Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Clovis City Council
March 18, 2024

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
March 18, 2024
Body
Clovis City Council
Pages
132,195
Original file
331.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net. That file is the official record.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2808
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 306 79 49 279 135 172 125 77 116 144 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.49 0.23 0.44 0.75 0.36 0.77 0.12 0.08 0.69 0.15 Control Delay 74.3 57.7 11.3 79.9 68.8 24.1 84.9 20.0 4.6 85.3 22.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.3 57.7 11.3 79.9 68.8 24.1 84.9 20.0 4.6 85.3 22.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 141 1 47 262 47 166 60 0 112 73 Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 181 46 92 344 105 239 120 30 176 143 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 4328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 50 260 55 150 200
Base Capacity (vph) 369 811 422 369 434 429 369 1039 919 369 966 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.19 0.13 0.64 0.31 0.47 0.12 0.08 0.31 0.15 Intersection Summary
2809
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 421 41 244 41 179 352 68 40 230 40 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.67 0.38 0.69 0.10 0.67 0.32 0.07 0.38 0.26 0.05 Control Delay 62.5 45.5 63.4 55.2 0.5 59.9 16.7 0.1 63.8 22.8 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 45.5 63.4 55.2 0.5 59.9 16.7 0.1 63.8 22.8 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 142 31 182 0 132 142 0 30 107 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 184 68 255 0 203 258 0 66 200 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 25 200 85 25
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1035 268 543 554 269 1097 987 277 882 799 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.41 0.15 0.45 0.07 0.67 0.32 0.07 0.14 0.26 0.05 Intersection Summary
2810
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 167 16 453 829 617
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.05 0.76 0.33 0.37
Control Delay 45.9 0.3 41.3 8.0 16.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.9 0.3 41.3 8.0 16.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 0 123 61 108
Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 0 198 245 182
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 713 2513 1657
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.04 0.64 0.33 0.37
Intersection Summary
2811
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 361 609 1213 24 560
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.92 0.64 0.21 0.27
Control Delay 30.3 38.2 18.7 68.1 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.3 38.2 18.7 68.1 8.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 197 233 16 46
Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 #419 410 m42 66
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 999 681 1899 200 2111
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.89 0.64 0.12 0.27
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2812
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 7
95th Queue (ft) 27
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2813
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 439
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2814
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 53 71
Average Queue (ft) 34 3 32
95th Queue (ft) 68 22 61
Link Distance (ft) 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2815
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2022) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 30
Average Queue (ft) 21 13
95th Queue (ft) 47 37
Link Distance (ft) 369 209
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2816
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 168 301 27 248 165 981 24 62 975 95 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.35 0.48 0.25 0.73 0.70 0.38 0.03 0.48 0.45 0.13 Control Delay 77.3 43.0 6.6 66.5 60.0 71.4 23.4 0.1 72.5 30.6 3.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.3 43.0 6.6 66.5 60.0 71.4 23.4 0.1 72.5 30.6 3.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 127 0 23 194 140 195 0 54 221 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 155 34 48 229 181 241 0 87 269 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 90 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 180 600 714 199 578 242 2563 857 194 2173 724 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.28 0.42 0.14 0.43 0.68 0.38 0.03 0.32 0.45 0.13 Intersection Summary
2817
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 461 170 338 702 277 210 991 242 285 1443 228 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.68 0.42 0.84 0.80 0.57 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.74 0.66 0.31 Control Delay 73.4 59.3 17.9 81.4 58.1 27.7 74.5 34.5 12.2 73.8 36.6 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.4 59.3 17.9 81.4 58.1 27.7 74.5 34.5 12.2 73.8 36.6 15.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 218 37 162 330 118 100 250 43 136 392 60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 248 95 #214 366 191 138 338 123 176 512 141 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 5383 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 100 250 100 250 160 250 150
Base Capacity (vph) 459 1069 564 426 1058 560 438 2045 728 456 2189 738 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.43 0.30 0.79 0.66 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.33 0.63 0.66 0.31 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2818
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 795 287 176 862 158 227 306 106 244 546 139 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.76 0.54 0.78 1.44 0.28 0.87 0.61 0.21 0.90 1.06 0.28 Control Delay 68.7 47.9 31.0 77.0 240.8 15.9 84.6 48.0 7.7 88.1 103.2 15.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 47.9 31.0 77.0 240.8 15.9 84.6 48.0 7.7 88.1 103.2 15.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 323 138 145 ~970 39 186 229 0 203 ~529 30 Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 380 217 203 #1162 87 #275 303 38 #306 #673 74 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5383 1263 627 5240
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 50 215 60 230 104 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 288 1049 527 283 599 571 285 502 498 285 513 502 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.76 0.54 0.62 1.44 0.28 0.80 0.61 0.21 0.86 1.06 0.28 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2819
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 824 161 257 782 136 134 233 159 183 458 242 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.83 0.31 0.71 0.70 0.24 0.72 0.28 0.34 0.27 0.40 0.42 Control Delay 68.7 54.7 15.4 71.2 45.9 10.3 80.0 44.0 12.5 49.9 38.8 23.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 54.7 15.4 71.2 45.9 10.3 80.0 44.0 12.5 49.9 38.8 23.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 361 35 118 318 17 120 91 19 75 172 92 Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 407 82 147 356 55 169 119 64 104 221 162 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 50
Base Capacity (vph) 592 998 518 598 1110 571 294 826 469 669 1149 581 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.83 0.31 0.43 0.70 0.24 0.46 0.28 0.34 0.27 0.40 0.42 Intersection Summary
2820
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 293 349 514 942 266
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.66 0.74 0.19 0.60 0.38
Control Delay 42.9 12.1 38.3 3.3 21.0 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.9 12.1 38.3 3.3 21.0 12.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 0 169 30 192 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 33 197 45 239 99
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 667 475 2692 1583 707
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.73 0.19 0.60 0.38
Intersection Summary
2821
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 405 392 77 459 207 176 531 23 80 946 83 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.73 0.55 0.57 0.74 0.34 0.78 0.36 0.03 0.58 0.72 0.13 Control Delay 77.9 54.9 9.2 82.5 53.1 15.0 84.8 32.0 0.1 83.1 45.9 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.9 54.9 9.2 82.5 53.1 15.0 84.8 32.0 0.1 83.1 45.9 1.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 353 32 74 406 52 169 184 0 77 418 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 437 104 124 488 106 234 261 0 127 #615 2 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 55 60 300 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 365 566 715 309 617 606 362 1479 674 306 1309 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.72 0.55 0.25 0.74 0.34 0.49 0.36 0.03 0.26 0.72 0.13 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2822
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 320 173 49 470 117 143 632 173 1302 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.70 0.36 0.34 0.84 0.21 0.67 0.44 0.80 0.89 Control Delay 55.7 50.4 12.5 61.0 55.4 5.1 68.0 29.6 80.1 44.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.7 50.4 12.5 61.0 55.4 5.1 68.0 29.6 80.1 44.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 248 30 38 340 0 113 187 136 487 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 307 80 79 470 35 174 280 #240 #841 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 105 165 105 230 235
Base Capacity (vph) 151 572 564 155 596 580 294 1423 231 1463 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.56 0.31 0.32 0.79 0.20 0.49 0.44 0.75 0.89 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2823
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1116 544 2106 472 78 776
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.46 0.58 0.49 0.08 0.95
Control Delay 11.9 2.2 15.0 8.8 35.2 65.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.9 2.2 15.0 8.8 35.2 65.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 0 374 200 25 344
Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 42 413 318 45 #486
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 280
Base Capacity (vph) 3943 1183 3627 971 957 815
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.46 0.58 0.49 0.08 0.95
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2824
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 999 248 2172 92 514 664
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.24 0.49 0.09 0.34 0.67
Control Delay 12.9 1.6 16.1 2.5 35.3 30.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.9 1.6 16.1 2.5 35.3 30.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 122 0 250 0 118 196
Queue Length 95th (ft) 147 26 274 23 151 272
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2972 1028 4454 973 1520 987
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.24 0.49 0.09 0.34 0.67
Intersection Summary
2825
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 383 954 268 163 1143 190 269 461 212 441 778 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.58 0.39 0.55 0.82 0.37 0.72 0.27 0.63 0.25 0.57 Control Delay 79.6 45.3 6.3 75.0 58.4 24.2 77.7 31.7 75.9 38.1 10.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.6 45.3 6.3 75.0 58.4 24.2 77.7 31.7 75.9 38.1 10.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 196 293 4 83 400 72 138 104 109 117 67 Queue Length 95th (ft) 250 350 73 122 473 152 183 141 151 156 147 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 548 1641 687 553 1400 507 664 1735 671 1735 1355 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.58 0.39 0.29 0.82 0.37 0.41 0.27 0.32 0.25 0.57 Intersection Summary
2826
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 598 146 39 466 385 217 101 40 193 176 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.48 0.24 0.38 0.70 0.62 0.81 0.16 0.07 0.79 0.31 Control Delay 76.6 39.3 17.2 78.1 48.4 36.2 83.5 39.4 0.2 84.5 41.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.6 39.3 17.2 78.1 48.4 36.2 83.5 39.4 0.2 84.5 41.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 244 46 38 401 254 208 70 0 185 125 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 295 99 77 517 360 287 134 2 262 220 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 4328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 50 260 55 150 200
Base Capacity (vph) 365 1255 599 365 663 617 365 616 577 358 574 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.48 0.24 0.11 0.70 0.62 0.59 0.16 0.07 0.54 0.31 Intersection Summary
2827
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 328 79 302 40 121 172 40 42 307 35 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.54 0.55 0.77 0.10 0.65 0.16 0.04 0.39 0.32 0.04 Control Delay 60.7 41.3 66.5 57.4 0.5 67.5 16.3 0.1 63.6 21.7 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.7 41.3 66.5 57.4 0.5 67.5 16.3 0.1 63.6 21.7 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 104 60 227 0 92 64 0 32 138 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 143 108 302 0 149 132 0 68 263 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 25 200 85 25
Base Capacity (vph) 238 1017 238 543 529 242 1067 947 238 959 861 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.32 0.33 0.56 0.08 0.50 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.32 0.04 Intersection Summary
2828
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 32 527 459 780
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.78 0.18 0.46
Control Delay 45.7 0.6 51.7 4.0 12.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 0.6 51.7 4.0 12.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 0 183 34 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 136 0 239 47 175
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 461 806 2574 1710
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.07 0.65 0.18 0.46
Intersection Summary
2829
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 167 356 950 15 504
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.68 0.40 0.14 0.20
Control Delay 39.7 11.1 9.1 54.2 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 11.1 9.1 54.2 7.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 1 93 10 55
Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 76 246 m25 78
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 989 707 2397 283 2584
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.40 0.05 0.20
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2830
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 51
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2831
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 33
95th Queue (ft) 55
Link Distance (ft) 439
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2832
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served L T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 513 629 376
Average Queue (ft) 16 216 268 237
95th Queue (ft) 46 538 597 419
Link Distance (ft) 1184 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%) 26
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2833
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 65 145 48 146 193 851 41 63 761 14 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.32 0.48 0.41 0.53 0.67 0.26 0.04 0.49 0.28 0.02 Control Delay 63.2 58.2 13.2 70.4 55.6 64.9 13.6 0.1 72.5 20.4 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.2 58.2 13.2 70.4 55.6 64.9 13.6 0.1 72.5 20.4 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 55 0 41 108 161 113 0 54 128 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 93 56 81 173 233 187 0 98 199 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 90 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 184 612 618 203 593 289 3258 1059 194 2675 868 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.67 0.26 0.04 0.32 0.28 0.02 Intersection Summary
2834
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 268 733 131 362 632 323 297 1470 502 351 1065 210 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.79 0.26 0.86 0.63 0.57 0.76 0.87 0.74 0.81 0.61 0.34 Control Delay 74.0 56.7 9.3 82.7 48.5 23.7 75.7 53.0 31.3 76.7 43.1 17.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.0 56.7 9.3 82.7 48.5 23.7 75.7 53.0 31.3 76.7 43.1 17.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 128 342 9 174 273 119 142 489 239 167 311 55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 172 392 59 #248 331 216 191 #647 #446 #233 396 137 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 5383 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 100 250 100 250 160 250 150
Base Capacity (vph) 468 1090 570 439 1090 602 451 1690 677 461 1744 619 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.67 0.23 0.82 0.58 0.54 0.66 0.87 0.74 0.76 0.61 0.34 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2835
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 1055 165 113 933 216 210 526 161 162 372 111 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.92 0.29 0.61 1.61 0.39 0.83 0.93 0.28 0.74 0.70 0.22 Control Delay 71.7 56.4 16.8 69.8 315.3 23.2 80.6 69.8 11.6 73.9 50.9 11.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.7 56.4 16.8 69.8 315.3 23.2 80.6 69.8 11.6 73.9 50.9 11.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 445 43 93 ~1122 79 172 432 21 133 286 12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 186 #633 106 152 #1449 163 #276 #713 81 203 408 60 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5383 1263 627 5240
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 50 215 60 230 104 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 288 1145 575 291 578 555 288 563 567 288 529 516 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.92 0.29 0.39 1.61 0.39 0.73 0.93 0.28 0.56 0.70 0.22 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2836
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 908 163 173 920 149 214 413 184 138 279 164 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.76 0.27 0.59 0.78 0.25 0.83 0.47 0.38 0.23 0.28 0.31 Control Delay 70.6 47.1 13.9 70.1 48.4 12.4 82.9 47.1 20.2 50.8 41.7 15.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.6 47.1 13.9 70.1 48.4 12.4 82.9 47.1 20.2 50.8 41.7 15.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 386 34 79 396 26 191 170 53 56 106 35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 485 94 117 499 82 276 223 124 88 152 100 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 50
Base Capacity (vph) 604 1190 596 610 1181 601 314 884 479 611 995 528 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.76 0.27 0.28 0.78 0.25 0.68 0.47 0.38 0.23 0.28 0.31 Intersection Summary
2837
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 110 194 1000 673 91
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.38 0.69 0.37 0.34 0.10
Control Delay 43.4 11.0 45.6 4.1 12.1 6.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.4 11.0 45.6 4.1 12.1 6.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 0 99 70 95 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 33 138 103 146 33
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 549 381 2716 2000 916
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.51 0.37 0.34 0.10
Intersection Summary
2838
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 502 418 46 478 79 332 938 49 46 588 51 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.75 0.55 0.40 0.73 0.12 0.90 0.61 0.07 0.40 0.61 0.10 Control Delay 79.7 51.0 13.4 77.4 50.5 0.6 84.7 37.1 0.2 77.3 52.4 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.7 51.0 13.4 77.4 50.5 0.6 84.7 37.1 0.2 77.3 52.4 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 445 88 44 419 0 309 375 0 44 274 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 570 192 88 545 2 #500 501 0 88 350 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 55 60 300 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 373 671 764 309 657 637 384 1529 725 312 969 518 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.75 0.55 0.15 0.73 0.12 0.86 0.61 0.07 0.15 0.61 0.10 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2839
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 388 191 39 350 126 160 1338 116 958 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.84 0.39 0.27 0.75 0.26 0.70 0.82 0.60 0.61 Control Delay 56.7 60.1 14.9 59.4 53.5 6.5 68.0 37.2 66.1 32.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.7 60.1 14.9 59.4 53.5 6.5 68.0 37.2 66.1 32.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 299 40 30 263 0 126 518 92 332 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 381 97 68 339 43 192 #827 151 #542 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 105 165 105 230 235
Base Capacity (vph) 157 592 584 157 592 591 304 1629 232 1566 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.66 0.33 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.53 0.82 0.50 0.61 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2840
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1773 551 1959 426 74 345
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.12 0.67
Control Delay 7.8 1.6 8.3 1.9 44.6 52.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.8 1.6 8.3 1.9 44.6 52.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 150 0 184 0 27 145
Queue Length 95th (ft) 210 37 258 41 47 190
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 280
Base Capacity (vph) 4651 1304 4279 1050 1310 1083
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.06 0.32
Intersection Summary
2841
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1507 378 1878 205 536 1018
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.35 0.43 0.21 0.33 1.07
Control Delay 17.9 2.2 16.4 2.2 33.7 88.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.9 2.2 16.4 2.2 33.7 88.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 271 0 214 0 120 ~521
Queue Length 95th (ft) 312 42 237 34 153 #669
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2923 1073 4336 998 1643 953
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.35 0.43 0.21 0.33 1.07
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2842
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 705 1488 344 332 1184 211 405 875 329 376 504 v/c Ratio 1.26 1.00 0.56 0.78 0.92 0.44 0.81 0.53 0.77 0.24 0.42 Control Delay 182.1 77.8 21.2 78.3 68.0 26.9 76.9 40.6 78.2 41.8 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 182.1 77.8 21.2 78.3 68.0 26.9 76.9 40.6 78.2 41.8 4.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~459 ~557 108 170 430 88 207 242 169 105 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #588 #732 225 218 #510 170 258 304 217 143 48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 559 1486 615 559 1292 476 677 1639 671 1558 1193 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.26 1.00 0.56 0.59 0.92 0.44 0.60 0.53 0.49 0.24 0.42 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2843
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 616 169 55 694 135 297 128 80 116 174 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.45 0.26 0.48 0.95 0.20 0.90 0.20 0.13 0.69 0.38 Control Delay 79.2 36.6 18.8 80.8 67.9 15.0 88.1 37.2 7.8 85.3 48.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.2 36.6 18.8 80.8 67.9 15.0 88.1 37.2 7.8 85.3 48.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 239 59 53 666 36 282 89 0 112 137 Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 311 124 100 #975 89 #421 151 40 176 214 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 4328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 50 260 55 150 200
Base Capacity (vph) 369 1374 662 369 731 668 369 640 597 369 459 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.26 0.15 0.95 0.20 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.31 0.38 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2844
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 433 41 264 51 179 407 68 46 271 40 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.66 0.38 0.71 0.13 0.74 0.38 0.07 0.42 0.30 0.05 Control Delay 62.5 44.9 63.4 55.5 1.6 67.1 18.5 2.0 64.5 23.4 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 44.9 63.4 55.5 1.6 67.1 18.5 2.0 64.5 23.4 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 146 31 196 0 135 176 0 35 127 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 188 68 271 6 202 316 15 73 241 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 25 200 85 25
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1035 268 543 529 283 1076 954 262 894 808 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.15 0.49 0.10 0.63 0.38 0.07 0.18 0.30 0.05 Intersection Summary
2845
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 16 465 873 645
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.05 0.76 0.35 0.39
Control Delay 45.8 0.3 40.8 8.1 17.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.8 0.3 40.8 8.1 17.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 102 0 132 59 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 0 210 251 196
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 797 2503 1633
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.04 0.58 0.35 0.39
Intersection Summary
2846
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 383 630 1248 24 580
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.95 0.67 0.21 0.28
Control Delay 30.1 44.5 19.8 66.3 10.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.1 44.5 19.8 66.3 10.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 228 245 16 60
Queue Length 95th (ft) 141 #462 430 m39 77
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 999 671 1866 283 2078
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.94 0.67 0.08 0.28
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2847
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 10
95th Queue (ft) 33
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2848
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 47
Link Distance (ft) 439
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2849
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB WB B78 B78 SB
Directions Served L T TR T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 96 1274 1256 374 374 354
Average Queue (ft) 31 1027 1054 197 201 316
95th Queue (ft) 68 1624 1605 484 486 427
Link Distance (ft) 1184 1184 346 346 361
Upstream Blk Time (%) 58 60 11 16 83
Queuing Penalty (veh) 280 291 52 79 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2850
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term (2028) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 30
Average Queue (ft) 18 13
95th Queue (ft) 43 37
Link Distance (ft) 369 209
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2851
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 171 272 108 583 149 882 22 64 878 86 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.27 0.38 0.68 0.94 0.83 0.50 0.04 0.49 0.57 0.16 Control Delay 75.5 34.0 5.2 80.1 66.1 94.0 37.1 0.1 72.6 42.0 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.5 34.0 5.2 80.1 66.1 94.0 37.1 0.1 72.6 42.0 2.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 108 0 93 480 129 228 0 55 241 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 175 63 154 #757 #240 286 0 103 289 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 90 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 180 643 724 199 620 192 1762 627 194 1534 547 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.38 0.54 0.94 0.78 0.50 0.04 0.33 0.57 0.16 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2852
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 455 311 338 701 276 424 996 349 286 1450 229 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.67 0.64 0.84 0.80 0.57 0.76 0.49 0.45 0.74 0.80 0.36 Control Delay 73.4 59.1 19.9 81.4 58.2 27.9 67.0 34.5 12.8 73.6 47.1 19.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.4 59.1 19.9 81.4 58.2 27.9 67.0 34.5 12.8 73.6 47.1 19.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 214 66 162 327 117 198 253 65 137 454 70 Queue Length 95th (ft) 92 254 160 #228 379 201 255 348 180 182 #638 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 5383 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 100 250 100 250 160 250 150
Base Capacity (vph) 459 1069 639 426 1058 560 560 2045 771 456 1817 634 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.43 0.49 0.79 0.66 0.49 0.76 0.49 0.45 0.63 0.80 0.36 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2853
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 760 396 165 820 152 237 337 100 360 970 134 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.72 0.73 0.75 1.36 0.26 0.89 0.69 0.21 1.26 1.91 0.27 Control Delay 68.4 46.0 38.5 75.1 208.6 15.1 86.8 51.9 8.0 187.4 446.8 15.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.4 46.0 38.5 75.1 208.6 15.1 86.8 51.9 8.0 187.4 446.8 15.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 302 220 136 ~893 35 196 257 0 ~380 ~1272 27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 395 #389 207 #1199 94 #333 367 44 #576 #1527 81 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5383 1263 627 5240
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 50 215 60 230 104 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 288 1062 546 283 602 574 285 487 482 285 507 497 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.72 0.73 0.58 1.36 0.26 0.83 0.69 0.21 1.26 1.91 0.27 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2854
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 778 228 345 734 180 127 214 188 173 649 311 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.93 0.50 1.24 0.84 0.37 0.73 0.16 0.27 0.41 0.46 0.45 Control Delay 68.7 69.3 27.7 184.4 59.7 16.3 84.6 28.5 4.7 59.7 31.7 21.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 69.3 27.7 184.4 59.7 16.3 84.6 28.5 4.7 59.7 31.7 21.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 365 93 ~200 333 38 114 66 0 76 225 126 Queue Length 95th (ft) 88 #481 179 #302 #420 107 183 96 49 115 292 219 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 50
Base Capacity (vph) 276 851 457 279 878 488 209 1308 700 423 1416 693 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.91 0.50 1.24 0.84 0.37 0.61 0.16 0.27 0.41 0.46 0.45 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2855
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 254 308 496 1065 327
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.63 0.58 0.18 0.71 0.48
Control Delay 42.0 12.3 31.3 3.1 23.8 14.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.0 12.3 31.3 3.1 23.8 14.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 144 27 226 71
Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 64 225 51 334 159
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 50
Base Capacity (vph) 590 686 527 2712 1490 680
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.58 0.18 0.71 0.48
Intersection Summary
2856
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 435 389 75 512 253 175 508 23 125 926 148 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.64 0.51 0.56 0.75 0.39 0.77 0.42 0.04 0.75 0.85 0.26 Control Delay 82.7 45.6 9.9 82.4 50.8 18.6 84.7 39.6 0.1 92.7 57.3 9.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 82.7 45.6 9.9 82.4 50.8 18.6 84.7 39.6 0.1 92.7 57.3 9.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 351 46 73 436 82 168 202 0 121 447 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 498 147 126 610 168 242 263 0 192 #631 68 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 55 60 300 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 389 676 767 321 680 654 408 1205 569 200 1092 568 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.64 0.51 0.23 0.75 0.39 0.43 0.42 0.04 0.63 0.85 0.26 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2857
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 317 210 50 455 118 303 667 176 1333 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.70 0.43 0.35 0.82 0.22 0.84 0.47 0.81 1.14 Control Delay 55.8 50.6 14.6 61.3 53.8 5.2 68.8 29.8 81.0 114.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.8 50.6 14.6 61.3 53.8 5.2 68.8 29.8 81.0 114.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 246 44 39 327 0 227 198 138 ~693 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 309 103 80 459 37 #444 300 #252 #893 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 105 165 105 230 235
Base Capacity (vph) 151 572 576 155 596 580 361 1421 231 1165 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.55 0.36 0.32 0.76 0.20 0.84 0.47 0.76 1.14 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2858
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1315 956 2300 506 83 837
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.71 0.62 0.51 0.09 1.08
Control Delay 11.8 4.0 16.0 9.0 36.2 97.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.8 4.0 16.0 9.0 36.2 97.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 143 0 430 223 27 ~432
Queue Length 95th (ft) 164 48 472 356 48 #575
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 280
Base Capacity (vph) 4002 1347 3686 991 925 778
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.71 0.62 0.51 0.09 1.08
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2859
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1174 254 2338 101 528 684
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.25 0.52 0.10 0.35 0.73
Control Delay 13.6 1.6 16.7 2.4 35.4 37.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 13.6 1.6 16.7 2.4 35.4 37.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 0 278 0 121 238
Queue Length 95th (ft) 180 26 302 24 155 318
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2972 1030 4454 976 1520 940
