HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6615
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6615)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/21/2016
Summary Title: Stanford Student Housing Project Presentation by Stanford
Title: Presentation from Stanford University Representatives Regarding A
Project Filed with the County of Santa Clara to Reallocate and Add New
Housing Units
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from Stanford University
representatives and provide comments as appropriate.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study session is to receive a presentation from Stanford University
representatives to learn more about a proposed project, which is subject to the governing
General Use Permit to reallocate several hundred housing units from various campus districts
and add 1,450 additional housing units to the East Campus District.
Staff previously prepared a comment letter to the County regarding the project (Attachment A)
which was later responded to (Attachment B). No action can be taken during the study session
discussion, however, questions may be asked of Stanford representatives to learn more about
the project and possible impacts. Also, there is an action item scheduled later on the Council’s
agenda if the Council is interested in directing staff to prepare a supplemental comment letter
that reflects Council and community interests in the project. To be considered by the County
Planning Commission, a letter from the City Council would have to be prepared and transmitted
prior to their meeting of March 24, 2016.
Background
Stanford University is located within unincorporated Santa Clara County land. In 2000, the
County Board of Supervisors approved a General Use Permit (GUP) that regulates future land
use growth and development. The GUP included a number of conditions of approval, which is
available for viewing online: https://lbre.stanford.edu/sites/all/lbre-
shared/files/docs public/SCC SU GUP.pdf.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
On January 14, 2016, Stanford filed an application to reallocate 566 housing units from various
campus districts to the East Campus Development District. Stanford also requests an approval
for 1,450 additional housing units beyond the 3,018 housing unit limit in the GUP.
The County is currently reviewing the application and there will be a public hearing before the
24thCounty Planning Commission on March . City planning staff requested Stanford
representatives present the project to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and
10thCity Council. The PTC discussion took place on February
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50937), and helped to inform
staff’s letter to the County, dated February 11, 2016. Stanford submitted responses to this
letter on February 19, 2016 (Attachment B).
Included with this report is the Stanford application to the County, including their traffic
analysis, photo simulations, project description and other information (Attachment C).
While the City has no direct role in reviewing the subject application, the County will consider
city comments in its review.
If the City Council finds that further comments or information needs to be transmitted to the
County related to its review of the subject application, those comments may be communicated
to staff when considering the action item related to this topic later in the agenda.
Policy Implications
Stanford’s housing proposal comes at a time when the City is considering ways to address the
impact of its ratio of jobs to employed residents (“jobs housing balance”) and things that can be
done to stimulate smaller units. In that respect, the University’s proposal is in keeping with the
City’s ongoing policy discussions.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains many policies that are protective of the City’s quality of
life, and calls on the City to “Maintain an active cooperative working relationship with Santa
Clara County and Stanford University regarding land use issues” (Policy L-2).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Stanford GUP Comment Letter (CPA 02.11.16) (PDF)
Attachment B: EV Grad Residences Response to CPA comments (PDF)
Attachment C: Stanford University 2000 General Use Permit - Application for
Reallocation of Housing Units and Request for Additional Housing Under GUP Condition
F.7 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Attachment A -
Attachment B -
Attachment C -
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
Prepared for:
Stanford Land Use and Environmental Planning Office
January 2016
WC15-3260
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Description .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................... 2
Stage A Screening Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Stage B Impact Assessment and Mitigation Approach ........................................................................................ 2
STAGE A: SCREENING ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 3
Residential Unit Allocation ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Parking Space Allocation .................................................................................................................................................. 4
STAGE B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 6
Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Level of Service Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................................................. 12
Level of Service Results .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendices
Appendix A: Scoping of Project-Specific Traffic Studies Under Stanford GUP Condition of Approval G11
(1/16/02)
Appendix B: Traffix LOS Worksheets
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
List of Figures
Figure 1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Project Trip Assignment ............................................................... 8
List of Tables
Table 1: GUP Residential Beds Allocation with Project ........................................................................................................ 4
Table 2: GUP Parking Space Allocation With Project ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions .............................................................................................. 7
Table 4A: Trip Generation Change For Housing reallocation Portion of Project (581 Beds)............................... 11
Table 4B: Trip Generation Change For Additional Housing Portion of Project (1,450 Beds) .............................. 11
Table 4C: Trip Generation Change For Full Project (2,031 Beds) .................................................................................... 11
Table 5: Intersection Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
This report presents the external traffic impact portion of the environmental assessment for the proposed
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project (Project). The Project consists of up to 2,031 net
new graduate student beds, and 730 net new parking spaces. The Project would use all of the 581 beds
remaining in the 2000 GUP’s initial 3,016-unit housing authorization, and would necessitate Planning
Commission approval to reallocate 566 of those 581 units from other development districts to the East
Campus development district, as allowed by GUP Condition F.4(b) (“Housing Reallocation”). In addition, the
Project would require Planning Commission approval of 1,450 beds beyond the 3,018 housing units initially
authorized by the 2000 GUP, as allowed by GUP Condition F.7 (“Additional Housing”).
This report has been prepared according to the requirements of GUP Conditions of Approval D.5, D.6 and
G.11. The report’s scope and methodology is consistent with the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
on how such studies should be prepared, entitled Scoping of Project-Specific Transportation Studies under
Stanford GUP Condition of Approval G.11. The MOU is included in Appendix A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of up to 2,031 net new beds and 730 net new parking spaces in Escondido Village,
located along the Serra Street and Campus Drive frontages of the Village, with primary vehicular access via
Serra Street roughly mid-way between Campus Drive and El Camino Real. The beds are intended to serve
current graduate student housing demand, as opposed to accommodating graduate student enrollment
growth. The beds include up to 2,020 targeted for graduate students, 8 for guests, and 3 for resident
directors.
The Project parking supply would add 730 net new spaces to Escondido Village, for use by all Village
residents. The parking would be provided in a 1,300-space garage, which would result in the net of 730
new spaces after the loss of surface parking underneath the Project footprint.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
2
METHODOLOGY
The GUP EIR Intersection Impact Evaluation involves two stages, as described below (refer also to
Appendix A).
STAGE A SCREENING ANALYSIS
The Stage A screening analysis provides a description of the Project’s effect on the running total of
residential beds and parking spaces added to the Campus under the 2000 GUP. The “cumulative running
totals” of built/approved beds and parking spaces by campus development district are compared to the
totals analyzed in the GUP EIR. Under the methodology agreed upon by Stanford and the County of Santa
Clara, if the running total exceeds the GUP EIR build-out total in any area, a Stage B analysis would be
prepared as described below.
STAGE B IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION APPROACH
The intent of the Stage B analysis is to provide a comparison of the intersection volumes at the GUP analysis
intersections using the GUP EIR trip generation and distribution assumptions with the intersections volumes
that would result from the cumulative running totals identified in the Stage A screening analysis. As
originally envisioned in the Conditions of Approval, the report would identify the number of trips the Project
would add to each GUP intersection, as well as the cumulative running total of other GUP projects approved
to date. The running total would be compared to the GUP build-out trip total as reported in the GUP EIR.
If the current total exceeds the GUP EIR build-out total at any intersection, further Stage B impact analysis
would be conducted at the affected intersections.
As individual projects have been assessed under the GUP, none have yet required a Stage B assessment,
because the projects have all been shown to be consistent with the original GUP EIR traffic analysis
assumptions. Therefore, there is no cumulative running total of project trips at external intersections.
