading design
for the residential areas adjacent to the Fire Station Parcel boundaries will accommodate
the improvements shown on Sheet C1 of the “Glen Loma Ranch Fire Station Planning Review Package” prepared for the City by RRM Design Group dated March 12, 2020 (“RRM Plan”). Retaining walls of up to five feet in height, integral with the required masonry boundary wall and conform slopes will be allowed at the common boundary
lines to accommodate the RRM Plan and will be constructed by GLR with the residential
construction. The City and GLR will execute Right-of-Entry documents granting entry on the Fire Station Parcel to GLR for the purposes of constructing the improvements. 4) The City and GLR acknowledge and agree that upon performance of GLR’s obligations
under this Fourth Operating Memorandum, GLR has performed and fully satisfied each
and every obligation required under the Development Agreement including, but not limited to, the Fire Station, parks, trails, and all other items listed in Exhibits D and G to the Development Agreement. Assuming such full performance by GLR, City shall have the sole responsibility for construction of the 10th Street Bridge and the Fire Station, and
10.4
p. 256 of 262
Page 7 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
accordingly, Sections 4.4.1.2 (Fire Station) and 4.4.6 (Tenth Street Bridge) of the Development Agreement are hereby modified as provided herein.
5) Attached hereto and made a part hereof is ATTACHMENT A, which is a new Exhibit D to the Development Agreement (“Revised Exhibit D”). The original Exhibit D to the Development Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with Revised Exhibit D.
6) Attached hereto and made a part hereof is ATTACHMENT B, which is a new Exhibit G to the Development Agreement (“Revised Exhibit G”). The existing Exhibit G to the Development Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with Revised Exhibit G. 7) As provided in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement, GLR and the City hereby
agree that GLR and the City shall take all reasonably necessary actions to process an amendment to the Development Agreement which shall extend the Development Agreement for a period of three years on terms and with conditions consistent with this Fourth Operating Memorandum (“DA Extension”). The DA Extension shall be processed and approved prior to or coincidentally with either Tentative Map TM 24-03 or
the Tentative Map TM 24-02, whichever tentative map is approved first. 8) City and GLR acknowledge and agree that unless specifically modified by this Fourth Operating Memorandum, all the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement remain in full force and effect including, without limitation, Section 3.7 of the
Development Agreement (Timing of Development). In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Fourth Operating Memorandum and the Development Agreement, the terms of this Fourth Operating Memorandum shall control and prevail.
9) It is the mutual intent of the parties that the actions contemplated herein be completed as soon as reasonably possible. To achieve that goal, the City, City staff, and GLR will act in good faith in accordance with the Development Agreement and use their best efforts to expedite all procedures and approvals. Neither party is obligated to take any of the
actions described herein unless/until the conditions for the respective action as described
herein has been fulfilled. GLR and the City acknowledge and agree that payments agreed to by GLR in this Fourth Operating Memorandum are in consideration for and subject to the City’s performance of its obligations as described herein and subject to GLR obtaining the Final Approvals as described herein.
After review of these minor revisions and clarifications, the City Council finds that these minor revisions and clarifications are consistent with the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan and the Development Agreement, do not increase the density or intensity of use of the Property, do not
10.4
p. 257 of 262
10.4
p. 258 of 262
10.4
p. 259 of 262
Page 10 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
ATTACHMENT A - REVISED EXHBIT ‘D” FOURTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MitigationPhaseEarliestReimbursableTriggering EventMeasureofAnticipatedfor thePublic ImprovementImprovementYear ofImprovementImprovementCastro Valley/U.S. 101 Intersection (fair share contribution only)#29Phase 12006NoPayment with the issuance of the first Ph. 1 building permitMonterey Rd./Masten Avenue (1)#30Phase 12006YesOwner's Responsibility is the payment of Impact Fees, onlySanta Teresa Bvld./Miller Avenue (1)#31Phase 12006YesOperational prior to the issuance of the first building permit in either the Petite Sarah or The Grove Neighborhoods.Monterey Rd./10th Street Signal Modification #32Phase 12006NoConstruction to commence with the first Ph. 1 building permitThomas Road/Luchessa Avenue Intersection #33Phase 12006YesConstruction to commence with the first Ph. 1 building permitPrincevalle/Luchessa Ave. Intersection Signal (2)#42Phase 12006YesConcurrent with the Luchessa/Thomas intersection, above16.3 Acre City Park SiteN/APhase 12008NoCommence construction with the grading of the Mataro NeighborhoodSanta Teresa Blvd./ Ballybunion Drive Intersection #38Phase 22008YesOperational prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2Santa Teresa Blvd./Fitzgerald Ave. Signalization #34See Triggering EventUnknownYesIf Buildout exceeds 1467 Units + 12,000 s.f. commercial, then the need and timing will be determined through further analysis per CEQA requirements. (2)Fire Station #4N/AConstruction is City's ResponsibilityUnknownNoOwner payment schedule per Operating Memorandum No. 43.0 Acre City ParkN/AConstruction is City's ResponsibilityUnknownNoOwner payment schedule per Operating Memorandum No. 3Add left turn lane from Uvas Park Drive onto Miller Avenue35Phase 22025YesOperational prior to the issuance of the last building permit for the Filice Family/Christoper owned landsSanta Teresa Blvd. / First Street Intersection First Street - East of Santa Teresa Blvd. Segment #37#44See Triggering EventUnknownYesIf Buildout exceeds 1467 Units + 12,000 s.f. commercial, then the need and timing will be determined through further analysis per CEQA requirements. (2)Signalize the Uvas Park Drive/Miller Ave. Intersection and add northbound and southbound left-turn lanes#39See Triggering EventUnknownYesIf Buildout exceeds 1467 Units + 12,000 s.f. commercial, then the need and timing will be determined through further analysis per CEQA requirements. (2)Thomas/West Luchessa Intersection Improvement and the W. Luchessa Ave. Bridge Widening#41See Triggering EventUnknownYesIf Buildout exceeds 1467 Units + 12,000 s.f. commercial, then the need and timing will be determined through further analysis per CEQA requirements. (2)Monterey Road/Luchessa Avenue #43See Triggering EventUnknownYesIf Buildout exceeds 1467 Units + 12,000 s.f. commercial, then the need and timing will be determined through further analysis per CEQA requirements. (2)10th Street/Luchessa Ave. Intersection N/APhase 22011YesBuilt with surrounding street improvementsUvas Park Drive/10th Street Intersection N/AConstruction is City's ResponsibilityUnknownYesOwner's Responsibility is the payment of Impact Fees, only10th Street Bridge N/AConstruction is City's ResponsibilityUnknownYesOwner's Responsibility is the payment of Impact Fees, onlyNOTES:1. Although the Mitigation Measures for these items require that the improvements be installed only prior to Phase-3, theDeveloper has agreed to move this improvement forward as part of the Development Agreement2. Section 4.4.7 of the Development Agreement provides for the traffic study update to be completed prior to the issuanceof the building permit for the 1001st residential unit, which has been completed and the resulting changes that are documented in Addendum No. 2 to the Final Certified EIR for the Glen Loma RanchREVISED EXHIBIT 'D'LIST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS10.4
p. 260 of 262
Page 11 of 11 4855-4794-2110v10 ALF\04706099
ATTACHMENT B - REVISED EXHIBIT "G" FOURTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM GLEN LOMA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Parks and Fire Station
Public Facility Development Summary
Site/Description Size Site Offsite Total Cost
Cydney Casper Park
(previously Glen Loma Ranch Park)
3.3± Acre public park including: picnic area;
playground; and trail to project northerly boundary
(Loma Trail) plus:
• Loma Trail (originally part of old GLR park)
• The ½ street costs for extending Charles Lux Drive
from Cimino Street to Greenfield Drive; and
• A gravel walking path in Christmas Hill park on
City/County property, including connection to
future 10th Street near the new storm water basin;
• A Class 1 loop trail connected to the Santa Teresa
Trail at McCutchin Creek thru new park;
• The purchase of two motorized trail bikes with
related radio and emergency equipment, to be
given to the police department for their use in
patrolling the GLR open spaces and trails.
3.3 ± ac. Park $2,097,009 $441,916 $2,538,925
McCutchin Park (Previously Montonico
Park)
4.8 ± acre park with playground, Class 1 trail within the Park, and playfields, etc.
4.8 ± ac.
Park
$1,345,694 $262,500 $1,608,194
PAYMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS WILL BE PER THE THIRD OPERATING MEMORANDUM TO THE GLR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. CITY WILL DESIGN & CONSTURUCT THE PARK
Fire Station Site
Sunrise Fire Station #3 site plan utilized for cost
projections.
1.5± ac.
Site within
Glen Loma
Town
Center
$4,175,772 $262,500 $4,438,272
PAYMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS WILL BE PER THE FOURTH OPERATING MEMORANDUM TO THE GLR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. CITY WILL DESIGN & CONSTRUCT FIRE STATION
Cost Totals $7,613,501 $971,890 $8,585,391
Notes: 1. The costs may vary between "Site" and "Offsite" for each item, however the “Total Cost” shall be the
cost cap per Section 4.4.1.3, adjusted per Note 2, below.
The above cost caps are in Nov. 2005 dollars and are subject to a CCI adjustment per Section 4.4.1.3 of this Development Agreement.
10.4
p. 261 of 262
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2024-2025 TO
APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN CAPITAL PROJECTS
AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget
for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and the City Council
carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed
amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated
October 7, 2024, Glen Loma EIR Addendum and Development Agreement Operating
Memorandum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the revenue appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2024-2025 in Fund 400 – Capital Projects Fund shall be increased by $7,200,000, and the
expenditure appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in Fund 425 – Traffic Impact Fund shall
be increased by $1,046,337 to be transferred out to the Capital Projects Fund (400).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October 2024 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
10.4
p. 262 of 262