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.25 0.52 0.10 0.35 0.73
Intersection Summary
2860
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 441 1006 391 211 1196 200 409 658 222 515 809 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.63 0.52 0.65 0.89 0.41 0.81 0.38 0.65 0.33 0.66 Control Delay 82.4 47.4 8.1 77.3 64.4 26.4 76.9 35.5 76.3 43.6 17.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 82.4 47.4 8.1 77.3 64.4 26.4 76.9 35.5 76.3 43.6 17.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 225 316 20 108 436 83 209 165 114 149 130 Queue Length 95th (ft) 288 382 114 150 #525 164 260 212 156 195 224 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 548 1602 746 553 1341 490 664 1730 671 1541 1228 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.63 0.52 0.38 0.89 0.41 0.62 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.66 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2861
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 732 294 78 489 402 226 104 42 356 589 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.58 0.49 0.58 0.69 0.61 0.82 0.24 0.10 0.98 1.15 Control Delay 81.0 42.0 30.9 83.8 46.1 35.1 83.5 49.1 1.1 101.4 135.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.0 42.0 30.9 83.8 46.1 35.1 83.5 49.1 1.1 101.4 135.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 305 164 75 409 260 217 84 0 350 ~674 Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 390 269 129 566 396 297 140 4 #563 #1019 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 4328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 50 260 55 150 200
Base Capacity (vph) 365 1256 600 365 711 655 365 426 423 362 511 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.58 0.49 0.21 0.69 0.61 0.62 0.24 0.10 0.98 1.15 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2862
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 410 104 335 42 170 179 72 104 701 87 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.67 0.62 0.74 0.09 0.72 0.20 0.09 0.62 0.83 0.11 Control Delay 60.9 46.2 67.4 52.5 0.4 66.0 21.1 3.0 67.3 41.5 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.9 46.2 67.4 52.5 0.4 66.0 21.1 3.0 67.3 41.5 5.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 141 79 253 0 128 75 0 79 462 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 183 133 328 0 194 156 20 133 #891 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 25 200 85 25
Base Capacity (vph) 238 1016 238 543 529 262 917 827 238 844 769 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.40 0.44 0.62 0.08 0.65 0.20 0.09 0.44 0.83 0.11 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2863
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 34 550 479 1015
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.79 0.19 0.60
Control Delay 45.7 0.6 50.8 5.2 15.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 0.6 50.8 5.2 15.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 0 193 36 164
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 0 247 83 275
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 461 768 2571 1696
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.72 0.19 0.60
Intersection Summary
2864
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 404 998 16 615
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.78 0.44 0.15 0.25
Control Delay 34.4 22.6 12.2 60.1 8.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.4 22.6 12.2 60.1 8.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 72 123 11 65
Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 165 306 m22 87
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 958 643 2251 283 2437
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.63 0.44 0.06 0.25
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2865
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 903
Average Queue (ft) 25 878
95th Queue (ft) 52 900
Link Distance (ft) 420 840
Upstream Blk Time (%) 100
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2866
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 118 601
Average Queue (ft) 59 593
95th Queue (ft) 99 599
Link Distance (ft) 439 587
Upstream Blk Time (%) 47
Queuing Penalty (veh) 555
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2867
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB WB B78 B78 SB
Directions Served L T TR T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 1274 1274 369 364 368
Average Queue (ft) 6 1000 1017 165 170 325
95th Queue (ft) 25 1643 1627 442 445 459
Link Distance (ft) 1184 1184 346 346 361
Upstream Blk Time (%) 55 57 10 17 84
Queuing Penalty (veh) 197 203 34 62 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2868
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 49
Average Queue (ft) 25 12
95th Queue (ft) 48 38
Link Distance (ft) 369 209
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2869
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 132 146 139 211 195 853 196 128 762 14 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.58 0.45 0.78 0.54 0.63 0.32 0.22 0.68 0.33 0.02 Control Delay 63.2 65.6 12.2 86.3 49.3 61.8 21.4 9.3 75.2 26.2 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.2 65.6 12.2 86.3 49.3 61.8 21.4 9.3 75.2 26.2 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 112 0 119 144 162 157 32 110 156 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 170 60 #206 237 242 232 94 173 221 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 90 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 184 612 619 203 591 309 2645 884 206 2282 758 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.68 0.36 0.63 0.32 0.22 0.62 0.33 0.02 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2870
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 765 412 380 661 338 312 1544 527 366 1118 220 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.79 0.73 0.89 0.63 0.58 0.78 0.96 0.80 0.84 0.67 0.37 Control Delay 74.4 55.5 33.8 85.6 47.6 24.6 76.2 63.3 36.2 78.7 46.2 18.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.4 55.5 33.8 85.6 47.6 24.6 76.2 63.3 36.2 78.7 46.2 18.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 135 351 202 184 282 130 149 ~571 280 174 343 64 Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 412 319 #269 348 234 200 #700 #499 #250 420 149 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 5383 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 100 250 100 250 160 250 150
Base Capacity (vph) 468 1090 614 439 1091 603 453 1612 657 459 1658 595 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.70 0.67 0.87 0.61 0.56 0.69 0.96 0.80 0.80 0.67 0.37 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2871
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 1099 234 116 975 227 337 732 166 171 542 116 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.96 0.41 0.62 1.70 0.41 1.17 1.31 0.31 0.76 1.10 0.24 Control Delay 72.8 63.0 23.6 70.0 353.6 24.5 154.4 191.1 18.2 75.2 116.5 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.8 63.0 23.6 70.0 353.6 24.5 154.4 191.1 18.2 75.2 116.5 12.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 128 474 90 96 ~1203 88 ~337 ~798 45 141 ~518 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 195 #678 175 155 #1528 174 #528 #1091 111 214 #742 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5383 1263 627 5240
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 50 215 60 230 104 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 288 1140 573 291 573 551 288 557 540 288 491 486 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.96 0.41 0.40 1.70 0.41 1.17 1.31 0.31 0.59 1.10 0.24 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2872
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 946 172 302 962 155 234 712 385 143 287 169 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.88 0.31 0.74 0.82 0.26 0.86 0.81 0.80 0.23 0.30 0.33 Control Delay 70.6 57.6 16.9 70.5 50.3 13.3 85.0 57.8 48.8 50.9 42.6 17.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.6 57.6 16.9 70.5 50.3 13.3 85.0 57.8 48.8 50.9 42.6 17.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 432 43 139 422 30 208 323 243 58 111 39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 131 #601 111 184 #537 88 #319 400 #399 91 157 105 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 50
Base Capacity (vph) 604 1072 548 610 1177 599 314 884 479 610 965 515 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.88 0.31 0.50 0.82 0.26 0.75 0.81 0.80 0.23 0.30 0.33 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2873
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 117 179 1296 685 84
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.10
Control Delay 44.8 8.9 37.5 6.2 14.9 6.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.8 8.9 37.5 6.2 14.9 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 0 87 125 114 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 42 156 213 168 33
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 554 345 2605 1762 816
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.21 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.10
Intersection Summary
2874
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 632 439 57 501 373 349 973 51 117 621 53 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.86 0.56 0.47 0.77 0.61 1.13 0.79 0.08 0.69 0.65 0.11 Control Delay 84.4 56.1 18.6 79.7 53.1 34.0 145.0 50.6 0.3 85.2 52.8 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 84.4 56.1 18.6 79.7 53.1 34.0 145.0 50.6 0.3 85.2 52.8 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 576 145 55 434 219 ~394 452 0 113 286 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 164 #850 271 102 #646 353 #599 #575 0 177 354 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 55 60 300 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 373 735 777 309 654 616 309 1227 602 312 955 491 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.86 0.56 0.18 0.77 0.61 1.13 0.79 0.08 0.38 0.65 0.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2875
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 439 201 41 367 133 284 1415 136 1014 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.87 0.39 0.29 0.67 0.24 0.86 0.97 0.68 0.84 Control Delay 56.9 61.4 15.1 59.7 45.3 6.8 74.1 55.5 70.2 47.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.9 61.4 15.1 59.7 45.3 6.8 74.1 55.5 70.2 47.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 335 45 32 267 3 216 ~653 108 ~458 Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 440 105 70 354 49 #401 #897 175 #596 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 105 165 105 230 235
Base Capacity (vph) 157 593 585 157 609 604 334 1455 231 1205 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.74 0.34 0.26 0.60 0.22 0.85 0.97 0.59 0.84 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2876
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1872 615 2590 561 78 410
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.47 0.62 0.52 0.11 0.70
Control Delay 9.5 2.0 12.1 2.6 41.8 51.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.5 2.0 12.1 2.6 41.8 51.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 0 333 0 28 173
Queue Length 95th (ft) 247 41 441 50 47 221
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 280
Base Capacity (vph) 4492 1298 4173 1070 1310 1083
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.47 0.62 0.52 0.06 0.38
Intersection Summary
2877
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1580 409 2404 221 812 1051
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.38 0.55 0.22 0.49 1.11
Control Delay 18.3 2.2 18.2 2.1 36.4 103.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.3 2.2 18.2 2.1 36.4 103.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 290 0 301 0 194 ~560
Queue Length 95th (ft) 332 44 327 35 236 #710
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2923 1086 4336 1005 1643 947
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.38 0.55 0.22 0.49 1.11
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2878
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 732 1561 364 340 1482 221 634 973 345 394 535 v/c Ratio 1.31 1.06 0.59 0.78 1.15 0.48 0.95 0.60 0.78 0.30 0.49 Control Delay 200.5 92.5 23.4 78.2 126.3 32.6 86.6 42.8 78.0 47.3 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 200.5 92.5 23.4 78.2 126.3 32.6 86.6 42.8 78.0 47.3 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~489 ~632 127 174 ~642 113 329 280 177 119 7 Queue Length 95th (ft) #618 #793 252 222 #739 200 #445 347 225 153 57 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 240 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 559 1474 613 559 1292 463 677 1617 671 1319 1098 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.31 1.06 0.59 0.61 1.15 0.48 0.94 0.60 0.51 0.30 0.49 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2879
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 645 178 76 726 297 351 389 114 163 294 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.50 0.29 0.58 1.01 0.45 0.97 0.66 0.20 0.76 0.68 Control Delay 81.3 39.7 20.8 83.4 80.8 28.4 98.1 51.8 10.4 85.1 61.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.3 39.7 20.8 83.4 80.8 28.4 98.1 51.8 10.4 85.1 61.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 258 67 73 ~763 161 343 330 10 157 262 Queue Length 95th (ft) 102 335 136 126 #1062 262 #542 480 60 229 371 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 4328
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 50 260 55 150 200
Base Capacity (vph) 369 1283 623 369 721 661 369 592 571 369 430 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.29 0.21 1.01 0.45 0.95 0.66 0.20 0.44 0.68 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2880
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 532 62 401 115 180 602 71 65 360 66 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.56 0.49 0.84 0.24 0.78 0.68 0.09 0.50 0.49 0.10 Control Delay 66.5 35.9 65.6 57.6 10.2 73.2 34.7 3.3 66.2 34.2 3.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.5 35.9 65.6 57.6 10.2 73.2 34.7 3.3 66.2 34.2 3.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 170 47 296 12 135 378 0 49 216 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 203 91 377 54 #233 #740 21 94 369 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 25 200 85 25
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1075 268 557 540 259 879 797 248 732 679 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.49 0.23 0.72 0.21 0.69 0.68 0.09 0.26 0.49 0.10 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2881
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 19 488 928 775
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.05 0.78 0.37 0.48
Control Delay 45.8 0.3 39.2 10.0 18.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.8 0.3 39.2 10.0 18.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 0 132 122 153
Queue Length 95th (ft) 166 0 215 284 243
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 711 2488 1613
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.04 0.69 0.37 0.48
Intersection Summary
2882
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/07/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 405 661 1321 30 664
v/c Ratio 0.41 1.04 0.75 0.25 0.32
Control Delay 30.0 70.7 23.8 68.3 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.0 70.7 23.8 68.3 8.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 ~339 357 21 51
Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 #561 475 m43 70
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 999 634 1756 200 2052
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 1.04 0.75 0.15 0.32
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2883
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 286 855
Average Queue (ft) 124 788
95th Queue (ft) 241 1082
Link Distance (ft) 420 840
Upstream Blk Time (%) 85
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2884
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 432 598
Average Queue (ft) 386 593
95th Queue (ft) 494 597
Link Distance (ft) 439 587
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 34
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 235
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2885
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB WB B78 B78 SB
Directions Served L T TR T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 73 1274 1256 380 404 372
Average Queue (ft) 27 1242 1242 321 325 350
95th Queue (ft) 64 1352 1344 476 479 410
Link Distance (ft) 1184 1184 346 346 361
Upstream Blk Time (%) 93 93 27 41 92
Queuing Penalty (veh) 492 493 142 216 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2886
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 30
Average Queue (ft) 20 18
95th Queue (ft) 44 41
Link Distance (ft) 369 209
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2887
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 158 257 20 220 106 739 20 57 743 94 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.35 0.45 0.19 0.70 0.65 0.28 0.02 0.46 0.30 0.12 Control Delay 77.0 44.5 7.0 64.9 60.5 76.4 20.4 0.1 71.7 23.5 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.0 44.5 7.0 64.9 60.5 76.4 20.4 0.1 71.7 23.5 2.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 73 122 0 17 172 91 132 0 49 141 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 149 35 40 209 129 170 0 82 183 10 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 180 600 684 199 580 199 2654 884 194 2463 805 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.26 0.38 0.10 0.38 0.53 0.28 0.02 0.29 0.30 0.12 Intersection Summary
2888
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 291 165 57 382 148 182 667 58 195 841 57 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.57 0.45 0.30 0.64 0.38 0.64 0.24 0.06 0.65 0.29 0.06 Control Delay 67.7 62.0 11.2 69.8 61.1 10.4 74.7 17.8 2.1 74.4 18.2 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 67.7 62.0 11.2 69.8 61.1 10.4 74.7 17.8 2.1 74.4 18.2 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 136 0 27 183 0 87 118 0 93 153 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 175 60 50 224 56 123 163 14 129 206 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 459 1069 593 426 1058 570 438 2827 1076 447 2898 938 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.27 0.28 0.13 0.36 0.26 0.42 0.24 0.05 0.44 0.29 0.06 Intersection Summary
2889
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 550 314 423
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.84 0.36 0.54
Control Delay 12.6 24.2 8.8 14.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.6 24.2 8.8 14.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 116 51 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 171 154 177
Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 741 785 872 783
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.70 0.36 0.54
Intersection Summary
2890
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 431 179 100 435 107 149 176 65 121 187 34 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.55 0.40 0.61 0.82 0.21 0.71 0.23 0.09 0.65 0.25 0.05 Control Delay 60.3 43.2 12.9 67.2 53.5 7.7 69.1 27.7 0.2 60.4 28.1 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.3 43.2 12.9 67.2 53.5 7.7 69.1 27.7 0.2 60.4 28.1 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 148 25 76 314 4 113 93 0 93 94 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 184 74 123 393 39 166 159 0 m140 172 m0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 130 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 134 962 523 219 585 565 280 768 724 295 745 714 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.45 0.34 0.46 0.74 0.19 0.53 0.23 0.09 0.41 0.25 0.05 Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2891
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 455 142 225 499 58 96 71 136 23 86 81 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.73 0.39 0.67 0.62 0.13 0.62 0.09 0.29 0.02 0.05 0.11 Control Delay 62.8 61.4 17.3 71.0 52.5 0.6 77.8 41.2 8.1 36.8 23.2 2.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.8 61.4 17.3 71.0 52.5 0.6 77.8 41.2 8.1 36.8 23.2 2.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 209 26 103 225 0 86 26 0 7 21 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 233 71 132 237 0 131 44 41 18 42 10 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 592 851 457 598 883 476 294 826 472 1054 1612 770 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.53 0.31 0.38 0.57 0.12 0.33 0.09 0.29 0.02 0.05 0.11 Intersection Summary
2892
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 292 346 308 454 249
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.66 0.74 0.11 0.28 0.33
Control Delay 42.1 12.3 38.6 3.0 16.5 6.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.1 12.3 38.6 3.0 16.5 6.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 0 167 16 76 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 33 196 27 108 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 667 471 2699 1600 766
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.44 0.73 0.11 0.28 0.33
Intersection Summary
2893
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 353 223 77 421 207 80 367 23 80 561 48 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.72 0.39 0.48 0.77 0.38 0.47 0.25 0.03 0.48 0.38 0.07 Control Delay 45.8 41.5 5.7 54.0 42.5 14.8 52.2 22.8 0.1 53.1 24.6 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.8 41.5 5.7 54.0 42.5 14.8 52.2 22.8 0.1 53.1 24.6 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 197 0 47 245 46 49 89 0 49 145 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 275 47 92 336 99 92 127 0 93 198 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 159 571 633 160 593 573 192 1460 683 177 1464 705 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.62 0.35 0.48 0.71 0.36 0.42 0.25 0.03 0.45 0.38 0.07 Intersection Summary
2894
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 303 172 49 461 100 143 414 142 802 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.67 0.37 0.34 0.84 0.18 0.67 0.28 0.71 0.54 Control Delay 55.5 49.7 12.4 61.0 55.6 3.2 68.0 25.6 72.7 32.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.5 49.7 12.4 61.0 55.6 3.2 68.0 25.6 72.7 32.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 235 29 38 336 0 113 103 112 240 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 291 78 79 459 22 174 175 180 388 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 151 572 565 155 593 578 294 1456 228 1476 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.53 0.30 0.32 0.78 0.17 0.49 0.28 0.62 0.54 Intersection Summary
2895
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1020 522 1848 408 70 776
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.44 0.51 0.43 0.07 0.94
Control Delay 11.6 2.1 14.0 8.2 35.1 62.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.6 2.1 14.0 8.2 35.1 62.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 0 305 159 22 339
Queue Length 95th (ft) 126 42 340 251 41 #478
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 3943 1174 3651 946 957 823
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.44 0.51 0.43 0.07 0.94
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2896
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 902 237 1852 88 504 553
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.23 0.42 0.09 0.33 0.54
Control Delay 12.6 1.6 15.2 2.5 35.2 21.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.6 1.6 15.2 2.5 35.2 21.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 0 201 0 115 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 25 223 22 148 180
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2972 1023 4454 971 1520 1023
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.23 0.42 0.09 0.33 0.54
Intersection Summary
2897
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 284 895 230 159 1098 170 249 406 176 314 530 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.43 0.25 0.61 0.57 0.24 0.71 0.29 0.64 0.24 0.44 Control Delay 73.5 31.2 8.1 74.9 37.7 5.1 73.9 33.6 75.5 44.0 25.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.5 31.2 8.1 74.9 37.7 5.1 73.9 33.6 75.5 44.0 25.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 136 218 48 76 300 0 119 88 84 86 164 Queue Length 95th (ft) 180 267 93 113 367 51 161 123 124 121 219 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 633 2094 1031 331 1922 704 591 1403 334 1314 1406 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.43 0.22 0.48 0.57 0.24 0.42 0.29 0.53 0.24 0.38 Intersection Summary
2898
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 487 64 524 55 54 24 136
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.81 0.59 0.44 0.39 0.08 0.21 0.22
Control Delay 42.4 36.9 53.4 36.8 46.6 11.9 43.4 15.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.4 36.9 53.4 36.8 46.6 11.9 43.4 15.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 240 38 150 30 5 13 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 308 m#76 206 67 36 38 83
Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 912 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 173 790 109 1431 151 681 117 605
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.62 0.59 0.37 0.36 0.08 0.21 0.22 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2899
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 372 26 401 220 18 259
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.37 0.80 0.04 0.54
Control Delay 8.2 5.8 12.8 19.5 40.7 4.4 18.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.2 5.8 12.8 19.5 40.7 4.4 18.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 22 13 296 73 0 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 52 m28 418 123 8 106
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65
Base Capacity (vph) 518 1994 573 1078 409 615 692
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.37 0.54 0.03 0.37
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2900
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 316 53 38 299 385 164 96 35 193 166 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.38 0.11 0.24 0.61 0.55 0.70 0.15 0.05 0.69 0.24 Control Delay 25.3 20.9 2.3 42.3 33.9 5.8 55.9 27.9 0.1 48.3 23.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.3 20.9 2.3 42.3 33.9 5.8 55.9 27.9 0.1 48.3 23.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 94 0 21 141 0 87 36 0 105 62
Queue Length 95th (ft) m16 124 m5 51 212 60 #209 98 0 164 130 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 157 1179 635 157 621 784 233 650 671 443 682 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.08 0.24 0.48 0.49 0.70 0.15 0.05 0.44 0.24 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2901
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 315 79 296 36 121 150 40 34 248 35 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.53 0.55 0.76 0.09 0.65 0.14 0.04 0.34 0.26 0.04 Control Delay 59.6 39.3 66.5 57.6 0.4 67.5 15.0 0.1 62.6 20.6 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.6 39.3 66.5 57.6 0.4 67.5 15.0 0.1 62.6 20.6 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 99 60 222 0 92 54 0 26 107 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 148 108 297 0 149 114 0 59 209 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 238 1018 238 543 529 242 1111 983 238 965 866 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.33 0.55 0.07 0.50 0.14 0.04 0.14 0.26 0.04 Intersection Summary
2902
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 32 507 442 741
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.78 0.17 0.43
Control Delay 45.7 0.6 46.9 5.0 11.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 0.6 46.9 5.0 11.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 0 159 40 83
Queue Length 95th (ft) 135 0 203 68 157
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 461 802 2576 1730
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.07 0.63 0.17 0.43
Intersection Summary
2903
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 349 916 15 481
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.46 0.45 0.08 0.22
Control Delay 29.3 5.2 9.2 25.7 5.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.3 5.2 9.2 25.7 5.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 0 77 5 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 103 32 185 20 55
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 318 786 2019 179 2163
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.44 0.45 0.08 0.22
Intersection Summary
2904
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 13
95th Queue (ft) 38
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2905
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72
Average Queue (ft) 31
95th Queue (ft) 52
Link Distance (ft) 434
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2906
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 93
Average Queue (ft) 19 35
95th Queue (ft) 47 60
Link Distance (ft) 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2907
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 42
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2908
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 51 92 35 124 136 536 27 47 443 11 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.25 0.33 0.32 0.52 0.69 0.16 0.02 0.40 0.15 0.01 Control Delay 63.0 56.2 7.8 68.0 57.9 75.7 11.2 0.0 70.3 14.6 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.0 56.2 7.8 68.0 57.9 75.7 11.2 0.0 70.3 14.6 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 43 0 30 91 117 63 0 41 59 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 78 28 65 153 177 109 0 79 104 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 184 612 598 203 595 217 3395 1099 194 3042 970 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.63 0.16 0.02 0.24 0.15 0.01 Intersection Summary
2909
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 389 120 40 362 177 259 699 102 173 494 33 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.68 0.21 0.21 0.54 0.40 0.71 0.25 0.11 0.62 0.19 0.04 Control Delay 68.0 63.6 6.0 68.2 57.1 9.4 73.9 19.2 2.6 74.4 20.4 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.0 63.6 6.0 68.2 57.1 9.4 73.9 19.2 2.6 74.4 20.4 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 184 0 19 168 0 124 126 0 82 90 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 233 43 39 214 64 167 174 27 121 130 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 437 1020 623 415 1028 580 475 2769 1066 387 2620 859 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.19 0.10 0.35 0.31 0.55 0.25 0.10 0.45 0.19 0.04 Intersection Summary
2910
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 220 292 326
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.25 0.31
Control Delay 18.7 19.1 5.2 5.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.7 19.1 5.2 5.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 40 28 37
Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 84 137 89
Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 665 690 1166 1051
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.32 0.25 0.31
Intersection Summary
2911
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 515 87 51 425 91 112 163 77 82 153 14 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.59 0.19 0.38 0.77 0.17 0.63 0.18 0.10 0.53 0.19 0.02 Control Delay 56.8 42.5 5.2 61.2 48.7 5.2 67.3 24.1 3.4 69.8 26.3 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.8 42.5 5.2 61.2 48.7 5.2 67.3 24.1 3.4 69.8 26.3 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 198 0 39 299 0 85 69 0 64 64 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 216 29 79 388 31 141 156 22 110 163 1 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 130 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 178 1191 599 165 626 599 226 885 806 208 823 756 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.43 0.15 0.31 0.68 0.15 0.50 0.18 0.10 0.39 0.19 0.02 Intersection Summary
2912
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 504 108 137 405 7 147 46 167 11 25 27 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.70 0.25 0.45 0.44 0.01 0.67 0.04 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.04 Control Delay 49.4 47.7 5.1 54.8 38.2 0.0 62.9 25.8 5.1 42.5 25.4 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.4 47.7 5.1 54.8 38.2 0.0 62.9 25.8 5.1 42.5 25.4 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 182 0 50 141 0 106 12 0350
Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 230 30 83 182 0 167 25 47 12 17 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 301 1025 546 316 1070 571 254 1214 654 610 1404 710 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.49 0.20 0.43 0.38 0.01 0.58 0.04 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.04 Intersection Summary
2913
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 107 193 459 336 79
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.39 0.68 0.16 0.16 0.08
Control Delay 42.5 11.6 45.6 2.7 9.9 3.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.5 11.6 45.6 2.7 9.9 3.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 98 24 41 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 34 137 40 70 18
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 547 381 2898 2141 990
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.20 0.51 0.16 0.16 0.08
Intersection Summary
2914