However, since this Project necessitates approval of Additional Housing beyond the 3,016 units initially
authorized by the GUP, a Stage B assessment is provided for the external intersections closest to the Project
site.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
3
STAGE A: SCREENING ANALYSIS
This section compares the GUP residential unit allocation by district and parking space allocation by district
as originally set forth in the GUP EIR, to the allocation with the Project. The comparison separates out the
581-bed Housing Reallocation portion of the Project from the 1,450-bed Additional Housing portion of the
Project.
RESIDENTIAL UNIT ALLOCATION
Table 1 (see next page) shows the current cumulative running totals of residential beds created and
removed, by development district, under the GUP. The table reflects the amendments approved in 2013
and 2014 to change the types of housing authorized by the 2000 GUP.
The Housing Reallocation portion of the Project would move housing units from other development districts
to the East Campus district; that Housing Reallocation would not create different external traffic volumes
relative to those analyzed in the GUP EIR, because the GUP EIR analysis did not assign traffic from distinct
campus zones, but rather assigned traffic from a single campus zone. Thus, the movement of the bed
allocations from various development districts to the East Campus Development District would not change
the EIR traffic projections. Therefore, this portion of the Project, if proposed alone, would not require a
Stage B external traffic assessment.
The Additional Housing portion of the Project, however, triggers a Stage B impact assessment to
demonstrate the effect on external intersections of adding 1,450 beds beyond the 3,018 housing units that
the 2000 GUP initially authorized.
Both portions of the Project are included in the Stage B assessment, in order to provide a full accounting of
the estimated changes in external traffic with the full Project.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
6
STAGE B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section presents the Stage B assessment for the Project. As previously noted, the analysis includes both
components of the Project.
STUDY AREA
Based on the location of the Project and the forecast trip generation (discussed below), Fehr & Peers
determined that El Camino Real/Serra Street and El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue intersections should be
included in the Stage B assessment. EIR intersections located farther away from the Project site would serve
much lower Project traffic volumes and would be unlikely to experience level of service (LOS) changes with
the Project.
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term LOS, a qualitative description of traffic flow
based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from
LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-
capacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result,
and operations are designated as LOS F.
The level of service method approved by Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
adopted by the City of Palo Alto for signalized intersections is the method described in Chapter 16 of the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjusted
saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. This method bases signalized intersection
operations on the average control vehicular delay.
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration
delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software
and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 3. The City of Palo Alto has established LOS D as
the minimum acceptable operating level of service for intersections excluded from the Congestion
Management Program (CMP). The minimum acceptable level for CMP-monitored intersections is LOS E. The
LOS standard for intersections (including CMP intersections) under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County
(e.g., expressways) is LOS E.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
9
TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation estimates for the Housing Reallocation portion of the Project (581 beds1) and the
Additional Housing portion of the Project (1,450 beds) are shown in Tables 4A and 4B, respectively. The
trip generation estimates are based on the trip rates used in the GUP EIR. Because the new beds are planned
to serve current demand for graduate student housing, the effect of the new beds is to bring current student
commuters onto campus.
As shown in Table 4A, the Housing Reallocation portion of the Project would bring 581 student commuters
onto campus. Applying the appropriate trip rates, this change would reduce the peak-hour/peak-direction
traffic to/from the campus as a whole compared to Existing Conditions, and would only moderately increase
the non-peak AM travel (i.e. leaving campus) compared to Existing Conditions:
Net Change Across Campus Cordon (Housing Reallocation Portion of Project):
AM Inbound: -25 trips
AM Outbound +8 trips
PM Inbound: -9 trips
PM Outbound: -5 trips
The Additional Housing portion of the Project, 1,450 beds, would further decrease the vehicle trips traveling
to and from campus in the peak hour/peak direction, and would further increase the AM outbound travel:
Net Change Across Campus Cordon (Additional Housing Portion of Project):
AM Inbound: -62 trips
AM Outbound: +19 trips
PM Inbound: -22 trips
PM Outbound: -12 trips
With the full Project, the campus-wide net trip changes, compared to Existing Conditions, would be:
1 Only 566 of the 581 remaining residential units would need to be reallocated to the East Campus development district;
15 units already are allocated to this district. Nevertheless, to ensure all Project-related trips are captured in the Stage
B analysis, the Housing Reallocation portion of the traffic analysis includes all 581 units to be constructed under the
initial GUP authorization.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
10
AM Inbound: -87 trips
AM Outbound: +27 trips
PM Inbound: -31 trips
PM Outbound: -17 trips
The above trip changes reflect campus-wide net changes. At the GUP intersections closest to the Project
site, there would be net trip increases because the new residents would tend to use the campus gateways
closest to their homes, whereas the eliminated commuter trips currently are using all available campus
gateways. In particular, the intersections of El Camino Real/Serra and El Camino Real Stanford Avenue
would be most likely to see the highest percentage of new residential trips, with smaller percentages using
the other campus gateways. This is why these two intersections were selected for study in the Stage B
assessment.
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
12
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
To distribute and assign the Project trips to the two local intersections (El Camino Real/Serra Street and El
Camino Real/Stanford Avenue), the GUP EIR trip distribution assumptions were reviewed. (Refer to GUP EIR
Figure 4.4-10A).
COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTIONS
For the commuter trips that would be eliminated with the Project, it is estimated that about 15 percent of
them would use the two study intersections. Based on the distribution patterns shown in GUP EIR Figure
4.4-10A; this would result in reductions at the two study intersections of about 15 peak hour trips (total of
inbound and outbound trips) for the 581-bed Housing Reallocation portion of the Project, and about 35
peak hour trips (total of inbound and outbound trips) for the Additional Housing 1,450-bed portion of the
Project. In total, the Project would reduce commuter peak hour trips at the two study intersections by 50
peak hour trips.
RESIDENTIAL TRIP ADDITIONS
About 75-80 peak hour residential trips would be added to the two study intersections with the 581-bed
Housing Reallocation portion of the Project, and about 185-200 peak hour residential trips would be added
with the 1,450-bed Additional Housing portion of the Project. The Project parking supply would be located
on the Project site, with vehicular access via Serra Street roughly mid-way between Campus Drive and El
Camino Real. It was therefore assumed that all external residential trips would use Serra Street to enter and
exit the campus, since this campus gateway provides the most direct route to the parking site. It is
acknowledged that a small number of vehicle trips may choose to use the various Escondido Village
entrances along Stanford Avenue, as well as other campus gateways based on their ultimate external origin
or destination; however, to present the largest possible impact, we chose to assign all traffic via the Serra
Street campus entrance. Impacts at all other locations would be substantially lower.
At the study intersections, the trips were distributed based on the relative turn movement patterns seen in
the existing conditions traffic volumes. The trip distribution and assignment assumptions are as follows (see
next page):
Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences Project
GUP EIR Intersection Evaluation
January 2016
13
El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
o El Camino Real to/from north – 33%
o Park Boulevard – 5%
o El Camino Real to/from south – 62%
El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
o 62% of trips assigned along El Camino Real
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Trips were assigned to the study area roadway network based on the trip distribution. Most trips are
projected to use El Camino Real and Serra Street to access the Project site, with a few trips using Park
Boulevard at the Serra Street intersection. Figure 1 shows the Project trip assignment.
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Existing plus Project
Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis are summarized in Table 5.
The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes, along with the projected increases
in critical delay and critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Critical delay represents the delay associated
with the critical movements of the intersection, or the movements that require the most “green time” and
have the greatest effect on overall intersection operations. The changes in critical delay and critical V/C ratio
between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions are used to identify significant impacts. The
calculation reports for this analysis are included in Appendix B.