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 446 265 46 412 79 132 513 49 46 321 29 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.83 0.41 0.34 0.72 0.14 0.66 0.32 0.06 0.33 0.23 0.04 Control Delay 55.3 53.2 5.4 58.3 55.4 5.3 66.4 24.8 0.6 58.9 27.7 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.3 53.2 5.4 58.3 55.4 5.3 66.4 24.8 0.6 58.9 27.7 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 320 0 37 301 4 100 143 0 34 90 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 422 59 m74 375 16 159 206 4 73 144 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 150 628 711 134 629 614 342 1612 754 165 1426 699 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.71 0.37 0.34 0.66 0.13 0.39 0.32 0.06 0.28 0.23 0.04 Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2915
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 376 190 39 330 84 159 769 84 584 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.83 0.40 0.27 0.67 0.16 0.70 0.44 0.47 0.37 Control Delay 55.5 60.4 15.2 59.4 47.4 2.0 67.9 25.0 61.8 27.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.5 60.4 15.2 59.4 47.4 2.0 67.9 25.0 61.8 27.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 290 40 30 208 0 125 231 66 174 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 371 97 68 321 12 191 341 118 272 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 157 591 583 157 605 601 304 1760 231 1588 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.64 0.33 0.25 0.55 0.14 0.52 0.44 0.36 0.37 Intersection Summary
2916
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1677 534 1705 368 67 345
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.11 0.67
Control Delay 7.5 1.6 7.6 1.7 44.7 51.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.5 1.6 7.6 1.7 44.7 51.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 138 0 149 0 25 141
Queue Length 95th (ft) 194 36 211 39 43 186
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 4670 1302 4319 1037 1310 1088
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.05 0.32
Intersection Summary
2917
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1408 371 1603 190 512 761
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.35 0.38 0.19 0.30 0.77
Control Delay 18.0 2.2 16.2 2.2 32.8 41.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.0 2.2 16.2 2.2 32.8 41.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 246 0 174 0 114 303
Queue Length 95th (ft) 284 42 195 32 146 390
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2923 1070 4336 992 1697 994
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.35 0.37 0.19 0.30 0.77
Intersection Summary
2918
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1425 315 329 1106 142 365 718 284 279 341 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.73 0.34 0.85 0.65 0.22 0.77 0.53 0.87 0.24 0.30 Control Delay 70.9 41.5 15.0 83.1 44.0 3.4 71.8 39.7 90.1 47.7 18.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.9 42.0 15.0 83.1 44.0 3.4 71.8 39.7 90.1 47.7 18.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 215 424 129 158 326 0 174 180 138 79 75 Queue Length 95th (ft) 264 483 177 #228 401 31 222 225 #214 114 115 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 717 1950 1078 406 1703 637 845 1361 334 1149 1281 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 200 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.81 0.29 0.81 0.65 0.22 0.43 0.53 0.85 0.24 0.27 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2919
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 597 53 443 85 98 20 103
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.64 0.47 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.35
Control Delay 62.2 25.8 68.7 21.0 56.8 16.9 44.8 30.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 62.2 25.8 68.7 21.0 56.8 16.9 44.8 30.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 336 40 107 65 15 13 41
Queue Length 95th (ft) 118 465 84 155 117 51 37 95
Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 912 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250
Base Capacity (vph) 260 940 112 1628 270 314 270 298
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.64 0.47 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.35 Intersection Summary
2920
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 503 37 404 302 40 204
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.46 0.16 0.71 0.37 0.04 0.21
Control Delay 17.7 16.6 16.2 27.3 10.8 3.7 7.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.7 16.6 16.2 27.3 10.8 3.7 7.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 117 11 185 56 0 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) m19 132 m25 177 125 13 58
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65
Base Capacity (vph) 235 1451 305 765 820 902 973
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.35 0.12 0.53 0.37 0.04 0.21
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2921
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 306 79 49 279 135 172 125 77 116 144 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.18 0.33 0.61 0.26 0.69 0.15 0.10 0.57 0.19 Control Delay 46.0 36.7 0.9 49.7 39.0 4.3 54.5 21.8 1.9 52.3 23.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.0 36.7 0.9 49.7 39.0 4.3 54.5 21.8 1.9 52.3 23.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 95 0 30 151 0 106 45 0 71 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 40 117 0 67 229 31 166 110 13 123 129 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 142 1286 678 160 695 692 340 820 765 212 761 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.12 0.31 0.40 0.20 0.51 0.15 0.10 0.55 0.19 Intersection Summary
2922
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 421 41 244 41 179 352 68 40 230 40 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.67 0.38 0.69 0.11 0.74 0.32 0.07 0.38 0.25 0.05 Control Delay 51.7 55.0 63.4 55.2 0.6 67.1 16.7 1.9 63.8 21.9 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.7 55.0 63.4 55.2 0.6 67.1 16.7 1.9 63.8 21.9 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 160 31 182 0 135 142 0 30 103 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 212 68 255 0 202 258 14 66 200 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1035 268 543 529 283 1097 972 262 910 821 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.41 0.15 0.45 0.08 0.63 0.32 0.07 0.15 0.25 0.05 Intersection Summary
2923
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 167 16 453 829 617
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.05 0.75 0.33 0.37
Control Delay 45.9 0.3 47.4 6.6 16.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.9 0.3 47.4 6.6 16.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 0 142 93 110
Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 0 186 147 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 797 2513 1652
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.04 0.57 0.33 0.37
Intersection Summary
2924
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/11/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 361 609 1213 24 560
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.55 0.66 0.18 0.27
Control Delay 43.7 5.8 16.4 38.0 8.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.7 5.8 16.4 38.0 8.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 13 176 12 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) #299 57 336 34 94
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 462 1130 1846 134 2073
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.54 0.66 0.18 0.27
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2925
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 10
95th Queue (ft) 33
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2926
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 28
95th Queue (ft) 49
Link Distance (ft) 434
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2927
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 22 49
Average Queue (ft) 38 1 29
95th Queue (ft) 86 8 45
Link Distance (ft) 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2928
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing WP MIT - PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/11/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 20
95th Queue (ft) 48
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2929
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 168 301 27 248 165 981 24 62 975 95 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.35 0.48 0.25 0.73 0.70 0.38 0.03 0.48 0.45 0.13 Control Delay 77.3 43.0 6.6 66.5 60.0 71.4 23.4 0.1 72.5 30.6 3.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.3 43.0 6.6 66.5 60.0 71.4 23.4 0.1 72.5 30.6 3.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 127 0 23 194 140 195 0 54 221 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 155 34 48 229 181 241 0 87 269 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 180 600 714 199 578 242 2563 857 194 2173 724 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.28 0.42 0.14 0.43 0.68 0.38 0.03 0.32 0.45 0.13 Intersection Summary
2930
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 461 170 338 702 277 210 991 242 285 1443 228 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.68 0.39 0.84 0.80 0.49 0.68 0.48 0.28 0.74 0.66 0.31 Control Delay 73.4 59.3 8.6 81.4 58.1 10.6 74.5 34.5 10.2 73.8 36.6 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.4 59.3 8.6 81.4 58.1 10.6 74.5 34.5 10.2 73.8 36.6 15.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 218 0 162 330 27 100 250 52 136 392 60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 248 55 #214 366 93 138 338 122 176 512 141 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 459 1069 596 426 1058 634 438 2045 870 456 2189 738 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.43 0.29 0.79 0.66 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.63 0.66 0.31 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2931
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 590 54 321 457
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.87 0.12 0.35 0.62
Control Delay 12.6 28.1 11.6 12.5 16.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.6 28.1 11.6 12.5 16.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 130 10 67 121
Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 211 m20 m93 192
Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250
Base Capacity (vph) 717 752 452 919 735
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.78 0.12 0.35 0.62
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2932
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 786 284 174 1008 225 302 105 241 540 138 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.81 0.54 0.84 0.93 0.87 0.29 0.19 0.88 0.51 0.24 Control Delay 86.0 48.8 23.3 84.7 54.2 80.6 34.7 3.3 79.1 36.6 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 86.0 48.8 23.3 84.7 54.2 80.6 34.7 3.3 79.1 36.6 7.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 302 96 133 389 170 97 0 185 175 6 Queue Length 95th (ft) #152 351 168 #225 #445 #267 130 18 m#285 224 m38 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 136 967 525 219 1100 280 1027 550 295 1056 567 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.81 0.54 0.79 0.92 0.80 0.29 0.19 0.82 0.51 0.24 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2933
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 824 161 257 782 136 134 233 159 183 458 242 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.83 0.31 0.71 0.70 0.24 0.72 0.28 0.34 0.27 0.40 0.36 Control Delay 68.7 54.7 15.4 71.2 45.9 10.3 80.0 44.0 12.5 49.9 38.8 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 54.7 15.4 71.2 45.9 10.3 80.0 44.0 12.5 49.9 38.8 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 361 35 118 318 17 120 91 19 75 172 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 407 82 147 356 55 169 119 64 104 221 47 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 592 998 518 598 1110 571 294 826 469 669 1149 668 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.83 0.31 0.43 0.70 0.24 0.46 0.28 0.34 0.27 0.40 0.36 Intersection Summary
2934
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 293 349 514 942 266
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.66 0.74 0.19 0.60 0.38
Control Delay 42.9 12.1 38.3 3.3 21.0 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.9 12.1 38.3 3.3 21.0 12.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 0 169 30 192 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 33 197 45 239 99
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 667 475 2692 1583 707
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.73 0.19 0.60 0.38
Intersection Summary
2935
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 405 392 77 459 207 176 531 23 80 946 83 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.78 0.60 0.48 0.80 0.37 0.85 0.38 0.03 0.48 0.76 0.13 Control Delay 47.9 44.0 12.0 54.0 43.6 14.3 79.1 24.9 0.1 53.1 35.2 2.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.9 44.0 12.0 54.0 43.6 14.3 79.1 24.9 0.1 53.1 35.2 2.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 228 46 47 267 45 113 140 0 49 298 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 321 124 92 #377 99 #228 184 0 93 #364 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 159 571 682 160 606 583 206 1409 663 177 1246 617 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.71 0.57 0.48 0.76 0.36 0.85 0.38 0.03 0.45 0.76 0.13 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2936
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 320 173 49 470 117 143 632 173 1302 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.70 0.36 0.34 0.84 0.21 0.67 0.44 0.80 0.89 Control Delay 55.7 50.4 12.5 61.0 55.4 5.1 68.0 29.6 80.1 44.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.7 50.4 12.5 61.0 55.4 5.1 68.0 29.6 80.1 44.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 248 30 38 340 0 113 187 136 487 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 307 80 79 470 35 174 280 #240 #841 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 151 572 564 155 596 580 294 1423 231 1463 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.56 0.31 0.32 0.79 0.20 0.49 0.44 0.75 0.89 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2937
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1116 544 2106 472 78 776
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.49 0.66 0.52 0.07 0.79
Control Delay 16.3 3.1 8.6 2.8 25.1 39.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 3.1 8.6 2.8 25.1 39.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 136 0 108 11 20 289
Queue Length 95th (ft) 176 56 125 28 35 350
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 3463 1105 3190 910 1349 1116
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.49 0.66 0.52 0.06 0.70
Intersection Summary
2938
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 999 248 2172 92 514 664
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.28 0.60 0.11 0.26 0.56
Control Delay 10.1 1.0 16.2 2.2 23.8 24.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.1 1.0 16.2 2.2 23.8 24.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 0 202 2 91 181
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 5 221 m6 118 246
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2423 884 3631 810 2006 1189
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.28 0.60 0.11 0.26 0.56
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2939
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 383 954 268 163 1143 190 269 461 212 441 778 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.52 0.32 0.62 0.69 0.30 0.63 0.29 1.05 0.34 0.69 Control Delay 99.2 22.8 3.8 64.4 37.6 7.5 57.0 25.3 131.1 37.8 18.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.2 22.8 3.8 64.4 37.6 7.5 57.0 25.3 131.1 37.8 18.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 160 136 34 63 280 12 103 78 ~92 102 153 Queue Length 95th (ft) #259 176 50 100 333 65 148 109 #172 136 204 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 396 1852 834 286 1665 630 429 1594 202 1284 1126 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.52 0.32 0.57 0.69 0.30 0.63 0.29 1.05 0.34 0.69 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2940
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 756 199 68 736 11 112 65 24 59 101 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.95 0.26 0.62 0.51 0.02 0.81 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.23 Control Delay 47.1 48.3 3.3 49.9 35.0 0.0 81.1 11.7 45.6 29.8 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.1 48.3 3.3 49.9 35.0 0.0 81.1 11.7 45.6 29.8 4.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 396 0 31 227 0 64 6 13 27 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 #637 37 m50 287 m0 #157 39 39 60 27 Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 912 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 173 809 784 109 1448 707 139 544 105 416 445 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.93 0.25 0.62 0.51 0.02 0.81 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.23 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2941
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 385 26 408 237 18 329
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.39 0.87 0.04 0.63
Control Delay 9.2 6.8 13.9 22.0 49.4 4.0 20.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.2 6.8 13.9 22.0 49.4 4.0 20.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 25 14 314 80 0 89
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 59 m28 426 #138 8 132
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65
Base Capacity (vph) 482 1915 543 1034 387 639 726
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.39 0.61 0.03 0.45
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2942
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 598 146 39 466 385 217 101 40 193 176 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.55 0.24 0.25 0.81 0.51 0.78 0.20 0.07 0.69 0.35 Control Delay 33.3 19.4 6.6 42.5 40.9 5.1 62.3 31.9 0.2 48.3 27.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.3 19.4 6.6 42.5 40.9 5.1 62.3 31.9 0.2 48.3 27.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 183 27 21 233 0 ~154 49 0 105 77 Queue Length 95th (ft) m19 m200 m32 52 #351 60 #292 102 0 164 136 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 157 1179 635 157 621 784 277 517 570 443 509 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.51 0.23 0.25 0.75 0.49 0.78 0.20 0.07 0.44 0.35 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2943
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 328 79 302 40 121 172 40 42 307 35 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.54 0.55 0.77 0.10 0.65 0.16 0.04 0.39 0.32 0.04 Control Delay 60.9 40.3 66.5 57.4 0.5 67.5 16.3 0.1 63.6 21.7 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.9 40.3 66.5 57.4 0.5 67.5 16.3 0.1 63.6 21.7 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 107 60 227 0 92 64 0 32 138 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m42 157 108 302 0 149 132 0 68 263 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 238 1017 238 543 529 242 1067 947 238 959 861 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.32 0.33 0.56 0.08 0.50 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.32 0.04 Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2944
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 32 527 459 780
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.78 0.18 0.46
Control Delay 45.7 0.6 46.7 5.0 12.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 0.6 46.7 5.0 12.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 0 165 42 95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 136 0 210 71 175
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 461 806 2574 1710
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.07 0.65 0.18 0.46
Intersection Summary
2945
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 167 356 950 15 504
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.46 0.47 0.08 0.23
Control Delay 29.9 5.1 9.4 25.7 5.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.9 5.1 9.4 25.7 5.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 0 81 5 38
Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 32 194 20 57
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 318 792 2017 179 2161
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.45 0.47 0.08 0.23
Intersection Summary
2946
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 13
95th Queue (ft) 38
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2947
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72
Average Queue (ft) 33
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 434
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2948
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 98 22 92
Average Queue (ft) 24 1 42
95th Queue (ft) 64 8 71
Link Distance (ft) 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2949
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2950
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 65 145 48 146 193 851 41 63 761 14 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.32 0.48 0.41 0.53 0.67 0.26 0.04 0.49 0.28 0.02 Control Delay 63.2 58.2 13.2 70.4 55.6 64.9 13.6 0.1 72.5 20.4 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.2 58.2 13.2 70.4 55.6 64.9 13.6 0.1 72.5 20.4 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 55 0 41 108 161 113 0 54 128 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 93 56 81 173 233 187 0 98 199 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 184 612 618 203 593 289 3258 1059 194 2675 868 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.67 0.26 0.04 0.32 0.28 0.02 Intersection Summary
2951
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 268 733 131 362 632 323 297 1470 502 351 1065 210 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.81 0.19 0.89 0.65 0.53 0.75 0.83 0.66 0.84 0.59 0.33 Control Delay 75.2 58.8 13.7 87.5 50.2 14.1 74.7 49.5 28.3 80.4 41.6 14.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.2 58.8 13.7 87.5 50.2 14.1 74.7 49.5 28.3 80.4 41.6 14.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 128 342 40 176 276 55 142 487 302 165 306 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 174 404 78 #260 340 149 189 552 428 #263 385 120 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 437 1020 727 415 1028 630 475 1770 762 421 1793 643 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.72 0.18 0.87 0.61 0.51 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.59 0.33 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2952
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 257 56 296 393
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.64 0.08 0.24 0.39
Control Delay 18.4 22.0 8.7 8.6 7.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.4 22.0 8.7 8.6 7.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 58 16 87 54
Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 105 m31 m133 126
Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250
Base Capacity (vph) 638 642 679 1222 1013
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.40 0.08 0.24 0.39
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2953
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 1055 165 113 1149 210 526 161 162 372 111 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.88 0.26 0.73 0.99 0.94 0.49 0.27 0.83 0.36 0.19 Control Delay 93.0 47.3 6.3 80.5 64.6 99.4 36.4 6.8 85.2 33.7 2.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.0 47.3 6.3 80.5 64.6 99.4 36.4 6.8 85.2 33.7 2.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 405 5 86 457 164 177 3 115 113 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) #227 #523 54 #170 #614 #315 233 54 #234 153 9 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 178 1201 640 165 1157 223 1082 592 208 1025 582 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.88 0.26 0.68 0.99 0.94 0.49 0.27 0.78 0.36 0.19 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2954
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 908 163 173 920 149 214 413 184 138 279 164 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.90 0.30 0.56 0.90 0.27 0.91 0.34 0.29 0.42 0.26 0.27 Control Delay 61.7 52.3 10.0 57.7 51.9 8.4 89.5 29.6 9.9 54.0 31.8 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 61.7 52.3 10.0 57.7 51.9 8.4 89.5 29.6 9.9 54.0 31.8 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 73 336 17 64 341 9 158 120 25 51 83 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 #450 70 101 #450 58 #298 163 78 83 121 50 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 301 1030 548 316 1048 562 241 1214 633 325 1079 598 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.88 0.30 0.55 0.88 0.27 0.89 0.34 0.29 0.42 0.26 0.27 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2955
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 110 194 1000 673 91
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.38 0.69 0.37 0.34 0.10
Control Delay 43.4 11.0 45.6 4.1 12.1 6.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.4 11.0 45.6 4.1 12.1 6.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 0 99 70 95 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 33 138 103 146 33
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 549 381 2716 2000 916
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.51 0.37 0.34 0.10
Intersection Summary
2956
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 502 418 46 478 79 332 938 49 46 588 51 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.86 0.54 0.34 0.84 0.14 0.93 0.61 0.07 0.33 0.57 0.09 Control Delay 62.3 54.7 5.8 58.1 62.1 5.7 80.6 31.4 0.6 58.9 40.9 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.3 54.7 5.8 58.1 62.1 5.7 80.6 31.4 0.6 58.9 40.9 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 354 4 38 318 3 257 325 0 34 216 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 #498 76 m68 #443 m16 #443 414 4 73 279 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 150 628 809 134 609 598 357 1533 722 165 1028 540 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.80 0.52 0.34 0.78 0.13 0.93 0.61 0.07 0.28 0.57 0.09 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2957
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 388 191 39 350 126 160 1338 116 958 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.84 0.39 0.27 0.75 0.26 0.70 0.82 0.60 0.61 Control Delay 56.7 60.1 14.9 59.4 53.5 6.5 68.0 37.2 66.1 32.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.7 60.1 14.9 59.4 53.5 6.5 68.0 37.2 66.1 32.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 299 40 30 263 0 126 518 92 332 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 381 97 68 339 43 192 #827 151 #542 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 157 592 584 157 592 591 304 1629 232 1566 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.66 0.33 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.53 0.82 0.50 0.61 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2958
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1773 551 1959 426 74 345
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.13 0.69
Control Delay 7.1 1.5 1.7 2.0 49.2 52.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.1 1.5 1.7 2.0 49.2 52.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 0 24 11 30 141
Queue Length 95th (ft) 205 34 33 56 51 189
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 4785 1326 4405 1068 933 802
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.08 0.43
Intersection Summary
2959
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1507 378 1878 205 536 1018
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.50 0.70 0.30 0.19 0.65
Control Delay 39.8 7.1 22.2 2.8 16.0 23.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.8 7.1 22.2 2.8 16.0 23.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 464 28 372 12 84 346
Queue Length 95th (ft) 289 77 372 m19 105 427
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1804 755 2677 687 2779 1565
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.50 0.70 0.30 0.19 0.65
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2960
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 705 1488 344 332 1184 211 405 875 329 376 504 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.78 0.38 0.86 0.82 0.38 0.70 0.63 1.02 0.37 0.41 Control Delay 75.5 29.1 5.3 83.2 52.7 14.5 62.8 42.3 117.9 49.5 19.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.5 29.4 5.3 83.2 52.7 14.5 62.8 42.3 117.9 49.5 19.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~353 347 71 155 370 41 181 232 ~163 109 120 Queue Length 95th (ft) #472 376 m74 #231 429 112 240 281 #263 143 169 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 693 1899 895 396 1441 551 575 1393 321 1027 1218 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 75 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.02 0.82 0.38 0.84 0.82 0.38 0.70 0.63 1.02 0.37 0.41 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2961
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 943 170 66 973 33 195 106 20 46 115 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.99 0.20 0.59 0.62 0.04 0.72 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.32 Control Delay 65.9 57.1 6.7 76.2 29.2 0.1 70.1 16.9 44.8 46.2 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.9 57.1 6.7 76.2 29.2 0.1 70.1 16.9 44.8 46.2 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 ~781 22 51 305 0 152 15 13 32 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 171 #1031 60 #111 393 0 #252 61 37 68 38 Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 912 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 260 954 868 112 1559 774 270 320 270 285 357 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.99 0.20 0.59 0.62 0.04 0.72 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.32 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2962
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 516 37 424 358 40 254
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.47 0.16 0.73 0.44 0.04 0.26
Control Delay 19.9 16.5 15.4 28.2 11.7 3.6 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.9 16.5 15.4 28.2 11.7 3.6 7.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 121 10 202 71 0 47
Queue Length 95th (ft) m27 142 m23 177 146 12 83
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65
Base Capacity (vph) 209 1392 287 734 821 894 968
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.37 0.13 0.58 0.44 0.04 0.26
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2963
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 616 169 55 694 135 297 128 80 116 174 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.47 0.24 0.37 0.93 0.19 0.90 0.24 0.15 0.67 0.49 Control Delay 49.8 25.8 4.4 50.8 51.2 2.9 71.0 30.6 2.7 63.9 40.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.8 25.8 4.4 50.8 51.2 2.9 71.0 30.6 2.7 63.9 40.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 155 0 34 435 0 186 66 0 72 96 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 210 42 73 #682 27 #334 116 15 #148 166 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 142 1338 704 160 744 729 342 524 532 178 355 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.46 0.24 0.34 0.93 0.19 0.87 0.24 0.15 0.65 0.49 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2964
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 433 41 264 51 179 407 68 46 271 40 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.66 0.38 0.71 0.13 0.74 0.38 0.07 0.42 0.30 0.05 Control Delay 51.1 54.1 63.4 55.5 1.6 67.1 18.5 2.0 64.5 23.4 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.1 54.1 63.4 55.5 1.6 67.1 18.5 2.0 64.5 23.4 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 166 31 196 0 135 176 0 35 127 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 217 68 271 6 202 316 15 73 241 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1035 268 543 529 283 1076 954 262 894 808 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.15 0.49 0.10 0.63 0.38 0.07 0.18 0.30 0.05 Intersection Summary
2965
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 16 465 873 645
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.05 0.76 0.35 0.39
Control Delay 45.8 0.3 47.3 6.8 17.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.8 0.3 47.3 6.8 17.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 102 0 146 101 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 0 189 159 196
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 797 2503 1633
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.04 0.58 0.35 0.39
Intersection Summary
2966
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 383 630 1248 24 580
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.57 0.68 0.18 0.28
Control Delay 46.5 7.2 17.2 38.0 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.5 7.2 17.2 38.0 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 180 23 185 12 70
Queue Length 95th (ft) #325 70 352 34 98
Internal Link Dist (ft) 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 462 1112 1830 134 2055
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.57 0.68 0.18 0.28
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2967
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 37
Link Distance (ft) 420
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2968
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 53
Link Distance (ft) 434
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2969
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served L TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 37 66
Average Queue (ft) 63 4 29
95th Queue (ft) 103 19 58
Link Distance (ft) 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2970
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 19
95th Queue (ft) 43
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2971