It is noted that intersections may show a reduction in average delay with the addition of Project traffic,
which is counter-intuitive. However, the average delay values in the table are weighted averages. Weighted
average delays will be reduced when traffic is added to a movement with a low delay.2 Conversely, relatively
2 For example, if there is one movement with 10 vehicles and a delay of 100 seconds and another movement with 400
vehicles and 10 seconds of delay, the weighted average delay is calculated as (100 seconds X 10 vehicles + 10 seconds
X 400 vehicles) / 410 vehicles = 12.2 seconds per vehicle. Now if 100 vehicles are added to the movement with 10
seconds of delay, the weighted average delay is calculated as (100 seconds X 10 vehicles + 10 seconds X 500 vehicles)
/ 510 vehicles = 11.8 seconds per vehicle. The weighted average delay improves, even though more vehicles are added.
APPENDIX A: SCOPING OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDIES
UNDER STANFORD GUP CONDITION OF APPROVAL G11 (1/16/02)
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIX LOS WORKSHEETS
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:01 2015 Page 1-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Existing AM Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM
Avg Avg Avg Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change
#1 Serra Street-Park Blvd/El Camino Real B- 18.8 0.464 23 2 C+ 20.7 0.499 + 0.035 25 9 + 2.8
#2 Stanford Ave/El Camino Real C 28.2 0.566 31.7 C 28.1 0.569 + 0.003 31 6 - 0.1
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:02 2015 Page 3-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 133 1278*** 19
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
99*** 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 22
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
9 1 Critical V/C: 0.464 1! 13
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23 2 0
111 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18 8 0 9
LOS: B-
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 216*** 1484 11
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.71 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.30 0.50 Final Sat.: 1750 5559 41 1750 5071 528 1750 1900 1750 358 517 875 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 34.6 87.5 87.5 17.6 70.6 70.6 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.52 0.21 0.21 0.21 Delay/Veh: 40.7 9.5 9.5 49.2 18.3 18.3 54.7 50.4 55.8 51.9 51.9 51.9 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: 40.7 9.5 9.5 49.2 18.3 18.3 54.7 50.4 55.8 51.9 51.9 51.9 LOS by Move: D A A D B- B- D- D E+ D- D- D- HCM2k95thQ: 14 16 16 2 21 21 9 1 10 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:02 2015 Page 3-2
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1278*** 19
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
107 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 22
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
10 1 Critical V/C: 0.499 1! 15
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25 9 0
127*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.7 0 9
LOS:C+
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 241*** 1484 11
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 25 0 0 0 0 14 8 1 16 0 2 0 Initial Fut: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.33 0.48 Final Sat.: 1750 5559 41 1750 5022 578 1750 1900 1750 342 571 837 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 35.9 85.0 85.0 17.1 66.3 66.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.42 0.04 0.50 0.18 0.18 0.18 Delay/Veh: 40.4 10.7 10.7 49.7 21.1 21.1 51.7 47.8 52.7 49.1 49.1 49.1 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: 40.4 10.7 10.7 49.7 21.1 21.1 51.7 47.8 52.7 49.1 49.1 49.1 LOS by Move: D B+ B+ D C+ C+ D- D D- D D D HCM2k95thQ: 16 17 17 2 22 22 9 1 11 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:02 2015 Page 3-3
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 153 1216*** 29
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 9
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
7*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 566 1! 21
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.7 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28 2 0 15
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 155*** 1490 15
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 2.65 0.35 0.53 0.02 0.45 0.33 0.47 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 5544 56 1750 4973 626 924 36 790 583 817 350 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 20.3 63.7 63.7 12.8 56.2 56.2 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.08 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 53.5 23.3 23.3 54.2 28.1 28.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 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: 53.5 23.3 23.3 54.2 28.1 28.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 28.9 28.9 28.9 LOS by Move: D- C C D- C C D+ D+ D+ C C C HCM2k95thQ: 13 25 25 2 24 24 22 22 22 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:02 2015 Page 3-4
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 153 1232*** 29
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 9
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
7*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 569 1! 21
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31 6 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.1 0 15
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 155*** 1515 15
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 0 25 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 2.66 0.34 0.53 0.02 0.45 0.33 0.47 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 5545 55 1750 4981 619 924 36 790 583 817 350 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 20.2 64.1 64.1 12.6 56.5 56.5 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.08 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 53.7 23.2 23.2 54.3 27.9 27.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 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: 53.7 23.2 23.2 54.3 27.9 27.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 29.1 29.1 29.1 LOS by Move: D- C C D- C C D+ D+ D+ C C C HCM2k95thQ: 13 25 25 2 24 24 22 22 22 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:31 2015 Page 1-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Existing PM Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change
#1 Serra Street-Park Blvd/El Camino Real C+ 22.9 0.586 25.1 C 24.3 0.611 + 0.025 27 0 + 1.9
#2 Stanford Ave/El Camino Real C 25.4 0.652 28.1 C 25.3 0.657 + 0.005 28 0 - 0.1
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:31 2015 Page 3-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 109 1693*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
165 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 25
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
35 1 Critical V/C: 0 586 1! 7
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25.1 0
245*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 22 9 0 7
LOS:C+
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 146*** 1517 9
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.18 0.64 Final Sat.: 1750 5567 33 1750 5261 339 1750 1900 1750 314 314 1122 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 18.5 75.1 75.1 14.8 71.4 71.4 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.47 0.47 0.22 0.59 0.59 0.39 0.08 0.59 0.09 0.09 0.09 Uniform Del: 52.2 15.9 15.9 52.3 19.5 19.5 41.6 38.4 43.8 38.5 38.5 38.5 IncremntDel: 3.6 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 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: 55.7 16.0 16.0 52.9 19.8 19.8 42.2 38.4 45.9 38.6 38.6 38.6 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: 55.7 16.0 16.0 52.9 19.8 19.8 42.2 38.4 45.9 38.6 38.6 38.6 LOS by Move: E+ B B D- B- B- D D+ D D+ D+ D+ HCM2k95thQ: 11 21 21 4 28 28 12 2 18 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:31 2015 Page 3-2
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 116 1693*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 25
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
37 1 Critical V/C: 0 611 1! 8
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 27 0 0
272*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24 3 0 7
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 158*** 1517 9
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 12 0 0 0 0 7 14 2 27 0 1 0 Initial Fut: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.20 0.63 Final Sat.: 1750 5567 33 1750 5240 359 1750 1900 1750 306 350 1094 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 19.2 73.4 73.4 14.5 68.7 68.7 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.48 0.48 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.40 0.08 0.61 0.09 0.09 0.09 Delay/Veh: 56.1 17.0 17.0 53.2 21.7 21.7 40.9 36.9 45.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 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: 56.1 17.0 17.0 53.2 21.7 21.7 40.9 36.9 45.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 LOS by Move: E+ B B D- C+ C+ D D+ D D+ D+ D+ HCM2k95thQ: 12 22 22 4 29 29 12 2 20 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:31 2015 Page 3-3
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1754*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
155 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 5
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
32*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 652 1! 22
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 28.1 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.4 0 21
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 128*** 1456 40
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.76 0.24 0.46 0.09 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.10 Final Sat.: 1750 5450 150 1750 5166 433 798 165 788 766 802 182 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.6 68.5 68.5 13.8 67.7 67.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.09 0.09 Uniform Del: 55.3 19.9 19.9 53.3 22.6 22.6 39.8 39.8 39.8 32.9 32.9 32.9 IncremntDel: 7.6 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 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: 62.9 20.0 20.0 53.9 23.1 23.1 42.7 42.7 42.7 33.0 33.0 33.0 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: 62.9 20.0 20.0 53.9 23.1 23.1 42.7 42.7 42.7 33.0 33.0 33.0 LOS by Move: E C+ C+ D- C C D D D C- C- C- HCM2k95thQ: 12 23 23 3 31 31 24 24 24 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:37:31 2015 Page 3-4