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 171 272 108 583 149 882 22 64 878 86 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.27 0.38 0.68 0.94 0.83 0.50 0.04 0.49 0.57 0.16 Control Delay 75.5 34.0 5.2 80.1 66.1 94.0 37.1 0.1 72.6 42.0 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.5 34.0 5.2 80.1 66.1 94.0 37.1 0.1 72.6 42.0 2.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 108 0 93 480 129 228 0 55 241 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 120 175 63 154 #757 #240 286 0 103 289 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 180 643 724 199 620 192 1762 627 194 1534 547 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.38 0.54 0.94 0.78 0.50 0.04 0.33 0.57 0.16 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2972
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 455 311 338 701 276 424 996 349 286 1450 229 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.70 0.60 0.76 0.81 0.49 0.77 0.49 0.40 0.74 0.80 0.36 Control Delay 69.8 61.1 13.6 63.0 37.6 8.9 68.4 35.4 8.7 73.6 47.6 19.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.8 61.1 13.6 63.0 37.6 8.9 68.4 35.4 8.7 73.6 47.6 19.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 214 29 172 358 68 198 256 63 137 458 71 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 261 118 m198 m397 m87 260 356 122 182 #638 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 459 1069 670 468 1058 634 549 2016 880 456 1803 630 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.43 0.46 0.72 0.66 0.44 0.77 0.49 0.40 0.63 0.80 0.36 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2973
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 249 47 572 413 125 305 180 649
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.36 0.13 0.80 0.49 0.56 0.47 0.73 0.95
Control Delay 18.7 21.2 21.4 41.1 4.7 60.8 35.4 66.9 61.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.7 21.2 21.4 41.1 4.7 60.8 35.4 66.9 61.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 110 23 386 12 91 185 133 498
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 149 43 451 64 #221 308 #234 #786 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 250
Base Capacity (vph) 150 878 462 905 965 223 652 256 686 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.28 0.10 0.63 0.43 0.56 0.47 0.70 0.95 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2974
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 760 396 165 972 237 337 100 360 970 134 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.86 0.55 0.77 0.91 0.94 0.41 0.21 0.79 0.78 0.21 Control Delay 123.5 53.1 11.6 84.9 60.6 105.0 49.5 1.5 63.2 48.1 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 123.5 53.1 11.6 84.9 60.6 105.0 49.5 1.5 63.2 48.1 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 248 115 153 454 224 145 0 317 439 13 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#200 #492 183 227 #553 #390 195 5 #441 527 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 110 888 721 277 1096 256 822 484 463 1237 626 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.86 0.55 0.60 0.89 0.93 0.41 0.21 0.78 0.78 0.21 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2975
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 778 228 345 734 180 127 214 188 173 649 311 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.86 0.47 0.77 0.66 0.31 0.70 0.26 0.38 0.26 0.56 0.43 Control Delay 68.2 59.7 25.8 70.1 44.3 12.4 79.6 43.6 10.3 49.7 41.8 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.2 59.7 25.8 70.1 44.3 12.4 79.6 43.6 10.3 49.7 41.8 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 345 87 158 291 33 114 83 13 71 262 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 #466 177 205 366 93 177 121 78 108 352 75 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 592 917 485 598 1115 586 294 826 498 670 1162 718 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.85 0.47 0.58 0.66 0.31 0.43 0.26 0.38 0.26 0.56 0.43 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2976
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 254 308 496 1065 327
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.76 0.18 0.62 0.43
Control Delay 42.1 12.4 42.3 3.0 19.1 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.1 12.4 42.3 3.0 19.1 12.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 153 27 206 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 64 224 51 335 163
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 640 429 2712 1731 769
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.40 0.72 0.18 0.62 0.43
Intersection Summary
2977
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 435 389 75 512 253 175 508 23 125 926 148 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.79 0.58 0.47 0.91 0.46 0.91 0.41 0.04 0.72 0.77 0.25 Control Delay 54.2 43.4 11.1 53.5 56.7 18.2 90.2 26.9 0.1 67.8 35.8 9.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.2 43.4 11.1 53.5 56.7 18.2 90.2 26.9 0.1 67.8 35.8 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 250 43 46 310 68 112 135 0 79 290 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 #373 133 93 #498 142 #238 184 0 #165 #378 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 159 571 684 160 577 561 193 1242 597 177 1209 602 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.76 0.57 0.47 0.89 0.45 0.91 0.41 0.04 0.71 0.77 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2978
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 317 210 50 455 118 303 667 176 1333 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.75 0.45 0.32 0.87 0.23 0.79 0.47 0.73 1.15 Control Delay 54.1 56.0 15.2 59.3 61.1 11.5 61.8 30.3 68.5 117.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.1 56.0 15.2 59.3 61.1 11.5 61.8 30.3 68.5 117.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 246 40 39 327 14 227 198 139 ~692 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 321 103 80 #544 63 #413 317 207 #893 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 220 569 580 162 540 524 385 1411 343 1157 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.56 0.36 0.31 0.84 0.23 0.79 0.47 0.51 1.15 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2979
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1315 956 2300 506 83 837
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.74 0.72 0.55 0.07 0.86
Control Delay 16.4 5.0 9.7 3.4 26.3 45.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.4 5.0 9.7 3.4 26.3 45.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 0 119 12 21 319
Queue Length 95th (ft) 197 61 128 55 39 411
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 3484 1297 3216 928 1233 1023
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.74 0.72 0.55 0.07 0.82
Intersection Summary
2980
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1174 254 2338 101 528 684
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.28 0.63 0.12 0.27 0.60
Control Delay 11.2 1.0 23.9 3.6 24.5 27.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.2 1.0 23.9 3.6 24.5 27.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 0 322 0 95 209
Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 8 355 29 124 278
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 2466 898 3695 827 1965 1142
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.28 0.63 0.12 0.27 0.60
Intersection Summary
2981
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 441 1006 391 211 1196 200 409 658 222 515 809 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.56 0.46 0.69 0.76 0.33 0.73 0.45 0.69 0.45 0.66 Control Delay 84.1 35.4 10.4 69.6 44.7 10.0 60.0 34.4 68.2 45.1 27.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 84.1 35.4 10.4 69.6 44.7 10.0 60.0 34.4 68.2 45.1 27.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 192 251 98 89 335 22 170 147 94 138 252 Queue Length 95th (ft) #293 306 149 131 399 84 224 187 137 176 331 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 470 1805 881 343 1570 601 607 1472 373 1145 1234 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.56 0.44 0.62 0.76 0.33 0.67 0.45 0.60 0.45 0.66 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 227 790 208 70 765 101 117 140 339 450 489 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.78 0.35 0.59 0.88 0.20 0.72 0.28 0.76 0.74 0.73 Control Delay 52.9 32.0 5.4 55.8 40.4 2.5 59.6 17.0 43.6 31.4 19.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.9 32.0 5.4 55.8 40.4 2.5 59.6 17.0 43.6 31.4 19.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 183 0 32 179 0 54 36 78 190 101 Queue Length 95th (ft) #107 #276 47 #88 #275 15 #132 80 #135 #341 #264 Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 451 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250 250 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 294 1014 591 119 881 503 164 495 454 612 669 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.78 0.35 0.59 0.87 0.20 0.71 0.28 0.75 0.74 0.73 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2983
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 516 55 506 160 118 45 526
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.79 0.78 0.16 0.21 0.97
Control Delay 16.6 11.6 13.9 25.6 54.3 12.0 26.4 54.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.6 11.6 13.9 25.6 54.3 12.0 26.4 54.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 49 16 153 57 17 15 179
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 85 m39 314 #145 60 41 #360
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65 200
Base Capacity (vph) 143 1244 246 641 205 730 210 545
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.79 0.78 0.16 0.21 0.97 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2984
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
17: Fowler Avenue & Ticonderoga Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 26 10 614 369
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.37 0.23
Control Delay 24.7 12.9 23.8 2.5 3.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.7 12.9 23.8 2.5 3.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40300
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 19 15 110 123
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 677 273
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 300
Base Capacity (vph) 576 532 221 1666 1571
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.37 0.23
Intersection Summary
2985
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 732 294 78 489 402 226 104 42 356 589 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.71 0.45 0.55 0.90 0.54 0.94 0.25 0.09 0.89 1.02 Control Delay 52.3 35.8 5.7 59.9 55.1 6.4 89.6 37.1 0.3 62.7 78.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.3 35.8 5.7 59.9 55.1 6.4 89.6 37.1 0.3 62.7 78.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 215 1 49 295 6 ~160 59 0 215 ~418 Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 282 61 #104 #476 77 #308 109 0 #362 #632 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 141 1061 668 141 558 747 241 418 482 434 578 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.69 0.44 0.55 0.88 0.54 0.94 0.25 0.09 0.82 1.02 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2986
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
19: Fowler Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 16
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 89 8 250 147 846 59
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.40 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.58 0.05
Control Delay 18.2 18.5 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.3 1.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.2 18.5 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.3 1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 14 1 17 12 107 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m27 47 5 67 34 248 8
Internal Link Dist (ft) 2567 739 2580 1659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 260
Base Capacity (vph) 491 478 395 1412 879 1456 1250
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.19 0.02 0.18 0.17 0.58 0.05
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2987
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 410 104 335 42 170 179 72 104 701 87 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.67 0.62 0.74 0.09 0.72 0.20 0.09 0.62 0.83 0.11 Control Delay 60.3 45.4 67.4 52.5 0.4 66.0 21.1 3.0 70.1 45.4 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.3 45.4 67.4 52.5 0.4 66.0 21.1 3.0 70.1 45.4 9.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 128 79 253 0 128 75 0 86 533 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) m44 141 133 328 0 194 156 20 123 #919 m42 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 238 1016 238 543 529 262 917 827 238 844 769 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.40 0.44 0.62 0.08 0.65 0.20 0.09 0.44 0.83 0.11 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2988
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 18
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 34 550 479 1015
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.79 0.19 0.60
Control Delay 45.7 0.6 46.7 5.1 16.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 0.6 46.7 5.1 16.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 0 173 44 166
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 0 218 74 279
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 427 461 810 2571 1690
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.07 0.68 0.19 0.60
Intersection Summary
2989
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/25/2023 Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 152 211 210 998 16 615
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.28
Control Delay 29.7 10.0 8.2 9.6 25.8 6.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.7 10.0 8.2 9.6 25.8 6.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 5 0 87 5 48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 60 51 207 21 71
Internal Link Dist (ft) 884 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 302 420 442 2021 179 2164
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.09 0.28
Intersection Summary
2990
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 892
Average Queue (ft) 18 714
95th Queue (ft) 49 1236
Link Distance (ft) 414 840
Upstream Blk Time (%) 43
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2991
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 436 600
Average Queue (ft) 328 495
95th Queue (ft) 536 842
Link Distance (ft) 421 587
Upstream Blk Time (%) 51 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 202
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2992
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 65 69
Average Queue (ft) 19 34
95th Queue (ft) 47 54
Link Distance (ft) 361
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2993
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- AM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 20
95th Queue (ft) 44
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2994
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
1: Willow Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 132 146 139 211 195 853 196 128 762 14 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.58 0.45 0.78 0.54 0.67 0.32 0.22 0.69 0.33 0.02 Control Delay 63.2 65.6 12.2 86.3 49.3 64.6 21.3 9.3 76.2 25.6 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.2 65.6 12.2 86.3 49.3 64.6 21.3 9.3 76.2 25.6 0.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 112 0 119 144 163 157 32 110 155 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 170 60 #206 237 242 232 95 173 221 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1692 5395 5238 2310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 235 240 210 250 105 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 184 612 619 203 591 292 2652 886 211 2330 772 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.68 0.36 0.67 0.32 0.22 0.61 0.33 0.02 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2995
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
2: Willow Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 765 412 380 661 338 312 1544 527 366 1118 220 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.82 0.58 0.92 0.66 0.55 0.77 0.90 0.71 0.87 0.65 0.35 Control Delay 75.7 58.7 30.1 67.8 66.3 35.9 75.2 54.5 30.7 83.4 43.9 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.7 58.7 30.1 67.8 66.3 35.9 75.2 54.5 30.7 83.4 43.9 15.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 135 357 249 181 346 173 149 522 327 175 333 52 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 425 335 m187 m353 m179 198 #619 462 #279 408 131 Internal Link Dist (ft) 615 4724 562 5238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 175 280 200 260 225 280 165
Base Capacity (vph) 437 1020 739 415 1029 628 475 1720 747 420 1731 625 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.75 0.56 0.92 0.64 0.54 0.66 0.90 0.71 0.87 0.65 0.35 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2996
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
3: Minnewawa Avenue & Behymer Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 517 20 237 174 162 497 221 279
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.92 0.16 0.42 0.29 0.73 0.81 0.85 0.43
Control Delay 14.9 44.2 18.9 19.2 4.5 46.9 31.2 57.4 17.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.9 44.2 18.9 19.2 4.5 46.9 31.2 57.4 17.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 2 169 5 67 0 58 160 80 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 #338 20 121 36 #140 #311 #189 135 Internal Link Dist (ft) 5395 5207 4586 912
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 250
Base Capacity (vph) 318 577 129 585 618 223 615 260 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.90 0.16 0.41 0.28 0.73 0.81 0.85 0.43 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
2997
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
4: Minnewawa Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 1099 234 116 1202 337 732 166 171 542 116 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.88 0.24 0.82 1.00 0.98 0.64 0.28 0.85 0.63 0.23 Control Delay 101.6 37.0 4.2 104.3 73.3 100.5 45.4 11.5 95.8 53.0 3.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 101.6 37.0 4.2 104.3 73.3 100.5 45.4 11.5 95.8 53.0 3.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 150 451 31 109 ~592 320 316 25 159 242 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#241 #519 m67 #214 #754 #520 388 84 #273 307 19 Internal Link Dist (ft) 579 1263 627 574
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 50 215 230 105 255 25
Base Capacity (vph) 160 1247 962 149 1199 345 1147 600 221 862 505 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.88 0.24 0.78 1.00 0.98 0.64 0.28 0.77 0.63 0.23 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2998
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
5: Clovis Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 946 172 302 962 155 234 712 385 143 287 169 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.93 0.32 0.96 0.93 0.28 0.96 0.59 0.60 0.46 0.27 0.29 Control Delay 62.5 56.2 10.8 76.5 37.4 6.5 96.8 33.9 23.7 55.0 32.4 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.5 56.2 10.8 76.5 37.4 6.5 96.8 33.9 23.7 55.0 32.4 6.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 357 22 103 386 39 175 227 146 53 86 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 115 #481 77 m#152 m#446 m49 #335 291 251 86 124 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1209 1573 1877 575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 240 50 245 175 235 50 250 270
Base Capacity (vph) 301 1025 546 316 1048 562 245 1214 639 313 1045 587 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.92 0.32 0.96 0.92 0.28 0.96 0.59 0.60 0.46 0.27 0.29 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2999
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
6: Clovis Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 117 179 1296 685 84
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.67 0.50 0.36 0.10
Control Delay 44.8 8.9 45.6 6.2 13.7 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.8 8.9 45.6 6.2 13.7 7.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 0 91 125 104 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 42 147 213 185 40
Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 436 1877
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 225 50
Base Capacity (vph) 527 554 378 2605 1917 878
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.21 0.47 0.50 0.36 0.10
Intersection Summary
3000
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
7: Clovis Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 632 439 57 501 373 349 973 51 117 621 53 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.97 0.56 0.43 0.85 0.64 0.97 0.75 0.08 0.75 0.70 0.11 Control Delay 81.2 69.1 10.5 63.3 53.1 27.8 88.6 38.5 1.0 80.7 45.9 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.2 69.1 10.5 63.3 53.1 27.8 88.6 38.5 1.0 80.7 45.9 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 ~493 53 43 357 159 ~281 353 0 90 231 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #169 #739 154 88 #531 267 #473 436 5 #178 297 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2634 2691 2832
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 60 60 475 95 260 105
Base Capacity (vph) 150 650 778 134 606 596 360 1292 624 165 893 486 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.97 0.56 0.43 0.83 0.63 0.97 0.75 0.08 0.71 0.70 0.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3001
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
8: Clovis Avenue & Alluvial Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 439 201 41 367 133 284 1415 136 1014 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.87 0.39 0.29 0.67 0.24 0.86 0.97 0.68 0.84 Control Delay 56.9 61.4 15.1 59.7 45.3 6.8 74.1 55.5 70.2 47.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.9 61.4 15.1 59.7 45.3 6.8 74.1 55.5 70.2 47.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 335 45 32 267 3 216 ~653 108 ~458 Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 440 105 70 354 49 #401 #897 175 #596 Internal Link Dist (ft) 611 755 2017 2691
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 110 165 105 420 215
Base Capacity (vph) 157 593 585 157 609 604 334 1455 231 1205 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.74 0.34 0.26 0.60 0.22 0.85 0.97 0.59 0.84 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3002
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
9: SR-168 WB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1872 615 2590 561 78 410
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.47 0.61 0.52 0.12 0.72
Control Delay 9.2 1.9 2.8 2.7 45.3 56.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.2 1.9 3.0 3.0 45.3 56.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 188 0 52 11 30 186
Queue Length 95th (ft) 248 40 m66 m33 51 236
Internal Link Dist (ft) 587 722
Turn Bay Length (ft) 365 235 565
Base Capacity (vph) 4573 1310 4249 1079 884 739
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 790 124 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.47 0.75 0.59 0.09 0.55
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 3003
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
10: SR-168 EB Ramps & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 10
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1580 409 2404 221 812 1051
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.56 0.96 0.35 0.28 0.65
Control Delay 47.5 8.8 35.7 4.2 15.5 21.9
Queue Delay 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.4 8.8 35.7 4.2 15.5 21.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 513 39 561 20 128 344
Queue Length 95th (ft) #606 87 m569 m23 154 425
Internal Link Dist (ft) 722 551
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1694 727 2514 632 2887 1624
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 46 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.96 0.56 0.96 0.35 0.28 0.65
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 3004
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
11: Clovis Avenue & Herndon Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 732 1561 364 340 1482 221 634 973 345 394 535 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.85 0.37 0.85 1.03 0.40 0.75 0.70 1.00 0.60 0.53 Control Delay 99.9 33.7 4.0 80.2 80.2 15.7 55.3 44.4 109.9 61.8 26.6 Queue Delay 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.9 34.8 4.0 80.2 80.2 15.7 55.3 44.4 109.9 61.8 26.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~398 439 59 157 ~526 48 277 266 164 126 153 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#482 m487 m56 #228 #624 123 347 319 #269 164 213 Internal Link Dist (ft) 551 830 361 659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350 245 150 200 230 185
Base Capacity (vph) 668 1837 995 420 1441 551 850 1394 346 660 1011 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 110 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.10 0.90 0.37 0.81 1.03 0.40 0.75 0.70 1.00 0.60 0.53 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 3005
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
13: Sunnyside Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 12
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 455 981 179 68 1016 355 204 400 179 199 411 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.74 0.26 0.44 0.94 0.50 0.74 0.86 0.32 0.41 0.63 Control Delay 84.4 25.4 2.7 57.9 55.7 7.4 64.1 59.4 44.5 38.6 13.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 84.4 25.4 2.7 57.9 55.7 7.4 64.1 59.4 44.5 38.6 13.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 151 364 12 49 385 15 146 277 61 123 50 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#228 m431 m27 93 #516 90 #254 #448 95 194 156 Internal Link Dist (ft) 426 451 2573 597
Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250 250 250 300
Base Capacity (vph) 467 1317 688 353 1083 712 274 465 563 487 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.74 0.26 0.19 0.94 0.50 0.74 0.86 0.32 0.41 0.63 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 3006
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
15: Sunnyside Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 689 54 555 247 395 22 257
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.60 0.34 0.92 0.89 0.42 0.11 0.43
Control Delay 36.9 19.2 23.4 44.8 64.3 13.0 27.2 18.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.9 19.2 23.4 44.8 64.3 13.0 27.2 18.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 105 16 204 98 81 8 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) #67 156 46 #383 #223 204 26 132
Internal Link Dist (ft) 388 2573 635 2575
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 65 200
Base Capacity (vph) 118 1183 165 620 276 941 206 592
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.58 0.33 0.90 0.89 0.42 0.11 0.43 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3007
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
17: Fowler Avenue & Ticonderoga Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 14
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 18 10 311 333
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.18 0.20
Control Delay 29.4 15.9 28.9 1.5 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.4 15.9 28.9 1.5 3.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20400
Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 17 17 44 103
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 677 273
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 300
Base Capacity (vph) 464 428 528 1731 1628
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.20
Intersection Summary
3008
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
18: Fowler Avenue & Shepherd Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 15
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 645 178 76 726 297 351 389 114 163 294 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.46 0.24 0.50 0.98 0.39 1.04 0.82 0.23 0.92 0.96 Control Delay 52.6 25.0 4.3 55.6 61.0 8.5 99.4 50.8 6.4 94.7 85.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.6 25.0 4.3 55.6 61.0 8.5 99.4 50.8 6.4 94.7 85.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 165 0 47 ~504 34 ~242 234 0 105 184 Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 221 43 94 #727 98 #417 #384 39 #228 #352 Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 709 846 3571
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115 160 260 205 285 200
Base Capacity (vph) 142 1389 730 160 740 760 339 475 494 178 305 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.46 0.24 0.47 0.98 0.39 1.04 0.82 0.23 0.92 0.96 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3009
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
19: Fowler Avenue & Teague Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 16
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 157 25 773 24 440 44
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.50 0.04 0.54 0.06 0.31 0.04
Control Delay 29.1 14.6 4.5 11.9 3.8 4.3 1.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.1 14.6 4.5 11.9 3.8 4.3 1.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 16 4 198 2 44 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 58 m13 637 9 101 8
Internal Link Dist (ft) 2567 739 2580 1659
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 260
Base Capacity (vph) 318 550 710 1422 432 1412 1211
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.29 0.04 0.54 0.06 0.31 0.04
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 3010
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
20: Fowler Avenue & Nees Avenue Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 532 62 401 115 180 602 71 65 360 66 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.56 0.49 0.84 0.24 0.78 0.68 0.09 0.50 0.49 0.10 Control Delay 66.5 35.9 65.6 57.6 10.2 72.8 34.7 3.3 65.3 41.5 9.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.5 35.9 65.6 57.6 10.2 72.8 34.7 3.3 65.3 41.5 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 170 47 296 12 135 378 0 50 256 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 203 91 377 54 #216 #740 21 81 #403 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2573 510 742 2580
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 140 60 220 125 50
Base Capacity (vph) 270 1075 268 557 540 271 879 797 262 731 678 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.49 0.23 0.72 0.21 0.66 0.68 0.09 0.25 0.49 0.10 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3011
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
21: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 WB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 18
Lane Group WBL WBR NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 19 488 928 775
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.05 0.77 0.37 0.48
Control Delay 45.8 0.3 47.1 7.2 19.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.8 0.3 47.1 7.2 19.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 0 153 111 154
Queue Length 95th (ft) 166 0 197 175 251
Internal Link Dist (ft) 513 2784
Turn Bay Length (ft) 380 260
Base Capacity (vph) 418 453 797 2488 1598
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.04 0.61 0.37 0.48
Intersection Summary
3012
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Queues Shepherd North Project
22: Fowler Avenue & SR-168 EB Ramps Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA Synchro 11 Report
04/26/2023 Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 364 352 350 1321 30 664
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.63 0.62 0.72 0.23 0.32
Control Delay 47.3 14.2 13.6 18.4 39.2 9.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.3 14.2 13.6 18.4 39.2 9.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 181 47 44 204 14 83
Queue Length 95th (ft) #331 142 132 #404 40 114
Internal Link Dist (ft) 884 367 513
Turn Bay Length (ft) 535 85
Base Capacity (vph) 439 561 573 1829 134 2055
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.63 0.61 0.72 0.22 0.32
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
3013
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 23: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 41
Link Distance (ft) 414
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3014
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 24: Sunnyside Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Movement WB NB NB
Directions Served LR T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 68 605 616
Average Queue (ft) 34 80 22
95th Queue (ft) 64 404 211
Link Distance (ft) 421 580 580
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3015
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 25: Shepherd Avenue & Project Driveway 3
Movement EB B27 B27 WB SB
Directions Served L T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 178 540 469 22 91
Average Queue (ft) 77 156 16 5 44
95th Queue (ft) 141 531 152 19 80
Link Distance (ft) 451 451 1184 361
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3016
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Shepherd North Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative Year (2046) WP MIT- PM Peak Hour LSA SimTraffic Report
04/26/2023 Page 1
Intersection: 26: Project Driveway 4/Stanford Avenue & Perrin Road Movement NB
Directions Served LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 26
95th Queue (ft) 44
Link Distance (ft) 374
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3017
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

T RANSPORTATION I MPACT A NALYSIS
J ULY 2023

S HEPHERD NORTH P ROJECT

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\DNV2201\Traffic\March_2023\Reports\Shepherd North Project TIA_July 2023.docx (07/12/23)

APPENDIX H

HCS WORKSHEETS
3018
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1142 4688 0.24 64.4 8.9 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1142 518 7200 4000 0.16 0.13 65.0 59.5 5.9 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 606 4702 0.13 65.1 4.7 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 721 115 4800 2000 0.15 0.06 66.3 66.3 5.4 6.0 A Segment 5: Basic
3019
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 726 4702 0.15 65.1 5.6 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.3 5.3 5.0 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.3
Messages
Comments
3020
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
0 5
10 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:32:03 Exist_NP_AM_EB.xuf 3021
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3565 4716 0.76 63.5 28.1 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3565 178 4800 2000 0.74 0.09 60.6 60.6 29.4 33.5 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3377 4716 0.72 64.4 26.2 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4327 950 4800 2000 0.90 0.48 56.9 56.9 38.0 33.3 D Segment 5: Basic
3022
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4382 4716 0.93 56.5 38.8 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.0 30.2 28.3 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.3
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.2
Messages
Comments
3023
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:36:08 Exist_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3024
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4296 4688 0.92 56.8 37.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4296 972 7200 4000 0.60 0.24 65.7 58.2 21.8 12.0 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3280 4702 0.70 64.3 25.5 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3619 339 4800 2000 0.75 0.17 61.7 61.7 29.3 28.5 D Segment 5: Basic
3025
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3639 4702 0.77 62.6 29.1 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.8 25.3 23.7 1.00 C
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 23.7
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 25.3
Messages
Comments
3026
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:43:09 Exist_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3027
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4219 4716 0.90 58.3 36.2 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4136 191 4800 2000 0.89 0.10 60.5 60.5 34.2 38.4 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3755 4716 0.86 30.9 60.8 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 665 4800 2000 0.99 0.33 38.6 52.0 56.9 36.6 F Segment 5: Basic
3028
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.01 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 39.8 50.8 47.7 2.00 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 39.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 47.7
Average Travel Time, min 2.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 50.8
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3029
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:50:19 Exist_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3030
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1155 4688 0.25 64.4 9.0 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1155 530 7200 4000 0.16 0.13 64.9 59.5 5.9 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 606 4702 0.13 65.1 4.7 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 721 115 4800 2000 0.15 0.06 66.3 66.3 5.4 6.0 A Segment 5: Basic
3031
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 726 4702 0.15 65.1 5.6 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.3 5.3 5.0 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.3
Messages
Comments
3032
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
0 5
10 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:51:58 Exist_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3033
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3565 4716 0.76 63.5 28.1 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3565 178 4800 2000 0.74 0.09 60.6 60.6 29.4 33.5 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3377 4716 0.72 64.4 26.2 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4327 950 4800 2000 0.90 0.48 56.9 56.9 38.0 33.3 D Segment 5: Basic
3034
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4382 4716 0.93 56.5 38.8 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.0 30.2 28.3 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.3
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.2
Messages
Comments
3035
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 11:41:29 Exist_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3036
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4337 4688 0.93 56.3 38.5 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4337 1011 7200 4000 0.60 0.25 65.5 58.1 22.1 12.3 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3280 4702 0.70 64.3 25.5 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3619 339 4800 2000 0.75 0.17 61.7 61.7 29.3 28.5 D Segment 5: Basic
3037
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3639 4702 0.77 62.6 29.1 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.8 25.4 23.9 1.10 C
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 23.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.10 Density, pc/mi/ln 25.4
Messages
Comments
3038
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:06:48 Exist_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3039
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4219 4716 0.90 58.3 36.2 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4136 191 4800 2000 0.89 0.10 60.5 60.5 34.2 38.4 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3755 4716 0.86 30.9 60.8 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 665 4800 2000 0.99 0.33 38.6 52.0 56.9 36.6 F Segment 5: Basic
3040
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.01 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 39.8 50.8 47.7 2.00 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 39.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 47.7
Average Travel Time, min 2.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 50.8
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3041
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 11:45:55 Exist_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3042
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1869 7098 0.26 66.6 9.4 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 1869 1032 7200 4000 0.26 0.26 62.6 58.0 10.0 13.4 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 811 4688 0.17 64.3 6.3 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1040 229 4800 1900 0.22 0.12 65.5 65.5 7.9 8.9 A 3043
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1136 84 4800 2000 0.24 0.04 66.1 66.1 8.6 9.4 A Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1142 4688 0.24 64.4 8.9 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.7 8.5 8.0 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.7 Density, veh/mi/ln 8.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 8.5
Messages
Comments
3044
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 16:43:36 Exist_NP_AM_EB _.xuf 3045
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4382 4716 0.93 56.5 38.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4382 850 4800 2000 0.91 0.43 58.5 58.5 37.5 38.2 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3481 4672 0.75 62.4 27.9 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4106 625 4800 2000 0.86 0.31 58.0 58.0 35.4 33.9 D 3046
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4666 532 7200 2000 0.65 0.27 71.8 - 21.7 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4691 7008 0.67 63.4 24.7 C
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 62.2 29.3 27.5 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 62.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 27.5
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 29.3
Messages
Comments
3047
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
75 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 17:56:57 Exist_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3048
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5011 7098 0.71 65.1 25.7 C
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5011 1262 7200 4000 0.70 0.32 64.5 57.3 25.9 26.6 C Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3679 4688 0.78 61.9 29.7 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4066 387 4800 1900 0.85 0.20 58.3 58.3 34.9 32.4 D 3049
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4284 197 4800 2000 0.89 0.10 57.1 57.1 37.5 33.9 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4296 4688 0.92 56.8 37.8 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.2 30.2 28.4 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.2
Messages
Comments
3050
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:05:04 Exist_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3051
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4451 4716 1.01 41.9 53.1 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4406 436 4800 2000 0.99 0.22 40.6 59.8 54.2 41.5 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3887 4672 0.92 29.4 66.1 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 583 4800 2000 1.02 0.29 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.8 F 3052
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5039 569 7200 2000 0.76 0.28 65.3 - 25.7 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5039 7008 0.79 62.8 26.7 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 45.2 43.0 40.4 1.90 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 45.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 40.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.90 Density, pc/mi/ln 43.0
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3053
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:08:01 Exist_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3054
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1903 7098 0.27 66.6 9.5 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 1903 1053 7200 4000 0.26 0.26 62.5 57.9 10.1 13.6 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 823 4688 0.18 64.3 6.4 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1052 229 4800 1900 0.22 0.12 65.5 65.5 8.0 9.0 A 3055
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1149 84 4800 2000 0.24 0.04 66.1 66.1 8.7 9.5 A Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1155 4688 0.25 64.4 9.0 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.6 8.6 8.1 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 8.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 8.6
Messages
Comments
3056
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:10:54 Exist_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3057
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4382 4716 0.93 56.5 38.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4382 850 4800 2000 0.91 0.43 58.5 58.5 37.5 38.2 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3481 4672 0.75 62.4 27.9 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4198 717 4800 2000 0.87 0.36 57.3 57.3 36.6 34.6 D 3058
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4762 532 7200 2000 0.66 0.27 71.4 - 22.2 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4787 7008 0.68 63.3 25.2 C
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 62.0 29.7 27.9 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 62.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 27.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 29.7
Messages
Comments
3059
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
75 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 11:58:50 Exist_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3060
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5121 7098 0.72 64.8 26.3 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5121 1327 7200 4000 0.71 0.33 64.2 57.1 26.6 27.4 C Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3720 4688 0.79 61.6 30.2 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4107 387 4800 1900 0.86 0.20 58.0 58.0 35.4 32.7 D 3061
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4325 197 4800 2000 0.90 0.10 56.7 56.7 38.1 34.2 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4337 4688 0.93 56.3 38.5 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.9 30.8 28.9 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.8
Messages
Comments
3062
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 18:19:52 Exist_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3063
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Existing (2022) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4398 4716 1.01 40.1 54.8 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4349 436 4800 2000 0.99 0.22 38.8 59.8 56.1 41.5 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3825 4672 0.92 28.1 68.2 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 645 4800 2000 1.03 0.32 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.8 F 3064
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5039 569 7200 2000 0.77 0.28 65.3 - 25.7 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5039 7008 0.80 62.8 26.7 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 44.1 43.9 41.1 1.90 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 44.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 41.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.90 Density, pc/mi/ln 43.9
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3065
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:03:15 Exist_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3066
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1231 4688 0.26 64.4 9.6 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1231 532 7200 4000 0.17 0.13 65.2 59.5 6.3 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 679 4702 0.14 65.1 5.2 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 798 119 4800 2000 0.17 0.06 66.3 66.3 6.0 6.6 A Segment 5: Basic
3067
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 804 4702 0.17 65.1 6.2 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.4 5.8 5.5 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.5
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.8
Messages
Comments
3068
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:16:34 NT2028_NP_AM_EB.xuf 3069
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3685 4716 0.78 62.7 29.4 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3685 179 4800 2000 0.77 0.09 60.6 60.6 30.4 34.5 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3497 4716 0.74 63.8 27.4 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4488 991 4800 2000 0.94 0.50 55.2 55.2 40.7 34.5 D Segment 5: Basic
3070
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4545 4716 0.96 54.6 41.6 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.1 31.8 29.8 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 29.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.8
Messages
Comments
3071
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
45 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:20:11 NT2028_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3072
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4491 4688 0.96 54.6 41.1 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4491 1016 7200 4000 0.62 0.25 65.5 58.1 22.9 12.9 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3429 4702 0.73 63.7 26.9 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3770 341 4800 2000 0.79 0.17 60.9 60.9 31.0 29.7 D Segment 5: Basic
3073
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3790 4702 0.81 61.6 30.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.2 26.7 25.1 1.10 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 25.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.10 Density, pc/mi/ln 26.7
Messages
Comments
3074
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:22:02 NT2028_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3075
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4198 4716 0.92 35.8 58.7 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4115 196 4800 2000 0.90 0.10 40.5 60.5 50.8 40.1 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3729 4716 0.88 28.8 64.7 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 691 4800 2000 1.00 0.35 38.5 50.6 57.0 37.3 F Segment 5: Basic
3076
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.03 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 34.6 58.3 54.6 2.30 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 34.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 54.6
Average Travel Time, min 2.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 58.3
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3077
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:23:48 NT2028_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3078
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1243 4688 0.27 64.4 9.7 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1243 545 7200 4000 0.17 0.14 65.1 59.5 6.4 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 679 4702 0.14 65.1 5.2 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 798 119 4800 2000 0.17 0.06 66.3 66.3 6.0 6.6 A Segment 5: Basic
3079
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 804 4702 0.17 65.1 6.2 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.4 5.9 5.5 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.5
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.9
Messages
Comments
3080
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:27:14 NT2028_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3081
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3685 4716 0.78 62.7 29.4 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3685 179 4800 2000 0.77 0.09 60.6 60.6 30.4 34.5 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3497 4716 0.74 63.8 27.4 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4488 991 4800 2000 0.94 0.50 55.2 55.2 40.7 34.5 D Segment 5: Basic
3082
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4545 4716 0.96 54.6 41.6 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.1 31.8 29.8 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 29.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.8
Messages
Comments
3083
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
45 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:16:29 NT2028_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3084
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4532 4688 0.97 54.1 41.9 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4532 1055 7200 4000 0.63 0.26 65.3 57.9 23.1 13.3 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3429 4702 0.73 63.7 26.9 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3770 341 4800 2000 0.79 0.17 60.9 60.9 31.0 29.7 D Segment 5: Basic
3085
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3790 4702 0.81 61.6 30.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.2 26.8 25.1 1.10 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 25.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.10 Density, pc/mi/ln 26.8
Messages
Comments
3086
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:30:40 NT2028_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3087
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4198 4716 0.92 35.8 58.7 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4115 196 4800 2000 0.90 0.10 40.5 60.5 50.8 40.1 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3729 4716 0.88 28.8 64.7 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 691 4800 2000 1.00 0.35 38.5 50.6 57.0 37.3 F Segment 5: Basic
3088
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.03 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 34.6 58.3 54.6 2.30 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 34.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 54.6
Average Travel Time, min 2.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 58.3
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3089
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:20:40 NT2028_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3090
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2065 7098 0.29 66.6 10.3 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2065 1152 7200 4000 0.29 0.29 62.2 57.6 11.1 14.7 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 884 4688 0.19 64.2 6.9 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1123 239 4800 1900 0.23 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.6 9.5 A 3091
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1224 88 4800 2000 0.26 0.04 66.1 66.1 9.3 10.1 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1231 4688 0.26 64.4 9.6 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.5 9.4 8.8 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 8.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.4
Messages
Comments
3092
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:37:22 2028 NT_NP_AM_EB.xuf 3093
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4545 4716 0.96 54.6 41.6 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4545 857 4800 2000 0.95 0.43 58.5 58.5 38.8 39.6 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3635 4672 0.78 61.6 29.5 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4505 870 4800 2000 0.94 0.44 54.2 54.2 41.6 36.9 E 3094
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5099 554 7200 2000 0.71 0.28 69.8 - 24.4 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5124 7008 0.73 62.6 27.3 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.6 32.1 30.2 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.6 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.2
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.1
Messages
Comments
3095
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:41:15 2028 NT_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3096
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5489 7098 0.77 63.4 28.9 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5489 1554 7200 4000 0.76 0.39 63.4 56.4 28.9 29.9 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3849 4688 0.82 60.8 31.6 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4244 395 4800 1900 0.88 0.21 56.8 56.8 37.4 33.8 D 3097
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4479 213 4800 2000 0.93 0.11 55.1 55.1 40.6 35.4 E Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4491 4688 0.96 54.6 41.1 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 59.8 33.0 30.9 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 59.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 33.0
Messages
Comments
3098
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
45 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:43:58 2028 NT_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3099
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4288 4716 1.03 36.9 58.2 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4242 444 4800 2000 1.01 0.22 34.9 59.8 60.8 42.3 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3704 4672 0.94 25.6 72.2 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 766 4800 2000 1.07 0.38 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 3100
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5056 586 7200 2000 0.80 0.29 65.3 - 25.8 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5056 7008 0.83 62.8 26.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 41.8 45.7 42.9 2.00 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 41.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 42.9
Average Travel Time, min 2.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 45.7
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3101
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:45:33 2028 NT_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3102
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2099 7098 0.30 66.6 10.5 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2099 1173 7200 4000 0.29 0.29 62.2 57.6 11.2 15.0 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 896 4688 0.19 64.2 7.0 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1135 239 4800 1900 0.24 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.7 9.6 A 3103
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1237 88 4800 2000 0.26 0.04 66.1 66.1 9.4 10.2 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1243 4688 0.27 64.4 9.7 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.5 9.5 8.9 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 8.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.5
Messages
Comments
3104
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:47:25 2028 NT_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3105
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4545 4716 0.96 54.6 41.6 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4545 857 4800 2000 0.95 0.43 58.5 58.5 38.8 39.6 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3635 4672 0.78 61.6 29.5 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4597 962 4800 2000 0.96 0.48 53.0 53.0 43.4 37.6 E 3106
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5195 554 7200 2000 0.72 0.28 69.2 - 25.0 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5220 7008 0.74 62.4 27.9 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.2 32.7 30.7 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.7
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.7
Messages
Comments
3107
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
45 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:29:35 2028 NT_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3108
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5599 7098 0.79 62.9 29.7 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5599 1619 7200 4000 0.78 0.40 63.1 56.2 29.6 30.6 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3890 4688 0.83 60.5 32.1 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4285 395 4800 1900 0.89 0.21 56.5 56.5 37.9 34.1 D 3109
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4519 213 4800 2000 0.94 0.11 54.6 54.6 41.4 35.7 E Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4532 4688 0.97 54.1 41.9 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 59.4 33.7 31.6 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 59.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 31.6
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 33.7
Messages
Comments
3110
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
45 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 19:54:41 2028 NT_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3111
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term Year (2028) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4236 4716 1.03 35.4 59.8 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4186 444 4800 2000 1.01 0.22 33.5 59.8 62.4 42.3 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3643 4672 0.94 24.6 74.2 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 827 4800 2000 1.09 0.41 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 3112
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5056 586 7200 2000 0.81 0.29 65.3 - 25.8 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5056 7008 0.84 62.8 26.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 40.9 46.5 43.6 2.00 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 40.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 43.6
Average Travel Time, min 2.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 46.5
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3113
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:34:06 2028 NT_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3114
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1257 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1257 585 7200 4000 0.17 0.15 64.7 59.3 6.5 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 651 4702 0.14 65.1 5.0 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 777 126 4800 2000 0.16 0.06 66.3 66.3 5.9 6.4 A Segment 5: Basic
3115
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 783 4702 0.17 65.1 6.0 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.2 5.8 5.4 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.8
Messages
Comments
3116
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:00:22 Cum2046_NP_AM_EB.xuf 3117
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3232 4716 0.69 65.0 24.9 C
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3232 183 4800 2000 0.67 0.09 60.6 60.6 26.7 30.6 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3040 4716 0.64 65.5 23.2 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4190 1150 4800 2000 0.87 0.58 58.2 58.2 36.0 32.1 D Segment 5: Basic
3118
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.9 27.5 25.8 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 25.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 27.5
Messages
Comments
3119
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:03:01 Cum2046_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3120
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4312 4688 0.92 56.6 38.1 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4312 1071 7200 4000 0.60 0.27 65.3 57.9 22.0 12.5 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3191 4702 0.68 64.5 24.7 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3555 364 4800 2000 0.74 0.18 62.0 62.0 28.7 28.0 C Segment 5: Basic
3121
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3577 4702 0.76 62.9 28.4 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.9 24.9 23.4 1.00 C
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 23.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 24.9
Messages
Comments
3122
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:05:01 Cum2046_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3123
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4134 4716 0.96 32.9 62.9 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4050 208 4800 2000 0.95 0.10 33.1 60.5 61.2 41.9 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3656 4716 0.92 25.4 71.9 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 764 4800 2000 1.06 0.38 38.5 45.4 57.0 39.4 F Segment 5: Basic
3124
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.09 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 31.1 64.0 60.0 2.60 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 31.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 60.0
Average Travel Time, min 2.60 Density, pc/mi/ln 64.0
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3125
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 80
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:06:40 Cum2046_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3126
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1269 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.971 1269 597 7200 4000 0.18 0.15 64.6 59.3 6.5 0.0 A Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 651 4702 0.14 65.1 5.0 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 777 126 4800 2000 0.16 0.06 66.3 66.3 5.9 6.4 A Segment 5: Basic
3127
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 783 4702 0.17 65.1 6.0 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.2 5.8 5.4 1.00 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 5.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 5.8
Messages
Comments
3128
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:07:56 Cum2046_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3129
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3232 4716 0.69 65.0 24.9 C
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.988 3232 183 4800 2000 0.67 0.09 60.6 60.6 26.7 30.6 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3040 4716 0.64 65.5 23.2 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.992 4190 1150 4800 2000 0.87 0.58 58.2 58.2 36.0 32.1 D Segment 5: Basic
3130
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.9 27.5 25.8 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.9 Density, veh/mi/ln 25.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 27.5
Messages
Comments
3131
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:46:28 Cum2046_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3132
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.12
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
2770 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Temperance Avenue Off-Ramp
10 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4353 4688 0.93 56.2 38.7 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4353 1110 7200 4000 0.60 0.28 65.1 57.8 22.3 12.8 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3191 4702 0.68 64.5 24.7 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.994 3555 364 4800 2000 0.74 0.18 62.0 62.0 28.7 28.0 C Segment 5: Basic
3133
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3577 4702 0.76 62.9 28.4 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 63.8 25.0 23.5 1.00 C
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 63.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 23.5
Average Travel Time, min 1.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 25.0
Messages
Comments
3134
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:10:44 Cum2046_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3135
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 5
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.34
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Temperance Avenue OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp700 2 2 Diverge Diverge Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp and
Fowler Avenue On-Ramp
3030 2
4 Merge Merge Fowler Avenue On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4134 4716 0.96 32.9 62.9 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.967 4050 208 4800 2000 0.95 0.10 33.1 60.5 61.2 41.9 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3656 4716 0.92 25.4 71.9 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 4391 764 4800 2000 1.06 0.38 38.5 45.4 57.0 39.4 F Segment 5: Basic
3136
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4391 4716 1.09 56.4 38.9 F
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 31.1 64.0 60.0 2.60 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 31.1 Density, veh/mi/ln 60.0
Average Travel Time, min 2.60 Density, pc/mi/ln 64.0
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 5. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3137
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 1 2 3 4 5
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
30 40
50 60
70 80
1 2 3 4 5
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:48:46 Cum2046_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3138
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2129 7098 0.30 66.6 10.7 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2129 1212 7200 4000 0.30 0.30 62.0 57.5 11.4 15.3 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 886 4688 0.19 64.2 6.9 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1137 251 4800 1900 0.24 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.7 9.6 A 3139
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1250 99 4800 2000 0.26 0.05 66.1 66.1 9.5 10.3 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1257 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.4 9.6 9.0 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 9.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.6
Messages
Comments
3140
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:20:38 2046 Cum_NP_AM_EB.xuf 3141
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4255 925 4800 2000 0.89 0.46 58.3 58.3 36.5 37.1 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3274 4672 0.70 63.1 25.9 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4194 920 4800 2000 0.87 0.46 57.3 57.3 36.6 34.5 D 3142
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5210 974 7200 2000 0.72 0.49 69.2 - 25.1 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5256 7008 0.75 62.3 28.1 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.8 30.2 28.3 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.3
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.2
Messages
Comments
3143
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:27:35 2046 Cum_NP_AM_WB.xuf 3144
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5599 7098 0.79 62.9 29.7 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5599 1876 7200 4000 0.78 0.47 62.2 55.5 30.0 31.8 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3619 4688 0.77 62.2 29.1 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4046 427 4800 1900 0.84 0.22 58.5 58.5 34.6 32.2 D 3145
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4298 229 4800 2000 0.90 0.11 57.0 57.0 37.7 34.0 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4312 4688 0.92 56.6 38.1 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.5 31.9 30.0 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.9
Messages
Comments
3146
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:29:47 2046 Cum_NP_PM_EB.xuf 3147
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4287 4716 1.09 36.8 58.2 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4242 516 4800 2000 1.07 0.26 34.9 59.6 60.8 44.7 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3636 4672 0.98 24.4 74.6 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 834 4800 2000 1.13 0.42 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 3148
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5125 655 7200 2000 0.85 0.33 65.1 - 26.2 - D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5125 7008 0.88 62.6 27.3 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 41.3 46.4 43.5 2.00 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 41.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 43.5
Average Travel Time, min 2.00 Density, pc/mi/ln 46.4
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3149
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:31:50 2046 Cum_NP_PM_WB.xuf 3150
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2163 7098 0.30 66.6 10.8 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2163 1233 7200 4000 0.30 0.31 61.9 57.4 11.6 15.5 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 898 4688 0.19 64.2 7.0 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1149 251 4800 1900 0.24 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.8 9.7 A 3151
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1263 99 4800 2000 0.26 0.05 66.1 66.1 9.6 10.4 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1269 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.4 9.7 9.1 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 9.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.7
Messages
Comments
3152
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:33:28 2046 Cum_WP_AM_EB.xuf 3153
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4255 925 4800 2000 0.89 0.46 58.3 58.3 36.5 37.1 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3274 4672 0.70 63.1 25.9 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4286 1012 4800 2000 0.89 0.51 56.5 56.5 37.9 35.2 E 3154
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5306 974 7200 2000 0.74 0.49 68.6 - 25.8 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5352 7008 0.76 62.0 28.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.5 30.7 28.8 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.7
Messages
Comments
3155
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:56:40 2046 Cum_WP_AM_WB.xuf 3156
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/26/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5709 7098 0.80 62.4 30.5 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5709 1942 7200 4000 0.79 0.49 61.9 55.3 30.7 32.6 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3660 4688 0.78 62.0 29.5 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4087 427 4800 1900 0.85 0.22 58.2 58.2 35.1 32.6 D 3157
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4339 229 4800 2000 0.90 0.11 56.6 56.6 38.3 34.3 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4353 4688 0.93 56.2 38.7 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.2 32.5 30.5 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.5
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.5
Messages
Comments
3158
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/26/2023 20:39:03 2046 Cum_WP_PM_EB.xuf 3159
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative Year (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Shepherd North Project Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4235 4716 1.09 35.4 59.8 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4186 516 4800 2000 1.07 0.26 33.5 59.6 62.5 44.7 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3575 4672 0.98 23.4 76.5 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 895 4800 2000 1.14 0.45 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.6 F 3160
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 5125 655 7200 2000 0.86 0.33 65.1 - 26.2 - D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5125 7008 0.89 62.6 27.3 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 40.4 47.1 44.2 2.10 F
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 40.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 44.2
Average Travel Time, min 2.10 Density, pc/mi/ln 47.1
Messages
WARNING 1 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary segment 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
3161
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 12:58:17 2046 Cum_WP_PM_WB.xuf 3162
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Appendix J
Water Supply
3163
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment
Tract 6205
Northwest Sphere of Influence Expansion Area
December 2022
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
3164
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\205 WSA\2022_1221 Tract 6205 WSA_Final_C.docx Report Prepared for:

Client Name
City of Clovis
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Contact:

Sean Smith
(559) 324-2363
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Brittney Darnell
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
3165
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iii Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment.............................................................1-1

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan ..........................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization...........................................................................................................1-2 2 Project Description............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting ....................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution ................................................................................................2-1 3 Water Demands ................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Demands......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development...........................................................3-2 4 Overview of Water Supplies..............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Surface Water ..........................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Kings River ...................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division.............................................4-2

4.1.3 Garfield Water District.................................................................................................4-2

4.1.4 International Water District ........................................................................................4-2

4.2 Supply from Storage.................................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................................4-4

4.4 Recycled Water........................................................................................................................4-4

4.5 Exchanges.................................................................................................................................4-5

4.6 Water Supply Summary ...........................................................................................................4-5 5 Normal Year Water Operations.........................................................................................................5-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies............................................................................6-1

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources......................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water ...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water............................................................................................6-1

6.1.3 Supply from Storage ....................................................................................................6-2

6.1.4 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................6-2

6.1.5 Recycled Water............................................................................................................6-2

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon.............................................6-3 3166
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iv

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon............6-3

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors.............................................................................................6-4 7 Operational Reliability.......................................................................................................................7-1 8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs...................................................................................8-1 9 References.........................................................................................................................................9-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Project Location ......................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2. Water Infrastructure at Buildout............................................................................................2-4 Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan in Project Area.................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4-1. Irrigation and Water Districts .................................................................................................4-3 List of Tables
Table 2-1. Existing Demand Estimates per Existing Use ...........................................................................2-1 Table 3-1. Proposed Demand Estimates...................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Proposed Demands in 5-Year Increments................................................................................3-2 Table 3-3. Planned Water Demands by Use Type.....................................................................................3-2 Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13)................................................4-5 Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands ...............................................................5-1 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4)............6-4 Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs.......................................8-2 3167
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 v
Abbreviations
AF ..................................................................................................................................................... acre-feet AFY .....................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year Boswell......................................................................................................................Boswell Banking Facility City ............................................................................................................................................. City of Clovis County......................................................................................................................................Fresno County CVP............................................................................................................................... Central Valley Project CWC............................................................................................................................. California Water Code FID ............................................................................................................................Fresno Irrigation District GP............................................................................................................................................... General Plan GWD............................................................................................................................Garfield Water District IWD .................................................................................................................... International Water District MGD............................................................................................................................million gallons per day MHDR........................................................................................................ Medium High Density Residential NKGSP .....................................................................................North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan SFR...........................................................................................................................Single-Family Residential SOI................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SWTP.......................................................................................City of Clovis Surface Water Treatment Plant UWMP....................................................................................City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan Waldron ..................................................................................................................Waldron Banking Facility WDF............................................................................................................................. water demand factors WMP ..............................................................................City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III WRF.......................................................................... City of Clovis Sewage Treatment/Water Reuse Facility WSA.......................................................................................................................Water Supply Assessment WSCP……………………………………………………………………………………………………Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3168
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-1 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment
California Water Code (CWC) §10912(a) requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) meeting the requirements of CWC §10910 et seq for projects within cities and counties that meet one of several water demand triggers, or the equivalent. These triggers include construction of 500 or more residential units, construction of a shopping center or business establishment having 500,000 square feet of floor space, construction of a commercial office building having more than 250,000 square feet, a proposed hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms, or another project having a water demand equivalent to or greater than the 500-unit development.

This WSA evaluates the adequacy of available water supplies for the proposed Tract 6205, including a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Expansion Area north of Shepherd Avenue, east of Sunnyside Avenue (Project), located in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California. The Project would entail the development of 605 single family residential lots, more than the “500 residential units” trigger; therefore, a WSA is required.