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1781*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
155 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 5
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
32*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 657 1! 22
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 28 0 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25 3 0 21
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 128*** 1468 40
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 0 12 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.76 0.24 0.46 0.09 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.10 Final Sat.: 1750 5451 149 1750 5172 427 798 165 788 766 802 182 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.5 68.8 68.8 13.8 68.1 68.1 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.09 0.09 0.09 Delay/Veh: 63.3 19.9 19.9 54.0 23.0 23.0 43.1 43.1 43.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 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: 63.3 19.9 19.9 54.0 23.0 23.0 43.1 43.1 43.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: E B- B- D- C C D D D C- C- C- HCM2k95thQ: 12 23 23 3 32 32 24 24 24 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:29 2015 Page 1-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM Existing PP FULL PROJ AM
Avg Avg Avg Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change
#1 Serra Street-Park Blvd/El Camino Real C+ 20.7 0.499 25 9 C 23.9 0.569 + 0.070 30 5 + 4.6
#2 Stanford Ave/El Camino Real C 28.1 0.569 31 6 C 27.8 0.577 + 0.007 31.4 - 0 2
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:29 2015 Page 3-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1278*** 19
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
107 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 22
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
10 1 Critical V/C: 0.499 1! 15
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 25 9 0
127*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.7 0 9
LOS:C+
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 241*** 1484 11
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 25 0 0 0 0 14 8 1 16 0 2 0 Initial Fut: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 241 1484 11 19 1278 147 107 10 127 9 15 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.33 0.48 Final Sat.: 1750 5559 41 1750 5022 578 1750 1900 1750 342 571 837 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 35.9 85.0 85.0 17.1 66.3 66.3 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.42 0.04 0.50 0.18 0.18 0.18 Delay/Veh: 40.4 10.7 10.7 49.7 21.1 21.1 51.7 47.8 52.7 49.1 49.1 49.1 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: 40.4 10.7 10.7 49.7 21.1 21.1 51.7 47.8 52.7 49.1 49.1 49.1 LOS by Move: D B+ B+ D C+ C+ D- D D- D D D HCM2k95thQ: 16 17 17 2 22 22 9 1 11 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:29 2015 Page 3-2
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP FULL PROJ AM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 181 1278*** 19
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
128 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 22
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
13 1 Critical V/C: 0 569 1! 20
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30 5 0
166*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23 9 0 9
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 305*** 1484 11
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 216 1484 11 19 1278 133 99 9 111 9 13 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FULL PROJ: 89 0 0 0 0 48 29 4 55 0 7 0 Initial Fut: 305 1484 11 19 1278 181 128 13 166 9 20 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 305 1484 11 19 1278 181 128 13 166 9 20 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 305 1484 11 19 1278 181 128 13 166 9 20 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 305 1484 11 19 1278 181 128 13 166 9 20 22 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.61 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.39 0.43 Final Sat.: 1750 5559 41 1750 4904 695 1750 1900 1750 309 686 755 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 39.8 82.7 82.7 16.7 59.5 59.5 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.44 0.04 0.57 0.17 0.17 0.17 Delay/Veh: 39.3 11.8 11.8 50.1 26.1 26.1 49.8 45.5 52.5 46.8 46.8 46.8 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: 39.3 11.8 11.8 50.1 26.1 26.1 49.8 45.5 52.5 46.8 46.8 46.8 LOS by Move: D B+ B+ D C C D D D- D D D HCM2k95thQ: 20 18 18 2 25 25 10 1 14 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:29 2015 Page 3-3
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT AM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 153 1232*** 29
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 9
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
7*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 569 1! 21
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31 6 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 28.1 0 15
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 155*** 1515 15
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 0 25 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 155 1515 15 29 1232 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 2.66 0.34 0.53 0.02 0.45 0.33 0.47 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 5545 55 1750 4981 619 924 36 790 583 817 350 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 20.2 64.1 64.1 12.6 56.5 56.5 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.08 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 53.7 23.2 23.2 54.3 27.9 27.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 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: 53.7 23.2 23.2 54.3 27.9 27.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 29.1 29.1 29.1 LOS by Move: D- C C D- C C D+ D+ D+ C C C HCM2k95thQ: 13 25 25 2 24 24 22 22 22 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:29 2015 Page 3-4
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP FULL PROJ AM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 153 1271*** 29
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 9
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
7*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 577 1! 21
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.4 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27 8 0 15
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 155*** 1579 15
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1490 15 29 1216 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FULL PROJ: 0 89 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 155 1579 15 29 1271 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 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: 155 1579 15 29 1271 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 1579 15 29 1271 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 155 1579 15 29 1271 153 179 7 153 15 21 9 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.97 0.03 1.00 2.67 0.33 0.53 0.02 0.45 0.33 0.47 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 5547 53 1750 4998 602 924 36 790 583 817 350 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 20.0 65.0 65.0 12.3 57.3 57.3 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.18 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.08 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 54.2 23.0 23.0 54.7 27.6 27.6 37.0 37.0 37.0 29.5 29.5 29.5 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: 54.2 23.0 23.0 54.7 27.6 27.6 37.0 37.0 37.0 29.5 29.5 29.5 LOS by Move: D- C+ C+ D- C C D+ D+ D+ C C C HCM2k95thQ: 13 26 26 2 25 25 22 22 22 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:52 2015 Page 1-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Summary Scenario Comparison Report (With Average Critical Delay) Future Volume Alternative
Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM Existing PP FULL PROJ PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg Crit Avg Crit Crit Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit V/C Del Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C Change (sec) Change
#1 Serra Street-Park Blvd/El Camino Real C 24.3 0.611 27 0 C 27.6 0.672 + 0.061 31.4 + 4.4
#2 Stanford Ave/El Camino Real C 25.3 0.657 28 0 C 25.1 0.670 + 0.012 27 9 - 0 2
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:52 2015 Page 3-1
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 116 1693*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
179 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 25
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
37 1 Critical V/C: 0 611 1! 8
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 27 0 0
272*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24 3 0 7
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 158*** 1517 9
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 12 0 0 0 0 7 14 2 27 0 1 0 Initial Fut: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 158 1517 9 44 1693 116 179 37 272 7 8 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.20 0.63 Final Sat.: 1750 5567 33 1750 5240 359 1750 1900 1750 306 350 1094 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 19.2 73.4 73.4 14.5 68.7 68.7 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.48 0.48 0.23 0.61 0.61 0.40 0.08 0.61 0.09 0.09 0.09 Delay/Veh: 56.1 17.0 17.0 53.2 21.7 21.7 40.9 36.9 45.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 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: 56.1 17.0 17.0 53.2 21.7 21.7 40.9 36.9 45.3 37.1 37.1 37.1 LOS by Move: E+ B B D- C+ C+ D D+ D D+ D+ D+ HCM2k95thQ: 12 22 22 4 29 29 12 2 20 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:52 2015 Page 3-2
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP FULL PROJ PM
Intersection #1: El Camino Real/Serra Street-Park Boulevard