The City of Clovis operates the water system to which the Project proposes to connect. This water system meets the standards for a “Public Water System” as set forth in CWC §10912(c); the City is therefore responsible for preparation of the required WSA in accordance with CWC §10910(b).

This WSA discusses the estimated water demands and water supply for the proposed Project. The Project is located in Fresno County (County), adjacent to the City of Clovis (City) limits; the area will be annexed as part of the Project’s progress and the entire Project will be supplied water from the City.

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan
If the Project falls within the boundaries of a current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the water purveyor, CWC §10910(c)(1) requires that the WSA determine whether projected water demand associated with the Project is included as part of that duly adopted UWMP.

The 2020 Clovis UWMP covers the SOI for the City as well as an area north of Shepherd Avenue, bounded on the west and east by Sunnyside and Fowler Avenues, respectively, as it was understood the area may be annexed and the SOI boundary modified in near future. This Project lies within the area north of Shepherd, east of Sunnyside Avenue, and is therefore, part of the study area of the 2020 Clovis UWMP, which was adopted by the City of Clovis by resolution of the City Council on July 12, 2021 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2021). Thus, in accordance with the CWC, the preparers have relied on information from the UWMP wherever possible in preparing the various elements of this Assessment.
3169
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-2

1.3 Document Organization
This WSA is organized as follows:
• Section 2 describes the Project and its location.
• Section 3 describes the Project’s potable and non-potable water demands in addition to those of other existing and planned uses, and how these vary from the numbers used in the UWMP. • Section 4 provides an overview of the City’s primary water supplies. • Section 5 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during normal years. • Section 6 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years. • Section 7 discusses operational reliability on a daily basis. • Section 8 concludes whether supplies would be adequate during normal, dry-year, and multipledry years during a 20-year projection. • Section 9 lists references cited in this WSA.
3170
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Two: Project Description
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 2-1 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
The City limits currently encompasses 25.9 square miles. The City’s SOI covers 34.9 square miles, while the City’s General Plan (GP) encompasses approximately 74.3 square miles. The City’s General Plan (Placeworks, 2014) identified three Urban Centers to focus growth, including Loma Vista, the Northwest area, and the Northeast area; this Project lies within the Northwest area. Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the Project in relation to the surrounding Clovis/Fresno region.

The Project would entail development of 605 single-family residential lots on approximately 77.5 gross acres. The Project is a proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) development with associated neighborhood green space. The project site includes 77.5 gross acres bounded Shepherd Avenue to the south, Perrin Avenue to the north, and Sunnyside Avenue to the west. The project site encompasses three parcels: APNs 557-021-19 through 21. Located just outside the city limits and the SOI, the area north and east of the Project is primarily rural residential uses, the area directly west of the Project is planned for low and medium density residential and public/quasi-public facilities, and the area to the south is mainly rural residential with a small area of medium high density residential and neighborhood commercial just southeast of the Project.

The Project area is currently designated , in the Fresno County General Plan, as AL-20 and current land uses are rural residential and a pecan orchard. The existing estimated water demand for the Project area, in long-time use as a pecan orchard, is shown in Table 2-1 below, in acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre.

Table 2-1. Existing Demand Estimates per Existing Use
Existing Use Unit Demand
(AFY/acre)
Acreage
(acres)
Groundwater
Usage (AFY)
Deciduous Fruits and Nuts1 2.392 77.5 185.4
Rural Residential3 0.7 1.4 1.0
Totals: 78.9 186.4

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution
The Project will receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. Built in 2004, the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plan (SWTP) has a current treatment capacity of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD); expansion to 45 MGD is planned. 1 Consumptive use calculations are based on agronomic water rates published by the University of California Experiment Station. 2 Agronomic water rates include a rainfall component; this value has been reduced by 10.3 inches per year to reflect actual groundwater extracted for irrigation purposes.
3 Demand for Rural Residential based on WDFs in the WMP. 3171
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Two: Project Description
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 2-2 In addition to the supply from the SWTP, the City has more than 30 groundwater wells located throughout the City, with the nearest being approximately one mile south of the Project, at Sunnyside and Nees Avenues. While the City’s system is divided into two pressure zones, there are interconnections between the two to balance supply and demands throughout the year in various water demand scenarios.

Water will be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. The water distribution system is shown in full in the Water Master Plan Update, Phase III (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018), and in detail for this area on Figure 2-2. The master-planned infrastructure is being constructed via another project along Shepherd Avenue between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenue and along Sunnyside Avenue, north of Shepherd Avenue. The master-planned 16-inch distribution mains in Shepherd Avenue, west of Sunnyside Avenue and east of Fowler Avenue both exist, also. The master-planned infrastructure along Sunnyside Avenue, south of Shepherd Avenue has not yet been constructed. Connectivity in both directions along Shepherd Avenue and/or in Sunnyside Avenue are required to reliability supply water to the Project. 3172
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
?k
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
THIRD
SIERRA
FOWLER
LOCAN
NEES
TEAGUE
PERRIN
DEWOLF

SHEPHERD

DE WOLF
DAKOTA
ASHLAN
CLOVIS
SHAW

HERNDON

BULLARD
COPPER

LEONARD

BARSTOW

SHIELDS
MCCALL

HIGHLAND

SUNNYSIDE

ALLUVIAL

GETTYSBURG

ARMSTRONG

TEMPERANCE
0 0.5 1
Miles
Major Streets
Project Area
Clovis S.O.I.

City of Clovis
City of Fresno
6/23/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2-1: Project Location
Water Supply Assessment 3173
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3174
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-1 3 Water Demands
This section summarizes projected water demands of the Project, assuming full buildout by 2030. The area was not included in either the WMP; therefore, there are no “planned” demands to compare the “proposed” demand against. Proposed Project water demands have been estimated based on the proposed land uses and the WDFs shown in the adopted WMP. This section compares water demand estimates developed as part of this study with the City’s existing plans.

3.1 Project Demands
As the Project area was not included in either the WMP, it does not have a “planned” water demand.

The existing land use designation in the GP is Rural Residential (shown in Figure 3-1), with an associated Land Use-based Water Demand Factor (WDF) of 0.7 AFY/acre, which is significantly lower than the proposed WDF of 3.3 AFY/acre associated with MHDR. Based on the proposed land use designation, the proposed water demands for the Project area are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Proposed Demand Estimates
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Unit Factor
(AFY/acre) Acreage Demand (AFY)
Medium High Density Residential 3.3 77.5 255.8
Total: 77.5 255.8
While the proposed land uses are residential, the intensity of the residential development is greater than the GP land uses. At the same time, the area was not included in demand estimates in the WMP; therefore, the City must plan to obtain additional supplies to meet the proposed demands for the Project. The total proposed water demand amounts to approximately 1.6% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table ES-3 of the 2020 UWMP4. This indicates an ability of the City to serve this project in the interim while additional supplies are acquired to accommodate full build-out of the GP.

Additionally, as noted in Section 2, there is an existing water demand on the property, currently satisfied via a private agriculture groundwater well, associated with the Project area of 186.4 AFY; the proposed demand is 69.4 AFY more than the existing uses.
4 The excess supply in a normal year in 2030 is shown in the UWMP as 16,113 AFY; the proposed demand is 255.8 AFY, equating to 1.6% of the excess supply (255.8/16113 = 1.6%).
3175
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-2 The water usage projection for the Project was developed based on the Water Demand Factor in the WMP for the proposed Project land use. Project water demands were calculated in 5-year increments, as shown in Table 3-2. This table is based upon the understanding the Project will be entirely constructed by 20305.

Table 3-2. Proposed Demands in 5-Year Increments
Criteria 2025 2030 Total
Estimated Demand (AFY) 63.9 191.9 255.8

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development
The UWMP report the planned demands for similar types of uses proposed with this Project within the City, referred to collectively as Single-Family Residential uses (SFR). These demands are summarized in UWMP Table 4-5, which is reproduced, in part, below.

Table 3-3. Planned Water Demands by Use Type
Use Type
UWMP Projected
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
Projected Project
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
% Increase over
UWMP Projected
SFR Demands
Single Family Residential 18,558 255.8 1.4%
Totals 18,558 255.8 1.4%
Comparing the total proposed Project water demands in Table 3-1 with the total water demand area analyzed in the UWMP and shown in Table 3-3, the Project makes up a very small portion of the overall water anticipated to be delivered by the City to similar types of uses. 5 The anticipated demands timing is an estimate and development of the Project will be determined by the Project Applicant. This WSA does not govern the development timeline.
3176
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington Ave
Lester Ave
Serena Ave
Everglade Ave
Purdue Ave
Cole Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd
Clovis Ave
Stanford Ave
Teague Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Serena Ave
Baron Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Clovis City Limits
Clovis Sphere of Influence
City of Clovis General Plan
RR - Rural Residential
VL - Very Low Residential
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
MH - Medium High Density Residential
GC - General Commercial
P - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
PK - Park
W - Water
6/29/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 3-1: Land Use Plan in Project Area
Water Supply Assessment 3177
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-1 4 Overview of Water Supplies
CWC §10910(c)(2) allows reliance on the City’s UWMP to determine overall water supply reliability if the Project’s planned water demand was included in the UWMP. The Project demand was included in the City’s UWMP calculations and, while, the overall demand of this area was not included in the WMP, the calculations and analysis from the UWMP are utilized as a current baseline for the City’s supply and demand comparison. The Project’s demands are over and above the WMP demands, as discussed in Section 3 and later in this WSA. The overall additional demand is relatively small in comparison to the City’s total demands but will still require planning on the City’s part to account for it in the future buildout of the City’s GP. This WSA relies, in large part, on the UWMP. §10910(d) requires that a WSA identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, including any such existing entitlements, rights, or contracts held by the public water system or city or county preparing the WSA. These descriptions appear in detail in Chapter 6 of the UWMP and are summarized below.

4.1 Surface Water
The City’s surface water supply is provided through agreements with Fresno Irrigation District (FID), which allows the City to receive a share of FID’s Kings River and Friant Central Valley Project (CVP) entitlements. Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD) are located within the City’s General Plan boundaries. As the districts’ service areas are urbanized over time, surface supplies available to the two districts will be added to the City’s surface water supply. As those supplies are added to the City’s water supply portfolio, they will be available throughout the City’s service area as part of the general water supply. Currently, all surface water available to the City comes from the FID contract. The boundaries of each of the districts are shown on Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 Kings River
FID obtains much of its surface water from the Kings River. FID is a member of the Kings River Water Association, which holds water rights licenses for all the Kings River and storage rights licenses on Kings River reservoirs. FID is entitled to water based upon a prorated monthly schedule determined by the natural flow of the Kings River as it would occur without reservoir storage above the historic Piedra gauging station. FID is entitled to water from the Kings River at all flows, but the percentage is higher at relatively low Kings River flows. If the snowmelt is slow, the District receives a greater entitlement. FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 acre-feet (AF). Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015.

The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water; the total amounts available to the City are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.
3178
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-2

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division The water obtained from the CVP comes from the diversion and storage of water from the San Joaquin River behind Friant Dam. The total available water on the San Joaquin River has been estimated at 2,200,000 AF. Of that, 800,000 AF have been designated as Class I supply (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005).

Class I supply is considered to be dependable in most years with shortages only in very dry years. Class II water is in excess of Class I and is therefore much less dependable. FID has a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for 75,000 AF of Class II water from this source (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The agreement between the City and FID requires the District to make available to the City the proportional share of all surface water available to the District although it does not allow the City to directly receive FID’s CVP supplies. Therefore, FID is required to make a like amount of Kings River (or any other surface) water available to the City for its proportional share of Class II CVP supplies. FID’s Class II contract has received an average 13,577 AFY with the actual number ranging from zero to the full 75,000 AF depending upon the nature of each water year over that period. Table 4-1 lists the projected surface water volume through 2040.

4.1.3 Garfield Water District
GWD is located north of the City with a portion of the district in the City’s SOI. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2025, with the total 1,750 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.1.4 International Water District
IWD is located east of the City’s SOI within the general plan’s boundary. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s supply. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2030, with the total 1,200 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.2 Supply from Storage
Since 2004, the City has been storing water in the aquifer to create a stable source of supply over the years. The City has been working with FID to recharge surface water, using the City’s contracted shares of capacity in FID’s Waldron Banking Facility and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility, to build up credit in those facilities which allows for annual water withdrawals, on an as-needed or as-requested basis. The surface water banked includes portions of FID’s Kings and CVP supplies and may in the future also include other surface water supplies that FID is able to secure on the spot market. Recharged water is purchased under separate agreements with FID and is not included in the surface water totals in the previous section, so this is truly a separate and additional water supply. This process is fully explained in the UWMP.
3179
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
0 2 4
Miles
Project Area
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
General Plan Boundary
Garfield Water District
International Water District
Fresno Irrigation District
6/23/2022 \\ppeng.c
o
om\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx Prepared By Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of
Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin,

USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
Figure 4-1: Irrigation and Water Districts
Water Supply Assessment
3180
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-4 Two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facility (Waldron) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (Boswell), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City and FID have entered into a similar agreement regarding the Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility whereby the City will have access up to 4,500 AFY of additional surface water supplies.

The recharged water will be “banked” for future recovery during dry periods or to accommodate planned growth.

The City has created a recharge plan accounting for historic variations in surface water supplies that will allow it to withdraw an annual 13,500 AF, the maximum withdrawal allowed under the City’s agreements with FID. This is considered a firm supply. The 13,500 AF maximum annual withdrawal is built into the water supply projections in the UWMP for each year over the planning horizon.

4.3 Groundwater
The City is located within the Kings Groundwater sub-basin, a part of the Tulare Lake Hydrogeologic Basin as described in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources, 2003). The groundwater basin is in overdraft and has been for many years. However, it has not been adjudicated.

Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses a sustainable groundwater yield for the service area and concludes the sustainable yield to be 9,400 AFY, as discussed in greater detail in the WMP. While the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) has been written and adopted, it does not yet include a firmer approximation of sustainable yield, although development of one is anticipated. The sustainable yield from the UWMP and WMP has been used for this assessment.

4.4 Recycled Water
Most of the City’s wastewater flow is treated at the Regional Water Reclamation Facility, located southwest of the City of Fresno on Jensen Avenue. In 2009, the City of Clovis completed a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). In 2020, the WRF produced approximately 2,496 AFY. Of that total, 28 percent was recycled for mostly landscape and agricultural irrigation, with the remainder being discharged to FID’s Fancher Creek for agricultural irrigation.

Ultimately the WRF will be expanded to be able to treat 8.4 MGD, or 9,400 AF per year, and will make a substantial contribution to the City’s overall water resources. According to the 2020 UWMP, recycled water is used for irrigation of public and private landscape within the service area. Areas receiving or planned to receive recycled water include the Freeway 168 corridor between Shepherd and Sierra Avenues, the existing Clovis Community Medical Center campus, and multiple City parks and landscape areas.

Landscape irrigation will continue to be the main use of recycled water in the future. All public landscape areas within three-quarters of a mile of the distribution system are considered potential recycled water use areas. Clovis Unified School District is evaluating the use of recycled water for its 3181
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-5 landscape areas. Caltrans has expanded their use of recycled water along State Route 168 from Armstrong Avenue west to Sierra Avenue. Concurrent with the Project’s development, the City will expand its use of recycled water and broaden its range of beneficial uses to potentially include irrigating the public landscape space to be developed with the Project.

To affect that increase in use, the City now requires all new development of public landscape near recycled water transmission lines to use recycled water. Additional actions include extending the recycled water distribution system to discharge at groundwater recharge facilities and reducing the cost of recycled water. The UWMP indicates planned use of recycled water supply will be 9,400 AFY by 2040 (UWMP Table 6-13). With a planned6recycled water transmission main in Shepherd Avenue, it is possible this Project may use recycled water for landscape irrigation, but the City will make final determination of that at a later date.

4.5 Exchanges
Water exchanges, transfers, and water banking allow purveyors to manage demand and supply variability by ensuring water will be available for the near future. The majority of the City’s wastewater is treated at the RWRF. Under an agreement with FID, the City of Fresno receives 0.92 AF of Kings River surface water in exchange for each two AF of reclaimed water produced by the RWRF (46 percent exchange). Clovis is in discussions with the City of Fresno and FID on documenting its pro-rata share of RWRF effluent and the most efficient recover and beneficial use of that effluent. This will require a new effluent exchange agreement with FID, and potentially the City Fresno, to appropriately allocate Clovis’ pro-rata share of the treated water. This water is limited by agreement to being used for groundwater recharge activities.

4.6 Water Supply Summary
The five sources discussed above make up the City’s water resources. These are tabulated overall for 2025 and for each subsequent 5-year period through 2040 in Table 4-1.

The City’s overall water resources are projected to increase from 50,739 AF per year in 2025 to 74,650 AF per year in 2040. Nearly all this increase will come from increasing surface water resources from 18,039 AF per year in 2020 to 39,400 AF per year in 2040. The mix of water supplies the City plans to use to meet these demands is changing over time and, while the surface water supplies will be the primary source, a mixture of groundwater and supply from storage will be used to meet demands.

Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13) Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater [1] 11,429 10,753 10,076 9,400
Surface Water [2] 22,160 27,584 32,508 39,400
6 As noted in the City’s 2018 Recycled Water Master Plan 3182
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-6 Supply from Storage
(Waldron and Boswell facilities) 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 Recycled Water 3,100 5,500 6,300 9,400
Transfers (GWD and IWD) 550 1,600 2,650 2,950
Total 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Notes:
[1] Reasonably available volume shows a steady reduction in reliance on groundwater supply, as planned, to the sustainable yield volume in 2040; discussed in greater detail in the UWMP. [2] Surface water quantities shown in greater detail in the UWMP. 3183
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Five: Normal Year Water Operations
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 5-1 5 Normal Year Water Operations
This section evaluates the ability of the City to meet the overall water demands during normal water years. A normal year is a year, or averaged range of years, that most closely represents the average water supply available to the City. In this case, the normal year reflects the overall water supply summary discussed in Section 4.

This Chapter relies on information taken from Sections 6 and 7 of the UWMP. Table 5-1 compares the City’s water demands and compares them with the normal year water supplies (see Table 4-1) for the 5- year increments the Project is anticipated to be constructed, and through 2040, as shown in the UWMP.

As shown, total supplies would exceed total demands. Adequate supplies are available to serve the City and its water customers in normal rainfall years such as those discussed in this section. The excess water supply is more than adequate to meet the estimated Project water demands.

Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands Condition
Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Excess/Shortage 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052
3184
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water
Supplies
This section evaluates the availability of City water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry water years, based on Project buildout in 2030. Numerous factors will work to change the relative quantities of water the City receives from its several water sources. Since each of these has a different reliability in dry years, the overall water supply reliability will change over time. The following sections discuss how this will occur.

During a single-dry year, surface water allotments are anticipated to be reduced by as much as 66 percent for Kings River surface water supplies, and CVP Class II supplies are eliminated completely in dry years. In the future, as the City becomes more reliant on surface water supplies, the impact of surface water reductions in dry years will be more significant.

A multiple-dry year period represents the lowest average supply available to the Project for a consecutive five-year period. This analysis is referred to as a “multi-dry” condition in the UWMP. The WSA analysis is based on the five consecutive driest years of record for the Project’s surface water supplies, which were water years 2011/12 through 2015/16.

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water
Both the single-dry and multiple-dry analyses are most affected by the variations in Kings River entitlement in dry years. FID’s entitlement does not vary directly in proportion to overall annual runoff; rather it favors FID versus all the other Kings River diverters. When river flows are low due to slow runoff, low annual precipitation or both, FID’s share of the daily river flow increases.

The effect of this is that FID’s entitlement, as a percentage of its average entitlement, is higher than the overall water year percentage flow, for virtually any below-average water year. As noted in the UWMP, the anticipated share of Kings River water is shown as 32,100 AFY (UWMP Table 6-4) in 2040 for an average water year. As discussed in the UWMP, the City has recently executed a contract with FID for development of a new firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter. This new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply based on water year type.

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water
Over the period of 1986 through 2016, the average Class II allocation has been 38 percent of contracted amount. However, Class II supplies are particularly subject to the water year type. However, these supplies are relatively small and would not have significant impact on the total supply. 3185
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-2 While Class I entitlements do not currently affect the City’s FID supplies, they will affect the future-year GWD and IWD entitlements. Class I allocations in the five multiple-dry years were 0 percent of the contracted amount for all five years.

6.1.3 Supply from Storage
The contract for the Waldron facility allows annual withdrawals of up to approximately 9,000 AFY, while the Boswell Facility allows up 4,500 AFY. According to the UWMP, the combined withdrawal limit from the two facilities is 13,500 AFY. In any year where surface water deliveries are substantially limited, the City would want to use these resources to the limit.

A related matter is how contributions are made to supply storage. Whereas in normal years the City is making deposits to both facilities, in a drier year those contributions would be reduced or halted since the surface supplies necessary for the deposits would not be available. Since the deposits come from surface water resources not counted in the City’s water balance, being acquired under separate FID agreements, the curtailment of deposits does not reduce the City’s water demand.

6.1.4 Groundwater
As of the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, the City of Clovis obtains groundwater from more than 30 wells, located throughout the service area. The total well production is estimated at 37,290 gallons per minute.

According to the UWMP, the City aims to reduce its direct groundwater consumption whenever possible. Most the City’s water demands will be met by a combination of surface water and supplies from storage, in water years when those two resources are sufficient to meet demands. In drier years, when surface water supplies are limited, the City will pump groundwater, potentially beyond the 9,400 AFY accounted for in a normal year, to make up the shortfall but not to an unsustainable level as discussed in the NKGSP. The City will also recharge surface waters when available to allow for additional groundwater pumping when needed.

Planning to make that objective possible is very important, as Chapter 6 of the UWMP states that the sustainable groundwater supply in the City service area is 9,400 AF per year, for normal, dry, and multidry years. For the time being, there is no restriction against pumping groundwater above the sustainable aquifer yield; however, the NKGSP indicates the City must sustainably use groundwater.

This WSA uses 9,400 AF per year as the sustainable groundwater pumping amount, as stated in the UWMP. Due to the very large size of the aquifer underlying the City, available groundwater is not quickly affected by the type of water year. Anticipating a mix of wet and dry years similar to what has been historically seen, this WSA does not reduce available groundwater in dry or multiple-dry years; however, the City will be prioritizing use of other supplies over groundwater when possible.

6.1.5 Recycled Water
Recycled water production, being tied directly to indoor water use, does not vary significantly with the water year type, and is not adjusted from normal for this analysis. 3186
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-3

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
In 2020, surface water made up 58 percent of the City’s direct water supply. In 2030, the surface water supply is planned to be 53 percent of the total while the supply from storage will have increased to 18 percent in a normal year. Groundwater will remain an important component of the water supply in the near future.

This means the City’s reliance on surface water supplies, either directly used or pumped from subsurface storage, will have increased to 71 percent of the total. While there is a margin of normal year supply available over planned demand over the entire planning horizon, some provision may have to be made for additional reliable storage to account for such a large portion of surface water being subject to water year variability. See the reliability analysis in Section 6.3 following.

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
Supply for dry years would be drawn from a combination of Kings River surface water, supply from storage, groundwater, and recycled water. As shown in the UWMP, it is anticipated that surface water supplies from the FID Firm Water Agreement would still be available during drought years. Other firm water supply sources are groundwater, banked water, and recycled water, all of which are considered resilient against drought compared to surface water supplies. Groundwater banking activities would decrease to accommodate the decreased surface water supplies while still being able to use previously banked groundwater supplies from the Waldron and Boswell facilities. Project demand was assumed to be constant across all water years.

The supplies that would be available during single-dry and multiple-dry years in 2030 (at assumed Project buildout) are summarized in Table 6-1. As shown, adequate supplies would be available to supply the City and along with the estimated Project demand of 255.8 AFY, under all studied conditions.

Further, the total demand associated with the Project (255.8 AFY), accounts for 33.5% of the excess supply without conservation and 4.1% of excess supply with conservation in the most critical year analyzed – the Single Dry Year, while the difference between existing uses and proposed land use (69.4 AFY) accounts for 9.1% and 1.1% of the same year, respectively. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2021) in place that could be partially or fully implemented if needed or mandated. The ‘demand with conservation’ values are reduced to reflect implementation of various stages of the WSCP, as discussed in the UWMP. 3187
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-4 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4) Scenario Single-Dry
Year [1]
Multiple-Dry Year [2]
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Baseline demand 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 Demand with Conservation as
shown in UWMP 37,359 39,422 36,962 33,969 30,474 40,757 Total Supply 43,587 54,607 52,576 48,310 43,586 57,992
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 762 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Note: Refer to the 2020 UWMP for details on how these values were calculated.

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors
This WSA defers to the UWMP for consideration of the overall effects of climate change upon supply reliability. Climate change has been considered in the preparation of the UWMP. 3188
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Seven: Operational Reliability
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 7-1 7 Operational Reliability
The City’s surface water entitlement does not accrue all at once during a given water year. Rather, the Kings River entitlement accrues daily throughout the year based on actual river runoff and the Kings River Water Association entitlement schedule. The daily nature of the Kings River supply is especially important early in the water year, which begins October 1. The very low river flows in October and November mean that supply is low, and the City must rely on other water supplies during those months.

The relatively large supplies available from storage help mitigate the seasonal nature of the surface water supply, and these are further backed up by groundwater supplies equivalent to almost half the City’s total annual demand.

The City has not had any issue with temporary water shortages to date. The City’s WMP and UWMP indicates a need to increase their surface water and groundwater supplies to meet future demands and provides detail on how much of each supply is needed compared to the existing supplies. The WMP also includes a Capital Improvements Program identifying capital projects that are necessary to acquire and facilitate the movement of current and future water supplies throughout the City’s system in a reliable manner. The City’s adherence to their planning documents and consistent development of these water supplies and infrastructure is critical for the City’s continued growth and development and will provide operational reliability into the future.
3189
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-1 8 Conclusions
As summarized in Table 8-1, the City has adequate supplies to meet the needs of all the City’s water customers including the Project, in normal water years, over the 20-year planning horizon. However, the water supply used for this Project will need to be replaced to support full buildout of the GP.