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 131 1693*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
214 1 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 25
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
42 1 Critical V/C: 0 672 1! 10
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.4 0
337*** 1
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27 6 0 7
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 188*** 1517 9
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Serra Street-Park Bouelvard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 146 1517 9 44 1693 109 165 35 245 7 7 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FULL PROJ: 42 0 0 0 0 22 49 7 92 0 3 0 Initial Fut: 188 1517 9 44 1693 131 214 42 337 7 10 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 188 1517 9 44 1693 131 214 42 337 7 10 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 188 1517 9 44 1693 131 214 42 337 7 10 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 188 1517 9 44 1693 131 214 42 337 7 10 25 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.24 0.59 Final Sat.: 1750 5567 33 1750 5197 402 1750 1900 1750 292 417 1042 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 20.8 69.9 69.9 13.8 63.0 63.0 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.67 0.67 0.43 0.08 0.67 0.08 0.08 0.08 Delay/Veh: 57.7 19.2 19.2 53.9 26.3 26.3 38.3 33.9 44.6 34.0 34.0 34.0 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: 57.7 19.2 19.2 53.9 26.3 26.3 38.3 33.9 44.6 34.0 34.0 34.0 LOS by Move: E+ B- B- D- C C D+ C- D C- C- C- HCM2k95thQ: 14 23 23 4 33 33 14 2 24 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:52 2015 Page 3-3
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP GUP LIMIT PM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1781*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
155 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 5
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
32*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 657 1! 22
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 28 0 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25 3 0 21
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 128*** 1468 40
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUP LIMIT: 0 12 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 1468 40 44 1781 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.76 0.24 0.46 0.09 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.10 Final Sat.: 1750 5451 149 1750 5172 427 798 165 788 766 802 182 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.5 68.8 68.8 13.8 68.1 68.1 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.09 0.09 0.09 Delay/Veh: 63.3 19.9 19.9 54.0 23.0 23.0 43.1 43.1 43.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 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: 63.3 19.9 19.9 54.0 23.0 23.0 43.1 43.1 43.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: E B- B- D- C C D D D C- C- C- HCM2k95thQ: 12 23 23 3 32 32 24 24 24 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
COMPARE Wed Nov 04 14:38:52 2015 Page 3-4
Traffix 8 0 0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS WALNUT CRK
Stanford GUP 2015 Residential Amendment WC15-3260 Fehr & Peers
Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PP FULL PROJ PM
Intersection #2: El Camino Real/Stanford Avenue
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 147 1846*** 44
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1
Signal=Permit
Signal=Permit
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
155 0 Cycle Time (sec): 130 0 5
0 Loss Time (sec): 9 0
32*** 1! Critical V/C: 0 670 1! 22
0
Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 27 9 0
153 0
Avg Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 0 21
LOS:C
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 128*** 1498 40
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Street Name: El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1456 40 44 1754 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FULL PROJ: 0 42 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 128 1498 40 44 1846 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 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: 128 1498 40 44 1846 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 1498 40 44 1846 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 128 1498 40 44 1846 147 155 32 153 21 22 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.77 0.23 0.46 0.09 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.10 Final Sat.: 1750 5454 146 1750 5186 413 798 165 788 766 802 182 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 14.2 69.6 69.6 13.7 69.1 69.1 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.09 0.09 0.09 Delay/Veh: 64.5 19.5 19.5 54.1 22.8 22.8 44.1 44.1 44.1 33.8 33.8 33.8 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: 64.5 19.5 19.5 54.1 22.8 22.8 44.1 44.1 44.1 33.8 33.8 33.8 LOS by Move: E B- B- D- C+ C+ D D D C- C- C- HCM2k95thQ: 12 23 23 3 32 32 24 24 24 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
Planning Office
Environmental Information Form
Project Applicant or Representative:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
Please answer the following questions in the spaces provided. Use additional sheets if necessary. If the question does not apply, mark “N/A.”
Failure to provide complete and accurate information will result in your application being declared incomplete,
which will delay application processing.
Project Description:
1. Project address (or location):
2. Describe the project (i.e., What will be constructed? Proposed use? Project objectives?):
5 January 2013 Replaces December 2007
Environmental Setting:
1. Describe the natural characteristics (e.g., topography, vegetation, drainage, soil stability,
habitat, etc.) on the project site.
2. Describe the existing land uses on the project site.
3. Describe the existing land uses adjacent to the project site (note location in relation to the
project site):
4. Are there any known technical reports that evaluate the property or the proposed project
(e.g., geologic, biological, archaeological, environmental impact reports, etc.)? Indicate
which reports will be submitted with this application:
Form continues on next page
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 20 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Escondido Village II, and Escondido Village III
P1. Other Identifier: EV-II (buildings 10-055 to 10-098) and EV III (buildings 10-099 to 10-115)
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Palo Alto Date 1991 T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Stanford Zip 94305
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10s, 574974 mE / 4142631mN (10-074) Zone 10s, 574635mE / 4142473 mN (10-109)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) PARCEL # 142-04-023
Escondido Village is bounded by El Camino Real, Serra Street, Escondido Road and Stanford Avenue
*P3a. Description:
(Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Escondido Village, frequently referred as EV, is a residential community on the Stanford University campus.
It was planned and constructed in five separate increments plus additional infill development. The land for
the village was originally reserved for married graduate students but it was planned and constructed in
phases from 1959 to 1975.
(Continued on p. 4) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3: Multiple Family Property
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) McFarland mid-rise and low-rise 10-108 in the foreground, Hoskins mid-rise to the left and Studio 3
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: EV-I 1964, EV-II 1966
Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
Board of Trustees
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Elena Angoloti (3/C),
Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)
Stanford University
3160 Porter Dr., Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
*P9. Date Recorded: 11/30/2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter
"none.") None
*Attachments: NONE Location
Map Continuation Sheet Building,
Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
Page 4 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
The first increment called Escondido Village I (EV-I) was described and evaluated in a separate form (Cain-
Seibold 1). As the demand for married student housing on campus kept growing soon after the completion of
EV-I more phases followed suit.
The scope of this evaluation effort is Escondido Village II and III, also called EV-II and EV-III.
1962 – EV-II Description
The design was done in 1962 by the architectural firm Campbell and Wong with the landscape firm of Royston,
Hanamoto and Mayes. It comprised forty-one two-story apartment blocks and three eight-story mid-rises. The site covered around thirty-two acres situated in the northeast corner of the Stanford campus, at the junction of El
Camino Real and Stanford Avenue. As part of the project Serra Street was extended to connect with El Camino
Real, thus creating the western border of Escondido Village. The construction took two years and the increment
was ready for occupancy on April 1st 1964.1
The low‐rise apartment blocks and mid‐rise apartment towers were set in a park‐like setting. This increment is characterized by a loop ring, internal pathways and semi-private garden space on the interior of each housing
cluster. There is a combination of architectural styles in the development: the low-rise blocks are designed in
the Second Bay Tradition while the towers are in Midcentury Modern style.
Setting The access to EV-II is organized by a loop road, Olmsted Road, which serves a series of clusters of buildings.
Outside of this loop road there is a two hundred foot landscape area. The layout of the EV-II apartment blocks
differs from the EV-I “jackstraw pattern” of buildings where buildings had been set in groups of twos and threes
laid out among the trees (Cain-Seibold 14). The EV-II plan creates clusters of low-rise blocks laid out in cul-de-
sacs, with a mid-rise towers situated at the end of three dead-end streets. A pedestrian path system, separated from the loop road, links internally the buildings within the village.
Elevated view of low-rise units looking toward main
campus, Hoover Tower visible, March 19642
Mid-rises’ view from Abrams court facing west, 1960s3
1 (Escondido Third Unit) The Stanford Daily, Volume 147, Issue 10, 12 February 1965
2 Box 2_82155-16, Morley Baer Photographs (PC0083). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University
Libraries, Stanford, Calif. 3 Box: 48, Folder: Student housing--Escondido Village, Photo #2916, Stanford Historical Photograph Collection (SC1071). Dept. of
Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
Page 5 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
EV- I, 1959 EV- II, 1964 1963 Aerial, EV-II under construction4
Low-rise Architecture
The architecture of the low-rise blocks is designed in the Second Bay Tradition style, similar in style to EV-I. They
have a basic module of two units (with a mirrored distribution), repeated in linear blocks of six or ten units. The
linear arrangement is staggered ten feet at four unit intervals. The blocks are arranged in horse-shoes around shared green spaces, so that the units have a private side facing the green space and a public side facing the street. Each block of attached units has a combination of two and three bedroom units. The dimensions of the two-bedroom units
are twenty-one feet wide and twenty feet deep, with a transversal wall extending four feet at both ends to create
privacy between units. The three-bedroom units protrude towards the street.
The exterior finishes and materials include: end and transversal walls finished with redwood siding, while the rest of the walls are finished with cement plaster. From the black and white photographs a different paint color can be
seen in the plaster of the different blocks, with a preponderance of light colors in high contrast to the darker wood
siding. The low-pitch side-gabled roof has wood shingles and four feet overhangs on each side. The short ends of
the block have double tapered beams supporting the overhang at the ridge and wall joints. The long side of the roof has exposed rafters.
4 Series 1 Photographs, Box 2, folder 6 #4-02, Stanford University, Planning Office, Photographs (PC0062). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
Page 6 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Aerial view of EV-II, ca 19725 View from Barnes facing south, Abrams mid-
rise in the foreground6
Street façade The façade facing the road is mostly solid with the exception of the front door, and two small windows per unit. The typical two-bedroom unit has a solid wood door protected by a gabled canopy. The two windows are framed by
dark wood decorative battens extending from the ground to the eaves.
The composition of the double three-bedroom units is different and repeats once per block. There is a protruding mass created by the third bedroom located on the second floor and mechanical and storage rooms at the lower level. These spaces project from the wall towards the street and are topped with a gabled roof over each unit’s third
bedroom. The second floor is clad in wood siding while the lower floor is plastered.
Green space façade This façade is identical in all the units. Two pairs of vertical battens frame a pair of sliding doors on the lower level and a pair of windows on the top floor. A wood trellis formed by tapered double beams shades the doors, while the
overhang shades the windows. The vertical redwood sided walls serve as fins between units and provide privacy in
the patios. A wood fence marks the patio of each unit.
5 Box: 48, Folder: Student housing--Escondido Village, Photo #13564, Stanford Historical Photograph Collection (SC1071). Dept. of
Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
6 Box 2_82155-15, Morley Baer Photographs (PC0083). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University
Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
Page 7 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Green space façade, March 19647 Green space elevation, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans
Street-side façade, Entrance to unit 59A, March 19648 Street-side elevation, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans
End of block elevation, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans Section, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans
7 Box 2_82155-10, Morley Baer Photographs (PC0083). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University
Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
8 Ibid. Box 2_82155-25
Page 8 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Windows, street side, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans Windows, Green space side, Campbell & Wong 1964 plans
Mid-rise architecture The mid-rises are massive textured concrete structures with a rectangular floorplan. They are symmetrical along
both axes with a repetitive design. The corner balconies are the most prominent feature, they are accessible from
both the bedroom and living room of each unit through a sliding door. Additional balconies are located at the corners
of the central section that projects six feet from the main mass. The slabs and columns have an accentuated profile while the metal railing is very light and almost invisible. Large portions of the overall mass are solid, especially in the end façades where the windows are quite narrow. The windows and balconies are stacked vertically. The metal
roof is hipped with a penthouse at the center.
There is a basement level with service rooms surrounded by a heavily landscaped areaway. The main access is from the first floor where a small lounge and entrance are located. Three mid-rises of eight stories each are placed at the end of cul-de sacs which provide parking for their occupants.
Abrams mid-rise, in the background Barnes and Hulme, view facing west, March 19649 Hulme mid-rise, facing north, March 196410
9 Box 2_82155-1, Morley Baer Photographs (PC0083). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif. 10 Ibid. Box 2_82155-11
Page 9 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
1966 – EV-III Description
EV-III followed right after the second phase of EV-II was constructed. This increment was smaller than the former
and included two mid-rises and sixteen apartment blocks. This phase was an exact replica of the previous one, designed in 1964 by the architectural firm Campbell and Wong with the landscape firm of Royston, Hanamoto,
Mayes and Beck. It is located in the middle of the west half of the Village, facing Serra Street.
View from McFarland mid-rise facing south, October 196711 Artist sketch of EV- III12
EV-III, 1966 Aerial, July 196913
11 Box 3_82124-10, Morley Baer Photographs (PC0083). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University
Libraries, Stanford, Calif. 12 Box: 48, Folder: Student housing--Escondido Village, Photo #12991.1, Stanford Historical Photograph Collection (SC1071). Dept.
of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
13 Series 1, Photographs, Box 2, folder 8 #1-06, Stanford University, Planning Office, Photographs (PC0062). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
Page 10 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Renovations of EV-II and EV-III
All the buildings of the village have been upgraded and renovated several times over their life. In 1985 they
were renovated to conserve energy, then they were renovated again as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) from 1994 to 2000.14 It appears as part of this CIP the roof material changed from wood shingles to
asphalt shingles. Much later, a new project to upgrade the slab and heating system of the low-rises was executed
in phases, spanning from 2004 to 2016. The original aluminum windows were replaced with white vinyl
windows. The sliding doors of the living room were also replaced by a window (to provide space underneath for
a baseboard heater). The paint palette of the units was changed as part of the renewal process.
Low-rises, view from green space, date 196715 Low-rises, view from green space, 2015
The mid-rises have been renovated twice since their construction, but no exterior impact is noticeable.16
Later development
Recreation and Community Facilities
Other facilities to service the residential space were gradually incorporated into the village in later years. At the center there were recreational outdoor facilities; in the south end there were service and community buildings added
for maintenance support, student housing offices, etc. More recently in 2008 and 2012 two more childcare centers
were built at the north end of the village outside of Olmsted Road.
In 2001 the SWA group (originally known as Sasaki, Walker Associates) studied the village and created a masterplan to improve the area circulation, amenities and infrastructure. One of the largest impact of the SWA
design was the phased implementation of the Escondido Village Spine, a wider central road that transverses the
village and connects Escondido Road to El Camino Real.
14 (Tyler)The Stanford Daily, Volume 218A, Issue 6, 10 August 2000 15 Box: 48, Folder: Student housing--Escondido Village, Photo #16203, Stanford Historical Photograph Collection (SC1071). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
16 https://rde.stanford.edu/studenthousing/escondido-village-mid-rise-apartments, accessed November 4th, 2015
Page 11 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
1971 – EV-IV Description
The last increment of the village inside of Olmsted Road was planned for single students and opened in 1971. It
included nine apartment blocks and two high-rises situated in the southwest corner of the village. The design team changed slightly with the architects being Wong Brocchini and Associates and the landscape architects Royston,
Hanamoto, and Abey. This increment differs somewhat from the previous two.