In the buildout year, if demand is as projected, the City will have sufficient water to meet dry year demands all dry year event types. Conservation measures, detailed in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been developed that would mitigate possible shortfalls by reducing demand approximately 15 percent. Evidence from the 2013 to 2015 drought suggests that those results, and more, are achievable. Additionally, as the City has surplus water supplies in normal years, short-term additional groundwater extraction in the single-dry and multiple-dry years is also planned as part of their water portfolio.

As discussed in Section 7, the City has plans to continue to acquire water supplies and construct infrastructure to supply current and future water users. Therefore, we conclude the City of Clovis has adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the City in normal, dry, and multi-dry years given the previously discussed potential demand reductions and supply augmentations.

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs
Since the 2020 UWMP was adopted, three WSAs have been prepared for the City, including this one. It is important to understand the cumulative impact of the additional demands associated with WSAs over and beyond the demands analyzed in the 2020 UWMP.

The demands in Table 8-1 include those demands noted in the UWMP and Table 6-1 above, and the demands associated with the Project evaluated in this WSA, as discussed in Section 2.2. Similarly, the noted Excess/Deficit reflects the difference between these summated demands and the total supply noted in the UWMP and in Table 5-1, above. This approach accounts for the additional demands associated with the proposed land use type above the demands associated with the originally planned land use type. There is still an excess of supply in all conditions, even with the additional demand.

As noted above, additional groundwater supplies may not be necessary in the critical year or multiple year drought depending on operational decisions regarding conservation; however, the City’s UWMP notes additional groundwater supplies would be available on a short-term basis during a drought condition.
3190
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-2 Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs 2020 UWMP Supply and Demand Comparison Results Normal Year (2030)
Single-Dry
Year
Multiple-Dry Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 16,113 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 763 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with Conservation -- 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Additional Demands Associated with WSAs prepared since 2020 UWMP Home Place Master Plan (Approved March 2021) No Additional Demand Associated with WSA Tract 6205, SOI Expansion (Estimated Approval December 2022) 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 Tract 6343 (Approved December 2022) 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply including Additional Demands from Approved WSAs 15,779 429 11,449 9,418 5,152 428 14,834 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with Conservation including
Additional Demands Approved WSAs [1] -- 5,944 14,901 15,330 14,057 12,827 16,951 Notes:
[1] Calculation includes a reduction in the Additional Demands from Additional WSAs of 15 percent, as discussed above. 3191
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Nine: References
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 9-1 9 References
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Clovis.

Placeworks. (2014). General Plan, City of Clovis. Clovis.

Department of Water Resources. (2003). Bulletin 118 - California's Groundwater. Sacramento.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Clovis.
3192
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment
Tract 6205
Northwest Sphere of Influence Expansion Area
December 2022
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
3193
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\205 WSA\2022_1221 Tract 6205 WSA_Final_C.docx Report Prepared for:

Client Name
City of Clovis
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Contact:

Sean Smith
(559) 324-2363
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Brittney Darnell
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
3194
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iii Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment.............................................................1-1

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan ..........................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization...........................................................................................................1-2 2 Project Description............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting ....................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution ................................................................................................2-1 3 Water Demands ................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Demands......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development...........................................................3-2 4 Overview of Water Supplies..............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Surface Water ..........................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Kings River ...................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division.............................................4-2

4.1.3 Garfield Water District.................................................................................................4-2

4.1.4 International Water District ........................................................................................4-2

4.2 Supply from Storage.................................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................................4-4

4.4 Recycled Water........................................................................................................................4-4

4.5 Exchanges.................................................................................................................................4-5

4.6 Water Supply Summary ...........................................................................................................4-5 5 Normal Year Water Operations.........................................................................................................5-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies............................................................................6-1

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources......................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water ...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water............................................................................................6-1

6.1.3 Supply from Storage ....................................................................................................6-2

6.1.4 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................6-2

6.1.5 Recycled Water............................................................................................................6-2

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon.............................................6-3 3195
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iv

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon............6-3

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors.............................................................................................6-4 7 Operational Reliability.......................................................................................................................7-1 8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs...................................................................................8-1 9 References.........................................................................................................................................9-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Project Location ......................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2. Water Infrastructure at Buildout............................................................................................2-4 Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan in Project Area.................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4-1. Irrigation and Water Districts .................................................................................................4-3 List of Tables
Table 2-1. Existing Demand Estimates per Existing Use ...........................................................................2-1 Table 3-1. Proposed Demand Estimates...................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Proposed Demands in 5-Year Increments................................................................................3-2 Table 3-3. Planned Water Demands by Use Type.....................................................................................3-2 Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13)................................................4-5 Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands ...............................................................5-1 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4)............6-4 Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs.......................................8-2 3196
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 v
Abbreviations
AF ..................................................................................................................................................... acre-feet AFY .....................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year Boswell......................................................................................................................Boswell Banking Facility City ............................................................................................................................................. City of Clovis County......................................................................................................................................Fresno County CVP............................................................................................................................... Central Valley Project CWC............................................................................................................................. California Water Code FID ............................................................................................................................Fresno Irrigation District GP............................................................................................................................................... General Plan GWD............................................................................................................................Garfield Water District IWD .................................................................................................................... International Water District MGD............................................................................................................................million gallons per day MHDR........................................................................................................ Medium High Density Residential NKGSP .....................................................................................North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan SFR...........................................................................................................................Single-Family Residential SOI................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SWTP.......................................................................................City of Clovis Surface Water Treatment Plant UWMP....................................................................................City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan Waldron ..................................................................................................................Waldron Banking Facility WDF............................................................................................................................. water demand factors WMP ..............................................................................City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III WRF.......................................................................... City of Clovis Sewage Treatment/Water Reuse Facility WSA.......................................................................................................................Water Supply Assessment WSCP……………………………………………………………………………………………………Water Shortage Contingency Plan 3197
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-1 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment
California Water Code (CWC) §10912(a) requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) meeting the requirements of CWC §10910 et seq for projects within cities and counties that meet one of several water demand triggers, or the equivalent. These triggers include construction of 500 or more residential units, construction of a shopping center or business establishment having 500,000 square feet of floor space, construction of a commercial office building having more than 250,000 square feet, a proposed hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms, or another project having a water demand equivalent to or greater than the 500-unit development.

This WSA evaluates the adequacy of available water supplies for the proposed Tract 6205, including a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Expansion Area north of Shepherd Avenue, east of Sunnyside Avenue (Project), located in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California. The Project would entail the development of 605 single family residential lots, more than the “500 residential units” trigger; therefore, a WSA is required.

The City of Clovis operates the water system to which the Project proposes to connect. This water system meets the standards for a “Public Water System” as set forth in CWC §10912(c); the City is therefore responsible for preparation of the required WSA in accordance with CWC §10910(b).

This WSA discusses the estimated water demands and water supply for the proposed Project. The Project is located in Fresno County (County), adjacent to the City of Clovis (City) limits; the area will be annexed as part of the Project’s progress and the entire Project will be supplied water from the City.

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan
If the Project falls within the boundaries of a current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the water purveyor, CWC §10910(c)(1) requires that the WSA determine whether projected water demand associated with the Project is included as part of that duly adopted UWMP.

The 2020 Clovis UWMP covers the SOI for the City as well as an area north of Shepherd Avenue, bounded on the west and east by Sunnyside and Fowler Avenues, respectively, as it was understood the area may be annexed and the SOI boundary modified in near future. This Project lies within the area north of Shepherd, east of Sunnyside Avenue, and is therefore, part of the study area of the 2020 Clovis UWMP, which was adopted by the City of Clovis by resolution of the City Council on July 12, 2021 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2021). Thus, in accordance with the CWC, the preparers have relied on information from the UWMP wherever possible in preparing the various elements of this Assessment.
3198
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-2

1.3 Document Organization
This WSA is organized as follows:
• Section 2 describes the Project and its location.
• Section 3 describes the Project’s potable and non-potable water demands in addition to those of other existing and planned uses, and how these vary from the numbers used in the UWMP. • Section 4 provides an overview of the City’s primary water supplies. • Section 5 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during normal years. • Section 6 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years. • Section 7 discusses operational reliability on a daily basis. • Section 8 concludes whether supplies would be adequate during normal, dry-year, and multipledry years during a 20-year projection. • Section 9 lists references cited in this WSA.
3199
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Two: Project Description
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 2-1 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
The City limits currently encompasses 25.9 square miles. The City’s SOI covers 34.9 square miles, while the City’s General Plan (GP) encompasses approximately 74.3 square miles. The City’s General Plan (Placeworks, 2014) identified three Urban Centers to focus growth, including Loma Vista, the Northwest area, and the Northeast area; this Project lies within the Northwest area. Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the Project in relation to the surrounding Clovis/Fresno region.

The Project would entail development of 605 single-family residential lots on approximately 77.5 gross acres. The Project is a proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) development with associated neighborhood green space. The project site includes 77.5 gross acres bounded Shepherd Avenue to the south, Perrin Avenue to the north, and Sunnyside Avenue to the west. The project site encompasses three parcels: APNs 557-021-19 through 21. Located just outside the city limits and the SOI, the area north and east of the Project is primarily rural residential uses, the area directly west of the Project is planned for low and medium density residential and public/quasi-public facilities, and the area to the south is mainly rural residential with a small area of medium high density residential and neighborhood commercial just southeast of the Project.

The Project area is currently designated , in the Fresno County General Plan, as AL-20 and current land uses are rural residential and a pecan orchard. The existing estimated water demand for the Project area, in long-time use as a pecan orchard, is shown in Table 2-1 below, in acre-feet per year (AFY) per acre.

Table 2-1. Existing Demand Estimates per Existing Use
Existing Use Unit Demand
(AFY/acre)
Acreage
(acres)
Groundwater
Usage (AFY)
Deciduous Fruits and Nuts1 2.392 77.5 185.4
Rural Residential3 0.7 1.4 1.0
Totals: 78.9 186.4

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution
The Project will receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. Built in 2004, the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plan (SWTP) has a current treatment capacity of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD); expansion to 45 MGD is planned. 1 Consumptive use calculations are based on agronomic water rates published by the University of California Experiment Station. 2 Agronomic water rates include a rainfall component; this value has been reduced by 10.3 inches per year to reflect actual groundwater extracted for irrigation purposes.
3 Demand for Rural Residential based on WDFs in the WMP. 3200
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Two: Project Description
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 2-2 In addition to the supply from the SWTP, the City has more than 30 groundwater wells located throughout the City, with the nearest being approximately one mile south of the Project, at Sunnyside and Nees Avenues. While the City’s system is divided into two pressure zones, there are interconnections between the two to balance supply and demands throughout the year in various water demand scenarios.

Water will be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. The water distribution system is shown in full in the Water Master Plan Update, Phase III (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018), and in detail for this area on Figure 2-2. The master-planned infrastructure is being constructed via another project along Shepherd Avenue between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenue and along Sunnyside Avenue, north of Shepherd Avenue. The master-planned 16-inch distribution mains in Shepherd Avenue, west of Sunnyside Avenue and east of Fowler Avenue both exist, also. The master-planned infrastructure along Sunnyside Avenue, south of Shepherd Avenue has not yet been constructed. Connectivity in both directions along Shepherd Avenue and/or in Sunnyside Avenue are required to reliability supply water to the Project. 3201
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
?k
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
THIRD
SIERRA
FOWLER
LOCAN
NEES
TEAGUE
PERRIN
DEWOLF

SHEPHERD

DE WOLF
DAKOTA
ASHLAN
CLOVIS
SHAW

HERNDON

BULLARD
COPPER

LEONARD

BARSTOW

SHIELDS
MCCALL

HIGHLAND

SUNNYSIDE

ALLUVIAL

GETTYSBURG

ARMSTRONG

TEMPERANCE
0 0.5 1
Miles
Major Streets
Project Area
Clovis S.O.I.

City of Clovis
City of Fresno
6/23/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2-1: Project Location
Water Supply Assessment 3202
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3203
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-1 3 Water Demands
This section summarizes projected water demands of the Project, assuming full buildout by 2030. The area was not included in either the WMP; therefore, there are no “planned” demands to compare the “proposed” demand against. Proposed Project water demands have been estimated based on the proposed land uses and the WDFs shown in the adopted WMP. This section compares water demand estimates developed as part of this study with the City’s existing plans.

3.1 Project Demands
As the Project area was not included in either the WMP, it does not have a “planned” water demand.

The existing land use designation in the GP is Rural Residential (shown in Figure 3-1), with an associated Land Use-based Water Demand Factor (WDF) of 0.7 AFY/acre, which is significantly lower than the proposed WDF of 3.3 AFY/acre associated with MHDR. Based on the proposed land use designation, the proposed water demands for the Project area are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Proposed Demand Estimates
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Unit Factor
(AFY/acre) Acreage Demand (AFY)
Medium High Density Residential 3.3 77.5 255.8
Total: 77.5 255.8
While the proposed land uses are residential, the intensity of the residential development is greater than the GP land uses. At the same time, the area was not included in demand estimates in the WMP; therefore, the City must plan to obtain additional supplies to meet the proposed demands for the Project. The total proposed water demand amounts to approximately 1.6% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table ES-3 of the 2020 UWMP4. This indicates an ability of the City to serve this project in the interim while additional supplies are acquired to accommodate full build-out of the GP.

Additionally, as noted in Section 2, there is an existing water demand on the property, currently satisfied via a private agriculture groundwater well, associated with the Project area of 186.4 AFY; the proposed demand is 69.4 AFY more than the existing uses.
4 The excess supply in a normal year in 2030 is shown in the UWMP as 16,113 AFY; the proposed demand is 255.8 AFY, equating to 1.6% of the excess supply (255.8/16113 = 1.6%).
3204
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-2 The water usage projection for the Project was developed based on the Water Demand Factor in the WMP for the proposed Project land use. Project water demands were calculated in 5-year increments, as shown in Table 3-2. This table is based upon the understanding the Project will be entirely constructed by 20305.

Table 3-2. Proposed Demands in 5-Year Increments
Criteria 2025 2030 Total
Estimated Demand (AFY) 63.9 191.9 255.8

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development
The UWMP report the planned demands for similar types of uses proposed with this Project within the City, referred to collectively as Single-Family Residential uses (SFR). These demands are summarized in UWMP Table 4-5, which is reproduced, in part, below.

Table 3-3. Planned Water Demands by Use Type
Use Type
UWMP Projected
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
Projected Project
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
% Increase over
UWMP Projected
SFR Demands
Single Family Residential 18,558 255.8 1.4%
Totals 18,558 255.8 1.4%
Comparing the total proposed Project water demands in Table 3-1 with the total water demand area analyzed in the UWMP and shown in Table 3-3, the Project makes up a very small portion of the overall water anticipated to be delivered by the City to similar types of uses. 5 The anticipated demands timing is an estimate and development of the Project will be determined by the Project Applicant. This WSA does not govern the development timeline.
3205
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington Ave
Lester Ave
Serena Ave
Everglade Ave
Purdue Ave
Cole Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd
Clovis Ave
Stanford Ave
Teague Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Serena Ave
Baron Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Clovis City Limits
Clovis Sphere of Influence
City of Clovis General Plan
RR - Rural Residential
VL - Very Low Residential
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
MH - Medium High Density Residential
GC - General Commercial
P - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
PK - Park
W - Water
6/29/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 3-1: Land Use Plan in Project Area
Water Supply Assessment 3206
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-1 4 Overview of Water Supplies
CWC §10910(c)(2) allows reliance on the City’s UWMP to determine overall water supply reliability if the Project’s planned water demand was included in the UWMP. The Project demand was included in the City’s UWMP calculations and, while, the overall demand of this area was not included in the WMP, the calculations and analysis from the UWMP are utilized as a current baseline for the City’s supply and demand comparison. The Project’s demands are over and above the WMP demands, as discussed in Section 3 and later in this WSA. The overall additional demand is relatively small in comparison to the City’s total demands but will still require planning on the City’s part to account for it in the future buildout of the City’s GP. This WSA relies, in large part, on the UWMP. §10910(d) requires that a WSA identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, including any such existing entitlements, rights, or contracts held by the public water system or city or county preparing the WSA. These descriptions appear in detail in Chapter 6 of the UWMP and are summarized below.

4.1 Surface Water
The City’s surface water supply is provided through agreements with Fresno Irrigation District (FID), which allows the City to receive a share of FID’s Kings River and Friant Central Valley Project (CVP) entitlements. Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD) are located within the City’s General Plan boundaries. As the districts’ service areas are urbanized over time, surface supplies available to the two districts will be added to the City’s surface water supply. As those supplies are added to the City’s water supply portfolio, they will be available throughout the City’s service area as part of the general water supply. Currently, all surface water available to the City comes from the FID contract. The boundaries of each of the districts are shown on Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 Kings River
FID obtains much of its surface water from the Kings River. FID is a member of the Kings River Water Association, which holds water rights licenses for all the Kings River and storage rights licenses on Kings River reservoirs. FID is entitled to water based upon a prorated monthly schedule determined by the natural flow of the Kings River as it would occur without reservoir storage above the historic Piedra gauging station. FID is entitled to water from the Kings River at all flows, but the percentage is higher at relatively low Kings River flows. If the snowmelt is slow, the District receives a greater entitlement. FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 acre-feet (AF). Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015.

The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water; the total amounts available to the City are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.
3207
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-2

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division The water obtained from the CVP comes from the diversion and storage of water from the San Joaquin River behind Friant Dam. The total available water on the San Joaquin River has been estimated at 2,200,000 AF. Of that, 800,000 AF have been designated as Class I supply (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005).

Class I supply is considered to be dependable in most years with shortages only in very dry years. Class II water is in excess of Class I and is therefore much less dependable. FID has a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for 75,000 AF of Class II water from this source (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The agreement between the City and FID requires the District to make available to the City the proportional share of all surface water available to the District although it does not allow the City to directly receive FID’s CVP supplies. Therefore, FID is required to make a like amount of Kings River (or any other surface) water available to the City for its proportional share of Class II CVP supplies. FID’s Class II contract has received an average 13,577 AFY with the actual number ranging from zero to the full 75,000 AF depending upon the nature of each water year over that period. Table 4-1 lists the projected surface water volume through 2040.

4.1.3 Garfield Water District
GWD is located north of the City with a portion of the district in the City’s SOI. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2025, with the total 1,750 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.1.4 International Water District
IWD is located east of the City’s SOI within the general plan’s boundary. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s supply. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2030, with the total 1,200 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.2 Supply from Storage
Since 2004, the City has been storing water in the aquifer to create a stable source of supply over the years. The City has been working with FID to recharge surface water, using the City’s contracted shares of capacity in FID’s Waldron Banking Facility and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility, to build up credit in those facilities which allows for annual water withdrawals, on an as-needed or as-requested basis. The surface water banked includes portions of FID’s Kings and CVP supplies and may in the future also include other surface water supplies that FID is able to secure on the spot market. Recharged water is purchased under separate agreements with FID and is not included in the surface water totals in the previous section, so this is truly a separate and additional water supply. This process is fully explained in the UWMP.
3208
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
0 2 4
Miles
Project Area
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
General Plan Boundary
Garfield Water District
International Water District
Fresno Irrigation District
6/23/2022 \\ppeng.c
o
om\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion\400 GIS\Map\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area\WSA_NE _Expansion_Area.aprx Prepared By Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of
Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin,

USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
Figure 4-1: Irrigation and Water Districts
Water Supply Assessment
3209
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-4 Two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facility (Waldron) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (Boswell), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City and FID have entered into a similar agreement regarding the Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility whereby the City will have access up to 4,500 AFY of additional surface water supplies.

The recharged water will be “banked” for future recovery during dry periods or to accommodate planned growth.

The City has created a recharge plan accounting for historic variations in surface water supplies that will allow it to withdraw an annual 13,500 AF, the maximum withdrawal allowed under the City’s agreements with FID. This is considered a firm supply. The 13,500 AF maximum annual withdrawal is built into the water supply projections in the UWMP for each year over the planning horizon.

4.3 Groundwater
The City is located within the Kings Groundwater sub-basin, a part of the Tulare Lake Hydrogeologic Basin as described in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources, 2003). The groundwater basin is in overdraft and has been for many years. However, it has not been adjudicated.

Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses a sustainable groundwater yield for the service area and concludes the sustainable yield to be 9,400 AFY, as discussed in greater detail in the WMP. While the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) has been written and adopted, it does not yet include a firmer approximation of sustainable yield, although development of one is anticipated. The sustainable yield from the UWMP and WMP has been used for this assessment.

4.4 Recycled Water
Most of the City’s wastewater flow is treated at the Regional Water Reclamation Facility, located southwest of the City of Fresno on Jensen Avenue. In 2009, the City of Clovis completed a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). In 2020, the WRF produced approximately 2,496 AFY. Of that total, 28 percent was recycled for mostly landscape and agricultural irrigation, with the remainder being discharged to FID’s Fancher Creek for agricultural irrigation.

Ultimately the WRF will be expanded to be able to treat 8.4 MGD, or 9,400 AF per year, and will make a substantial contribution to the City’s overall water resources. According to the 2020 UWMP, recycled water is used for irrigation of public and private landscape within the service area. Areas receiving or planned to receive recycled water include the Freeway 168 corridor between Shepherd and Sierra Avenues, the existing Clovis Community Medical Center campus, and multiple City parks and landscape areas.

Landscape irrigation will continue to be the main use of recycled water in the future. All public landscape areas within three-quarters of a mile of the distribution system are considered potential recycled water use areas. Clovis Unified School District is evaluating the use of recycled water for its 3210
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-5 landscape areas. Caltrans has expanded their use of recycled water along State Route 168 from Armstrong Avenue west to Sierra Avenue. Concurrent with the Project’s development, the City will expand its use of recycled water and broaden its range of beneficial uses to potentially include irrigating the public landscape space to be developed with the Project.

To affect that increase in use, the City now requires all new development of public landscape near recycled water transmission lines to use recycled water. Additional actions include extending the recycled water distribution system to discharge at groundwater recharge facilities and reducing the cost of recycled water. The UWMP indicates planned use of recycled water supply will be 9,400 AFY by 2040 (UWMP Table 6-13). With a planned6recycled water transmission main in Shepherd Avenue, it is possible this Project may use recycled water for landscape irrigation, but the City will make final determination of that at a later date.

4.5 Exchanges
Water exchanges, transfers, and water banking allow purveyors to manage demand and supply variability by ensuring water will be available for the near future. The majority of the City’s wastewater is treated at the RWRF. Under an agreement with FID, the City of Fresno receives 0.92 AF of Kings River surface water in exchange for each two AF of reclaimed water produced by the RWRF (46 percent exchange). Clovis is in discussions with the City of Fresno and FID on documenting its pro-rata share of RWRF effluent and the most efficient recover and beneficial use of that effluent. This will require a new effluent exchange agreement with FID, and potentially the City Fresno, to appropriately allocate Clovis’ pro-rata share of the treated water. This water is limited by agreement to being used for groundwater recharge activities.

4.6 Water Supply Summary
The five sources discussed above make up the City’s water resources. These are tabulated overall for 2025 and for each subsequent 5-year period through 2040 in Table 4-1.

The City’s overall water resources are projected to increase from 50,739 AF per year in 2025 to 74,650 AF per year in 2040. Nearly all this increase will come from increasing surface water resources from 18,039 AF per year in 2020 to 39,400 AF per year in 2040. The mix of water supplies the City plans to use to meet these demands is changing over time and, while the surface water supplies will be the primary source, a mixture of groundwater and supply from storage will be used to meet demands.

Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13) Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater [1] 11,429 10,753 10,076 9,400
Surface Water [2] 22,160 27,584 32,508 39,400
6 As noted in the City’s 2018 Recycled Water Master Plan 3211
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-6 Supply from Storage
(Waldron and Boswell facilities) 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 Recycled Water 3,100 5,500 6,300 9,400
Transfers (GWD and IWD) 550 1,600 2,650 2,950
Total 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Notes:
[1] Reasonably available volume shows a steady reduction in reliance on groundwater supply, as planned, to the sustainable yield volume in 2040; discussed in greater detail in the UWMP. [2] Surface water quantities shown in greater detail in the UWMP. 3212
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Five: Normal Year Water Operations
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 5-1 5 Normal Year Water Operations
This section evaluates the ability of the City to meet the overall water demands during normal water years. A normal year is a year, or averaged range of years, that most closely represents the average water supply available to the City. In this case, the normal year reflects the overall water supply summary discussed in Section 4.

This Chapter relies on information taken from Sections 6 and 7 of the UWMP. Table 5-1 compares the City’s water demands and compares them with the normal year water supplies (see Table 4-1) for the 5- year increments the Project is anticipated to be constructed, and through 2040, as shown in the UWMP.

As shown, total supplies would exceed total demands. Adequate supplies are available to serve the City and its water customers in normal rainfall years such as those discussed in this section. The excess water supply is more than adequate to meet the estimated Project water demands.

Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands Condition
Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Excess/Shortage 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052
3213
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water
Supplies
This section evaluates the availability of City water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry water years, based on Project buildout in 2030. Numerous factors will work to change the relative quantities of water the City receives from its several water sources. Since each of these has a different reliability in dry years, the overall water supply reliability will change over time. The following sections discuss how this will occur.

During a single-dry year, surface water allotments are anticipated to be reduced by as much as 66 percent for Kings River surface water supplies, and CVP Class II supplies are eliminated completely in dry years. In the future, as the City becomes more reliant on surface water supplies, the impact of surface water reductions in dry years will be more significant.