Residential Infills
The SWA masterplan included a multiphase redevelopment of Escondido Village. The first phases of this plan were
implemented; they involved a new infill of studios to house single students in different areas of the village. Six four-
story studios were built. Studio 1 and Studio 2 by MBT Architecture in 2001: and Studios 3 to 6 by James Guthrie & Associates between 2001 and 2003. This infill involved the demolition of a few low-rises over EV-I, and the
interruption of the loop in its western corner.
The landscape area around the village was infilled in 2010 with single-family houses for faculty and staff. In 2014
the last development opened, which replaced a portion of EV-I. It is composed of four new studio buildings and a commons, called Kennedy Graduate Residences.
17 Accession ARCH-2008-194, Box 5 f 4, Quad 10, Planning Office, Photographs (PC0062). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford
University Libraries, Stanford, Calif.
EV-IV Jenkins Court, Blackwelder high-rise on the background,
undated17 EV-IV, 1971
Page 12 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D)*Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*P3a, B6. Description Construction History Continuation from p. 1
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Studio 2, 2015
Olmsted Terrace Faculty Housing, 2011 EV, 2015
Mulberry House (childcare center), 2008
Kennedy Graduate Residences, 2015 Aerial, 2015
Page 13 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Evaluation
The criteria for listing on the California Register are as follows:
• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1).
• Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2).
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents
the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3).
• Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation (Criterion 4).
Criterion A/1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
A search of books, newspapers and other sources yielded records of petty crimes, mentions in memoirs and
minor works of fiction, marriage and birth announcements, and other small scale events that are typical for
residential neighborhoods. In recent years some entrepreneurial graduate students have initiated business
enterprises in their apartments at Escondido Village.18 These events, taking place in the 1990s and early 2000s, occurred too recently to assess their contributions to history. EV-II and EV-III do not appear to have been
associated with significant events in history.
Criterion B/2: Associated with the lives of significant persons in our past.
A number of significant persons attended Stanford University and likely some of these resided in Escondido
Village while completing graduate studies. For example, former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, earned a
master’s degree at Stanford in 1978 and lived with his family in Escondido Village. Prime Minister Barak
achieved historical significance in a later time (the 1990s) and at a far distant place (Israel). Thus there is no
substantive association between Barak’s historical achievements and Escondido Village. Thousands of students have lived in EV-II and EV-III. While many of these students undoubtedly went on to successful careers in
various fields, their accomplishments would be more closely associated with their homes or workplaces after
graduation from Stanford. Thus EV-II and EV-III do not appear eligible under Criterion 2.
18 “Soundhound Unveils Voice Control Interface A Decade in the Making to Battle Siri, Cortana,” Forbes June 2, 2015. See also Googled: The End of the World as We Know It by Ken Auletta.
Page 15 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Rockrise with Lawrence Halprin in 1960. This project attracted much more attention and praise at the time and
won the Better Living Award program sponsored by the AIA. House and Home noted the beauty that Rockrise
and his associates achieved with a small budget and complimented the complex for maximizing privacy,
separating pedestrian and motor pathways, providing landscaping and playground space, and for retaining as
many trees as possible (House & Home 176). The Aldea project is a better representation of the Second Bay Tradition style and the buildings still extant in the Aldea San Miguel have been evaluated to be eligible for
listing in the NRHP/CRHR (Carey & Co. Inc. 45).
“The materials Rockrise used for the student housing, their scale, their immediate access to the outdoors –particularly the sliding glass door and wide balconies – and their siting and landscaping, which landscape architect Lawrence Halprin designed, all conform to the principles of Midcentury Bay
Region modernism” (Carey & Co. Inc. 26).
2. Mid-rises
The mid-rise apartment towers are designed in Midcentury Modern style. They do not display any traits of the Second Bay Tradition style. They were built to increase the density of the village in contrast with the otherwise
horizontal layout of the low-rise buildings. They were occupied in 1964 and 1966, by graduate married student
couples. Each unit has a living room, kitchen, bathroom and separate bedroom with an outdoor balcony.
The towers are designed with the usual materials of the Modern style, but are typical of its time and ubiquitous in form and materials. The structural design is unremarkable, the glazing is limited and the hipped red-roof
intended to recall to the Stanford red-tiled roof vocabulary, detracts from a true Modern expression. A better
local example of the style and era, as presented by the Docomomo local chapter, is the Jones & Emmons’
design of 66 Cleary Court designed in 1963. The design of Cleary Court tower is notable for its economy,
abundant glazing and clear structural expression.19
McFarland mid-rise, 2012 Geneva Heights, Jones & Emmons, 66 Cleary Court, San Francisco, 196320
19 (Northern California Chapter, Documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhhods of the modern movement) http://docomomo-noca.org/buildings/66-clearly-court/, accessed November 12, 2015.
20 https://sfclockworkorange.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/eichler-in-the-city/, accessed November 11, 2015
Page 16 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
In the years following the end of World War II, San Francisco experienced a tremendous population boom and
resultant demand for new housing. As a result a new building form gained popularity, large‐scale planned public and private developments. The typology for the large San Francisco housing residential developments
varied from court-plans, superblocks, to low rise apartment buildings or combinations of those. While low-rise
buildings were common at the beginning, incorporating larger tower designs became more popular due to the
ability to accommodate higher population density (Mary Brown 34-36). Escondido Village increments II and III are a similar private project comprised by two different residential
building typologies.
Amongst these developments the pre-war ones that stand-out more are: Parkmerced and Stonestown.
Parkmerced was one of the first planned communities on San Francisco. The project consisted of low‐rise
garden apartments and groupings of mid‐rise apartment towers set in a park‐like setting with recreational
amenities and administrative resources.21 Stonestown was remarkable for its size and the mixed use within itself; it was described as “A City Within A City” (Mary Brown 36-39). Later, designers of San Francisco
developments kept experimenting within the typologies, styles and elements. Some of the more acclaimed
projects are: Saint Francis Square Housing (1961, by Marquis & Stroller with Lawrence Halprin) a superblock
which became a model of affordable housing and Diamond Heights (Cohen and Leverson’s Red Rock Hill, 1962). Joseph Eichler also develop successful alternatives to his suburban style typology: Laguna Heights a combination of six low-rises (Claude Oakland with Sasaki/Walker, 1963) and a single high-rise by Jones &
Emmons (66 Cleary Court), and Geneva Terrace townhouses and high-rises (Claude Oakland and Royston,
1962) (Mary Brown 33-47).
Parkmerced22 Saint Francis Square23
21 Parkmerced was recently determined eligible for listing in the National Register, due in large part to Thomas Church’s innovative
landscape design (Mary Brown).
22 (Northern California Chapter, Documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhhods of the modern movement) http://docomomonoca.org/buildings/parkmerced/, accessed November 18, 2015. 23 (Rudy Bruner Award Digital Archive) http://libweb1.lib.buffalo.edu/bruner/year/project.asp?searchby=year&entry=41#, accessed
November 18, 2015. Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence, 1987 Silver Medal Winner.
Page 17 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Laguna Heights24 Red Rock Hill model, Diamond Heights, Photo: San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency. 25
In summary, most of the elements of the planning of Escondido Village are common to several developments of
the time. Amongst those elements are: segregation of pedestrian and vehicular paths, park-like setting,
community facilities, cul-de-sacs configuration and controlled architecture. More influential and acclaimed
examples were: Parkmerced, Diamond Heights, Saint Francis Square and Laguna Heights. EV-II and EV-III are an average example of a residential development of the Bay Area after War World II. As a residential development EV-II and EV-III were neither original nor influential. They do not represent a significant or
influential residential development in the planning history of California.
The low-rises are designed in the Second Bay Tradition style, and were influenced by EV-I. However, they are not distinguished examples as they do not fully embody the characteristics of the style. Even compared to other
local budget-conscious apartments of the time, EV-II and EV-III are an average example of the Second Bay
Tradition style. They do not exemplify the style nor embody enough of the distinctive characteristics of the
Second Bay Tradition style nor do they display high artistic values compared to better examples of the region.
The five identical mid-rises are undistinguished examples of a common type of apartment tower that does not
exemplify the Midcentury Modern style nor do they display high artistic values compared to better examples of
the region.
Architecture firm: Campbell and Wong Campbell & Wong was a well-known Northern California architecture firm, established in 1946 and active
through the late 1960s. The firm was founded in San Francisco by John Carden Campbell (1914-1996) and
Worley K. Wong (1912-1985), and was primarily known for its residential designs. The firm designed in the
Midcentury Modern architecture style and were contemporaries of architects such as William Wurster, Gardner
Dailey, Joseph Esherick, Anshen & Allen, John Dinwiddie, and A. Quincy Jones. Campbell & Wong projects are best known for experiments with modular buildings, Quonset huts and A-frame structures.
24 (Weinstein) http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/city-hill, accessed November 8, 2015. 25 (King) http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013/04/16/hills-of-san-francisco-diamond-heights/, accessed November 9, 2015.
Page 18 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
A few notable commissions by Campbell &Wong include Felton Cabin at Fallen Leaf Lake (1947); A-Frame
Leisure House (1950); the HamiltonWolf House in Oakland (1953); the Clinite House in San Mateo (ca.1955);
the Sawyer House in Piedmont (1963); the Wilmarth Residence in Colusa (1964); and Merrill College at the
University of California, Santa Cruz (1969). Campbell & Wong also designed Case Study House #27 (1963, not
built), one of the last in the famous Case Study House program sponsored by Arts and Architecture magazine. Their designs were published in a number of contemporary magazines, including Architectural Record,
Progressive Architecture, Interiors, Sunset, and House and Garden. (Page & Turnbull 19). The design of
Escondido Village Increments II and III was produced in the later years of their partnership, however it is not of
their best known designs.
Both John Carden Campbell and Worley Wong are individually identified as master architects in the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement. (Mary Brown 207-209, 251), however increments II and III of Escondido Village are not among their best works.
Landscape Architecture firm: Royston, Hanamoto and Mayes
The landscape was designed by Royston, Hanamoto and Mayes (RHM). Robert N. Royston is the most well-known landscape architect of the firm.26 He designed and collaborated on numerous multi-residential projects which include earlier works with Thomas Church (Valencia Gardens Housing Project, Potrero Hill Housing,
and Parkmerced Apartments), he also worked with Garret Eckbo in the Ladera Housing Co-operative (1946),
the Eichler’s Visitation Valley development with Claude Oakland (1962-1965), and Presidio Housing. Later in
his career he designed the displaced city of North Bonneville. Robert N. Royston is a significant landscape architect and has been individually identified as a master landscape
architect in the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context
Statement. (Mary Brown 273-276). Royston has been associated with several firms over his career and is
credited with numerous projects of different scales and forms, however EV-II and EV-III are not one of Royston, Hanamoto and Mayes (RHM) best works.
Summary Criterion C/3
In summary EV- II and EV-III are undistinguished examples of a multi-family housing of the postwar era in the
San Francisco Bay Region. The properties have not been recognized for high artistic values. Escondido Village increments II and III are not Campbell and Wong’s nor Royston, Hanamoto and Mayes’s (RHM) best works. Escondido Village increment II and III do not appear to qualify for listing under Criterion C/3: Design and
Construction.
Criterion D/4: Information Potential. Have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
26 Among his more important works were Krusi Park in Alameda, California, Pixie Place in Marin County, California, Bowden and
Mitchell parks in Palo Alto, California (1956), and, later, Santa Clara's Central Park (1960) (Reuben M. Rainey, 1918-2008 - Biography of Robert Royston).
Page 19 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
A surface survey and record search were performed for the proposed project area. No structures were present on
the project site before the construction of the existing apartments (this was the general vicinity of a horse track
in the 19th century and an airfield in the early 20th century). No historic archaeological deposits are expected in
this area. The northeast corner of Escondido Village near El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue was on the edge
of the “Chinatown” associated with the 19th century town of Mayfield. Recent construction of housing in this area did not uncover any historic artifacts.
The project site is at a considerable distance from freshwater streams and is thus unlikely to have been occupied
by Native Americans. No stone tool materials, bedrock exposures or other natural features used by Native
Americans are present at this location. No prehistoric archaeological deposits are expected in this area. Escondido Village II and III are very low potential for buried cultural deposits and do not appear to meet
criterion 4/D.
As EV-II and EV-III do not appear to qualify for listing under any Criteria the increments do not need to be
evaluated for the seven aspects of integrity.
Page 20 of 20 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Escondido Village II and III
*Recorded by: Elena Angoloti (3/C), Laura Jones (1/A, 2/B, 4/D) *Date: 11/30/2015 Continuation Update
*B10. Period of Significance Continuation from p. 2
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Bibliography
Cain-Seibold, Julie Cain and Julene. "Escondido Village I DPR form." 2012.
Carey & Co. Inc. UCSF Historic Resources Survey. San Francisco, 2011. "Escondido Third Unit." The Stanford Daily 12 February 1965: 1.
House & Home. "Eleven award-winning apartments: Good Living Grows out of Good Land Use." House &
Home July 1961: 174-193.
King, John. "Hills of San Francisco: Diamond Heights." SFGATE 16 April 2013. website.
Mary Brown, Preservation Planner. "San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 - Historic Context Statement." 2010.
"Northern California Chapter, Documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhhods of the
modern movement." n.d. http://docomomo-noca.org/buildings/66-clearly-court/. 12 November 2015.
"Northern California Chapter, Documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and neighborhhods of the
modern movement." n.d. http://docomomo-noca.org/buildings/parkmerced/. 12 November 2015. Page & Turnbull. Study Historic Resource Evaluation, One Spruce Street. San Francisco, 2012.
"Parklike Living for Married Students." Architectural Forum 115 July 1961: 111.
Reuben M. Rainey, JC Miller. 1918-2008 - Biography of Robert Royston. 15 October 2008.
Public Gardens, Robert Royston and the suburban park. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2006.
"Robert N. Royston collection, 1999-12." Berkeley: Environmental Design Archives. College of Environmental Design. University of California, Acquired in 1999.
"Rudy Bruner Award Digital Archive." n.d.
http://libweb1.lib.buffalo.edu/bruner/year/project.asp?searchby=year&entry=41#, . 18 November
2015.
Treib, Marc and Imbert, Dorothée. Garrett Eckbo: Modern Landscapes for Living. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Tyler, Dennis. "Summer construction heats up on campus." The Stanford Daily 10 August 2000: 4-5.
Weinstein, Dave. "http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/city-hill." n.d. Eichler Network. 19 November 2015.