A multiple-dry year period represents the lowest average supply available to the Project for a consecutive five-year period. This analysis is referred to as a “multi-dry” condition in the UWMP. The WSA analysis is based on the five consecutive driest years of record for the Project’s surface water supplies, which were water years 2011/12 through 2015/16.

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water
Both the single-dry and multiple-dry analyses are most affected by the variations in Kings River entitlement in dry years. FID’s entitlement does not vary directly in proportion to overall annual runoff; rather it favors FID versus all the other Kings River diverters. When river flows are low due to slow runoff, low annual precipitation or both, FID’s share of the daily river flow increases.

The effect of this is that FID’s entitlement, as a percentage of its average entitlement, is higher than the overall water year percentage flow, for virtually any below-average water year. As noted in the UWMP, the anticipated share of Kings River water is shown as 32,100 AFY (UWMP Table 6-4) in 2040 for an average water year. As discussed in the UWMP, the City has recently executed a contract with FID for development of a new firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter. This new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply based on water year type.

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water
Over the period of 1986 through 2016, the average Class II allocation has been 38 percent of contracted amount. However, Class II supplies are particularly subject to the water year type. However, these supplies are relatively small and would not have significant impact on the total supply. 3214
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-2 While Class I entitlements do not currently affect the City’s FID supplies, they will affect the future-year GWD and IWD entitlements. Class I allocations in the five multiple-dry years were 0 percent of the contracted amount for all five years.

6.1.3 Supply from Storage
The contract for the Waldron facility allows annual withdrawals of up to approximately 9,000 AFY, while the Boswell Facility allows up 4,500 AFY. According to the UWMP, the combined withdrawal limit from the two facilities is 13,500 AFY. In any year where surface water deliveries are substantially limited, the City would want to use these resources to the limit.

A related matter is how contributions are made to supply storage. Whereas in normal years the City is making deposits to both facilities, in a drier year those contributions would be reduced or halted since the surface supplies necessary for the deposits would not be available. Since the deposits come from surface water resources not counted in the City’s water balance, being acquired under separate FID agreements, the curtailment of deposits does not reduce the City’s water demand.

6.1.4 Groundwater
As of the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, the City of Clovis obtains groundwater from more than 30 wells, located throughout the service area. The total well production is estimated at 37,290 gallons per minute.

According to the UWMP, the City aims to reduce its direct groundwater consumption whenever possible. Most the City’s water demands will be met by a combination of surface water and supplies from storage, in water years when those two resources are sufficient to meet demands. In drier years, when surface water supplies are limited, the City will pump groundwater, potentially beyond the 9,400 AFY accounted for in a normal year, to make up the shortfall but not to an unsustainable level as discussed in the NKGSP. The City will also recharge surface waters when available to allow for additional groundwater pumping when needed.

Planning to make that objective possible is very important, as Chapter 6 of the UWMP states that the sustainable groundwater supply in the City service area is 9,400 AF per year, for normal, dry, and multidry years. For the time being, there is no restriction against pumping groundwater above the sustainable aquifer yield; however, the NKGSP indicates the City must sustainably use groundwater.

This WSA uses 9,400 AF per year as the sustainable groundwater pumping amount, as stated in the UWMP. Due to the very large size of the aquifer underlying the City, available groundwater is not quickly affected by the type of water year. Anticipating a mix of wet and dry years similar to what has been historically seen, this WSA does not reduce available groundwater in dry or multiple-dry years; however, the City will be prioritizing use of other supplies over groundwater when possible.

6.1.5 Recycled Water
Recycled water production, being tied directly to indoor water use, does not vary significantly with the water year type, and is not adjusted from normal for this analysis. 3215
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-3

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
In 2020, surface water made up 58 percent of the City’s direct water supply. In 2030, the surface water supply is planned to be 53 percent of the total while the supply from storage will have increased to 18 percent in a normal year. Groundwater will remain an important component of the water supply in the near future.

This means the City’s reliance on surface water supplies, either directly used or pumped from subsurface storage, will have increased to 71 percent of the total. While there is a margin of normal year supply available over planned demand over the entire planning horizon, some provision may have to be made for additional reliable storage to account for such a large portion of surface water being subject to water year variability. See the reliability analysis in Section 6.3 following.

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
Supply for dry years would be drawn from a combination of Kings River surface water, supply from storage, groundwater, and recycled water. As shown in the UWMP, it is anticipated that surface water supplies from the FID Firm Water Agreement would still be available during drought years. Other firm water supply sources are groundwater, banked water, and recycled water, all of which are considered resilient against drought compared to surface water supplies. Groundwater banking activities would decrease to accommodate the decreased surface water supplies while still being able to use previously banked groundwater supplies from the Waldron and Boswell facilities. Project demand was assumed to be constant across all water years.

The supplies that would be available during single-dry and multiple-dry years in 2030 (at assumed Project buildout) are summarized in Table 6-1. As shown, adequate supplies would be available to supply the City and along with the estimated Project demand of 255.8 AFY, under all studied conditions.

Further, the total demand associated with the Project (255.8 AFY), accounts for 33.5% of the excess supply without conservation and 4.1% of excess supply with conservation in the most critical year analyzed – the Single Dry Year, while the difference between existing uses and proposed land use (69.4 AFY) accounts for 9.1% and 1.1% of the same year, respectively. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2021) in place that could be partially or fully implemented if needed or mandated. The ‘demand with conservation’ values are reduced to reflect implementation of various stages of the WSCP, as discussed in the UWMP. 3216
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-4 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4) Scenario Single-Dry
Year [1]
Multiple-Dry Year [2]
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Baseline demand 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 Demand with Conservation as
shown in UWMP 37,359 39,422 36,962 33,969 30,474 40,757 Total Supply 43,587 54,607 52,576 48,310 43,586 57,992
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 762 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Note: Refer to the 2020 UWMP for details on how these values were calculated.

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors
This WSA defers to the UWMP for consideration of the overall effects of climate change upon supply reliability. Climate change has been considered in the preparation of the UWMP. 3217
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Seven: Operational Reliability
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 7-1 7 Operational Reliability
The City’s surface water entitlement does not accrue all at once during a given water year. Rather, the Kings River entitlement accrues daily throughout the year based on actual river runoff and the Kings River Water Association entitlement schedule. The daily nature of the Kings River supply is especially important early in the water year, which begins October 1. The very low river flows in October and November mean that supply is low, and the City must rely on other water supplies during those months.

The relatively large supplies available from storage help mitigate the seasonal nature of the surface water supply, and these are further backed up by groundwater supplies equivalent to almost half the City’s total annual demand.

The City has not had any issue with temporary water shortages to date. The City’s WMP and UWMP indicates a need to increase their surface water and groundwater supplies to meet future demands and provides detail on how much of each supply is needed compared to the existing supplies. The WMP also includes a Capital Improvements Program identifying capital projects that are necessary to acquire and facilitate the movement of current and future water supplies throughout the City’s system in a reliable manner. The City’s adherence to their planning documents and consistent development of these water supplies and infrastructure is critical for the City’s continued growth and development and will provide operational reliability into the future.
3218
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-1 8 Conclusions
As summarized in Table 8-1, the City has adequate supplies to meet the needs of all the City’s water customers including the Project, in normal water years, over the 20-year planning horizon. However, the water supply used for this Project will need to be replaced to support full buildout of the GP.

In the buildout year, if demand is as projected, the City will have sufficient water to meet dry year demands all dry year event types. Conservation measures, detailed in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been developed that would mitigate possible shortfalls by reducing demand approximately 15 percent. Evidence from the 2013 to 2015 drought suggests that those results, and more, are achievable. Additionally, as the City has surplus water supplies in normal years, short-term additional groundwater extraction in the single-dry and multiple-dry years is also planned as part of their water portfolio.

As discussed in Section 7, the City has plans to continue to acquire water supplies and construct infrastructure to supply current and future water users. Therefore, we conclude the City of Clovis has adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the City in normal, dry, and multi-dry years given the previously discussed potential demand reductions and supply augmentations.

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs
Since the 2020 UWMP was adopted, three WSAs have been prepared for the City, including this one. It is important to understand the cumulative impact of the additional demands associated with WSAs over and beyond the demands analyzed in the 2020 UWMP.

The demands in Table 8-1 include those demands noted in the UWMP and Table 6-1 above, and the demands associated with the Project evaluated in this WSA, as discussed in Section 2.2. Similarly, the noted Excess/Deficit reflects the difference between these summated demands and the total supply noted in the UWMP and in Table 5-1, above. This approach accounts for the additional demands associated with the proposed land use type above the demands associated with the originally planned land use type. There is still an excess of supply in all conditions, even with the additional demand.

As noted above, additional groundwater supplies may not be necessary in the critical year or multiple year drought depending on operational decisions regarding conservation; however, the City’s UWMP notes additional groundwater supplies would be available on a short-term basis during a drought condition.
3219
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-2 Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs 2020 UWMP Supply and Demand Comparison Results Normal Year (2030)
Single-Dry
Year
Multiple-Dry Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 16,113 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 763 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with Conservation -- 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Additional Demands Associated with WSAs prepared since 2020 UWMP Home Place Master Plan (Approved March 2021) No Additional Demand Associated with WSA Tract 6205, SOI Expansion (Estimated Approval December 2022) 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 Tract 6343 (Approved December 2022) 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply including Additional Demands from Approved WSAs 15,779 429 11,449 9,418 5,152 428 14,834 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with Conservation including
Additional Demands Approved WSAs [1] -- 5,944 14,901 15,330 14,057 12,827 16,951 Notes:
[1] Calculation includes a reduction in the Additional Demands from Additional WSAs of 15 percent, as discussed above. 3220
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Section Nine: References
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6205
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 9-1 9 References
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Clovis.

Placeworks. (2014). General Plan, City of Clovis. Clovis.

Department of Water Resources. (2003). Bulletin 118 - California's Groundwater. Sacramento.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Clovis.
3221
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Appendix K
Water Infrastructure
3222
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
455 W Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611-0242
Tel: (559) 449-2700
Fax: (559) 449-2715
www.provostandpritchard.com
G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx Engineering  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico • Sacramento • Sonora Memorandum
To: Gene Abella, PE, City of Clovis
From: Nick Jacobson, PE
Heather Bashian PE (QAQC)
Subject: Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Date: February 2, 2023
Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this memorandum summarizing the findings of our investigation into the water system infrastructure required to serve a proposed single-family residential development located northeast of the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues.

Project Information
The Project would entail development of 603 single-family residential lots on approximately 77.5 gross acres. The Project is a proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) development with associated neighborhood green space. The project site includes 77.5 gross acres bounded Shepherd Avenue to the south, Perrin Avenue to the north, and Sunnyside Avenue to the west.

The project site encompasses three parcels: APNs 557-021-19 through 21. Located just outside the city limits and the SOI, the area north and east of the Project is primarily rural residential uses, the area directly west of the Project is planned for low and medium density residential and public/quasi-public facilities, and the area to the south is mainly rural residential with a small area of medium high density residential and neighborhood commercial just southeast of the Project.

It is understood the following new transmission main, not shown in the WMP, will be constructed with the Project:
• 12-inch main along Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue that connects through the Project from Sunnyside Avenue to Shepherd Avenue
There are several proposed transmission mains in the Project area, currently conditioned for construction with the Tract 6200 project and assumed to be operational for the purposes of this analysis, including:
• 16-inch transmission main in Shepherd Avenue between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenues • 12-inch main in Marion Avenue from Perrin Road to Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue • 12-inch main in Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue from Marion Avenue to Sunnyside Avenue 3223
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 2 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx • 16-inch main in Baron Avenue from Clovis Avenue to Perrin Road • 24-inch transmission main in Sunnyside Avenue from Shepherd Avenue to Pryor Avenue • 24-inch transmission main in Perrin Road from Marion Avenue to Sunnyside Avenue • 12-inch transmission main in Clovis Avenue from Shepherd Avenue to Baron Avenue There are several proposed transmission mains in the Project area, currently conditioned for construction with the Tract 6343 project and assumed to be operational for the purposes of this analysis, including:
• 24-inch main in Behymer Avenue from the west limits of Tract 6343 to Baron Avenue • 24-inch main in Baron Avenue from Behymer Avenue to Perrin Road Collectively, these existing and planned facilities convey or will convey water from the surface water treatment plant to and around the Project area to meet demands. This portion of Clovis’ potable water system is within the pressure zone called “Zone 2.” Figure 1 shows the existing and proposed infrastructure in the area.

There are several other master planned water system improvements near the Project site that are not conditioned for construction with any project at this time but may be conditioned for construction on this Project, based on the analysis results below, including:
• 16-inch main in Sunnyside Avenue from Shepherd Avenue to Teague Avenue (P-3) • 12-inch main in Sunnyside Avenue from Teague Avenue to Nees Avenue (P-4 • 12-inch main in Nees Avenue from Sunnyside Avenue east to Renn Avenue (P-7) The entire Project is outside the Kings River service area for FID, which means the Project does not have access to water from the Kings River as its source of supply. The existing project site consists of a residential dwelling and associated pecan orchard. The proposed use will consist of a new 603-unit single family residential development on 77.5 gross acres Assumptions
The following assumptions apply to this investigation:
• The City requires a minimum of two points of connection to the existing water system. • Developer is responsible for sizing all water mains and other water related infrastructure internal to the Project.
• The Clovis Fire Department (CFD) requires a minimum fire flow of 1,800 gallons per minute (gpm) and a minimum residual pressure of 35 psi, per CFD Standard #2.3. • Tract 6205 will be modeled as medium high density residential; existing and proposed water system demands will be based on unit demands from the Water Master Plan Update Phase III – Facilities Plan (Provost & Pritchard, 2018). • Existing infrastructure sizes based on GIS data from City (see Attachment A). • Recycled water will not be applied to public landscaping surrounding the Project. 3224
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 3 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx • Infrastructure conditioned on Tract 6200 will be constructed prior to development of Tract 6205 (See Figure 1)
• Infrastructure conditioned for Tract 6200 and 6343 as described above (shown in Figure 1-7 as future) will be existing when Tract 6205 is constructed. • T-9 Tank and Pump Station at intersection of Perrin Road and Sunnyside Avenue is not assumed to be constructed or operational for the purposes of the analysis contained herein.
• The analysis will reflect the demands associated with existing developments in the area based on actual land use; undeveloped areas are modeled utilizing land use designations specified in the General Plan. Proposed demands will be modeled using the above referenced land use designations rather than that shown in the General Plan. • The analysis assumed the transmission grid main infrastructure shown as existing in Figure 1 as well as the 24-inch transmission mains in Sunnyside Avenue between Pryor and Perrin Roads and in Perrin Road between Marion and Sunnyside Avenues has been constructed and is operational or is under construction and is assumed to be operational for the purposes of this modeling effort.
• The system is operating with all valves open.
• System velocities should not exceed 10 feet per second (fps). • Model demands for scenarios where the SWTP is not operational have been reduced and are representative of typical City demands during November each year when the SWTP is taken offline for canal maintenance.

This investigation will include analysis of whether the existing (or soon to be existing) water system, as described above and shown on the attached Figure 1, will be sufficient to provide up to maximum day demand and also meet Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow (MDD+FF) demands per the WMP requirements both with and without the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) in operation.

Water Demand
Potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land use based unit water demand factors from the WMP. Table LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan (GP) states that medium high density residential has an allowable density ranging from 7.1 – 15.0 du/ac. The proposed use will consist of a new 603-unit single family residential development on approximately 72.40 net acres (77.5 gross acres) (based on the submitted tentative map dated 4/22/21), which equates to a dwelling unit density of approximately 8.32 du/ac, consistent with medium high density residential land use. A separate water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared by Provost & Pritchard in December 2022. The WSA estimated water demands for the Project. For consistency, the demand estimates stated in the WSA were used for this analysis.

For specifics surrounding Project water demands refer to the WSA. 3225
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 4 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx Infrastructure
The Project is comprised of three (3) parcels of mostly undeveloped land located to the northeast of the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues. Because of the limited existing backbone infrastructure in the area, this development will depend on the construction of infrastructure conditioned for Tracts 6200 and 6343, as described above. The other transmission mains near the Project are understood to be existing, as shown on Figure 1.

Water Supply
Urbanization within Clovis occurs both inside and outside the Kings River service area for Fresno Irrigation District (FID), therefore not all lands have access to this water source. Since the entirety of the Project is outside the FID service area, water from the Kings River is not available to offset the anticipated annual demand of 255.8 acre-feet; therefore, the Project will need to pay for supplies, as shown below. For additional details on water supply for the Project, refer to the WSA (Provost & Pritchard, December 2022) prepared for the Project.

Evaluation
The City has requested an investigation, utilizing the current City hydraulic model, to determine whether the proposed infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project (Figure 1) will provide adequate service under several scenarios including:
• MDD with the SWTP in operation (Figure 2)
• MDD without the City SWTP in operation (Figure 3)
• MDD+FF with the City SWTP in operation (Figure 4)
• MDD+FF without the City SWTP in operation (Figure 5)
• MDD+FF without either the City SWTP or the 16-Inch main in Shepherd between Sunnyside and Fowler (Figure 6)
• MDD+FF without the City SWTP, without the 16-Inch main in Shepherd between Sunnyside and Fowler, and with 12-inch and 16-inch transmission mains in Sunnyside and Needs Avenues, south of Shepherd as shown in Figure 12.4-1 of the WMP, identified as Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects P-3, P-4, and P-7 (Figure 7) As shown on Figure 1, infrastructure associated with Tract 6205, was modeled with 8-inch mains internal to the Project. Also, the results of this evaluation rely on the infrastructure that has been conditioned on Tracts 6200 and 6343 and as described above being constructed and operational.

The scenarios discussed below are based on the assumptions noted above, including fire flow requirements and reduced demands associated with fall/winter times of use. 3226
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 5 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx Maximum Day Demand Analyses
With an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP operational indicates no pressure deficiencies internal to the Project (see Figure 2). Minimum pressures in Tract 6205 during the MDD scenario are all above 40 psi. System pressures for the remainder of the system are generally above 35 psi.

Without an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP not operational indicates no pressure deficiencies (less than 40 psi for new development) in Tract 6205 (see Figure 3).

The model results did show a portion of the system with minimum pressures below 35 psi in the Harlan Ranch neighborhood. The WMP states that minimum pressure for existing development should be above 35 psi. Minimum pressures in Harlan Ranch dropped to approximately 26 psi during the scenario without the SWTP operational. The area where pressures dropped below 26 psi is generally east of Sanders Avenue. Pressures below 35 psi have been observed in Harlan Ranch prior to this evaluation. The model results show that the addition of Tract 6205 causes the pressures to drop in the Harlan Rach area by about 0.5 psi when compared to system results prior to the addition of Tract 6205. The deficiencies identified in the model only last for a short duration during the morning hour from 6:00 AM until about 7:00 AM.

Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow
With an Operational SWTP
The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available hydrant pressures during MDD+FF internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to nearly 52 psi (see Figure 4). One location showed a deficiency (1,566 gpm at 35 psi) in this scenario and that was due to a dead end 8-inch main where the flow velocity exceeds 10 fps.

Without an Operational SWTP
Hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures during the scenario internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to nearly 54 psi (See Figure 5). One location (same location as above) showed a deficiency (less than 1,566 gpm at 35 psi) in this scenario and that was due to a dead end 8-inch main where the flow velocity is over 10 fps.

Available pressures are higher under this scenario, than the scenario where the SWTP is operational because this analysis takes place during a lower demand period described previously.

Should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi. 3227
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 6 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx Without an Operational SWTP or the 16-inch Main in Shepherd Avenue Hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures during the scenario internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to nearly 47 psi (See Figure 6). Several locations in this scenario showed deficiencies during fire flow conditions. 3 locations showed deficiencies due to flow velocities exceeding 10 fps (1,422 gpm at 47 psi, 1,493 gpm at 41 psi, and 1,566 gpm at 35 psi). One of these velocity exceedances is due to a dead end main. The other two are associated with the looped portions of Tract 6205 and are locations where the configuration of the distribution mains within Tract 6205 create flow velocities that exceed 10 fps during fire flow events. The remaining 30 deficiencies identified in this scenario are attributable to the system lacking the infrastructure to adequately convey fire flow due to the simulated loss of the SWTP and the main in Shepherd between Fowler and Sunnyside Avenues being offline. Available hydrant flows and pressures for the remaining 30 deficiencies identified in this scenario range from 1,494 gpm to 1,793 gpm at 35 psi.

As with the other scenarios where the SWTP is offline during a lower demand period, should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.

Without an Operational SWTP or the 16-inch Main in Shepherd Offline, With CIPs P-3, P-4, P-7 in Sunnyside and Nees Avenues, South of Shepherd
Results show available pressures during the scenario internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to nearly 57 psi (See Figure 7). Three locations in this scenario showed deficiencies (1,425 gpm at 56 psi, 1,494 gpm at 51 psi, and 1,566 gpm at 45 psi) during fire flow conditions due to a dead end 8-inch main where the flow velocities exceed 10 fps.

As with the other scenarios where the SWTP is offline during a lower demand period, should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.

Conclusion
Operational SWTP
The modeling analysis indicates that the Project and associated existing or proposed but assumed to be operational infrastructure, as described above, should be able to receive adequate flow and pressure during an MDD scenario and during an MDD+FF scenario with the SWTP operational (with the exception of the single location identified during MDD+FF scenario as shown in Figure 4).

Non-Operational SWTP
With the SWTP not in operation, the analysis shows that the system should be able to deliver adequate flow and pressure for normal operating scenarios for a system demand representative 3228
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 7 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx of typical City demands in November, with noted pressure drops in the system. With the SWTP offline, the results show that Tract 6205 does show added deficiencies during fire flow scenarios within the Project footprint. Some of these deficiencies are due to flow velocity exceedances, while some are due to inadequate available pressure to meet minimum fire flow requirements.

The Shepherd Avenue main (between Sunnyside and Fowler), is critical to providing adequate water supply to this area in Zone 2. Without this main, there is insufficient infrastructure to convey adequate supply for Tract 6205 for fire flow needs.

If the Shepherd Avenue main is not constructed or operational, constructing the CIP mains in Sunnyside from Shepherd to Nees (P-3 and P-4) and the Nees from Sunnyside to the existing main connection point near Renn Avenue (P-7) will alleviate most of the fire flow deficiencies shown in the analyses and provide a needed measure of system redundancy to this area of the system.

Recommendations
Based on information collected during this investigation and the City’s adherence to recommendations from prior water supply planning efforts, to serve the Project within the parameters set by the City, infrastructure associated with Tract 6200 and 6343 should be operational, and either the main in Shepherd Avenue between Sunnyside and Fowler or the mains noted in the WMP as P-3, P-4, and P-7 should be constructed and operational. Failure to build these pieces of infrastructure may lead to the deficiencies as noted in the modeling summaries above.

Serving this Project should not negatively impact the City’s ability to provide a supply and delivery of water to reasonably foreseeable users within the City assuming adherence to recommendations from prior water resources planning efforts. However, to understand the cumulative impacts to supplies and other major water infrastructure, the City should be tracking changes in demand as part of the development process in order to determine when projects with greater demand are offset by projects with demands lower than originally planned. 3229
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

To: Gene Abella February 2, 2023
Water Infrastructure Investigation SOI Expansion for Tentative Map 6205 Page 8 of 8 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\200 Technical\204 SOI Expansion Modeling TM\20230202 6205 SOI Expansion TM FINAL.docx Respectfully,
Nicholas Jacobson
Enclosure:

Figure 1 – Potable Water Infrastructure
Figure 2 – Maximum Day Demand With Operational SWTP
Figure 3 – Maximum Day Demand without Operational SWTP
Figure 4 – Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow With Operational SWTP Figure 5 – Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow Without Operational SWTP Figure 6 – Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Without an Operational SWTP and 16-Inch Main in Shepherd
Figure 7 – Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow with CIPs and Without an Operational SWTP
2/2/2023
3230
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TU
!(P
Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
!(P Pump Station
TU Tank
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
12/28/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 1: Potable Water Infrastructure
WSA Expansion 3231
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Minimum Pressure
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
> 60 PSI
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
24"
12/28/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2: Maximum Day Demand
with an Operational SWTP
WSA Expansion
3232
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Minimum Pressure
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
24"
12/28/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 3: Maximum Day Demand
without an Operational SWTP
WSA Expansion
3233
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Available Flow
< 1,800 gpm
≥ 1,800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
24"
12/28/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 4: Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow with an Operational SWTP
WSA Expansion
3234
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Available Flow
< 1,800 gpm
≥ 1,800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
24"
12/28/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 5: Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow without an Operational SWTP
WSA Expansion
3235
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Available Flow
< 1,800 gpm
≥ 1,800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
24"
12/29/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Fig 6: Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Without
an Operational SWTP and 16-Inch Main in Shepherd
WSA Expansion
3236
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

Lexington
Ave
Perrin Rd Perrin Rd Fowler Ave Stanford Ave
Serena Ave
Shepherd AveSunnyside Ave
Pryor Rd
Baron Ave
Marion Ave
Maxar
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
TM 6343
TM 6200
Junctions
Available Flow
< 1,800 gpm
≥ 1,800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
12/29/2022 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722003-SOI Expansion Tract 6205\400 GIS\Map\Model_Results\SOI_Expansion_Model_Results.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 7: Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow
With CIPs and Without an Operational SWTP
WSA Expansion
3237
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

REVISED

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

SHEPHERD NORTH PROJECT
MARCH 1, 2024
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 324-2340
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m ATTACHMENT 19
3238
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3239
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

REVISED

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

SHEPHERD NORTH PROJECT
MARCH 1, 2024
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 324-2340
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
3240
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3241
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TOC
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North TOC-1 Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. ES-1 Project Description....................................................................................................... ES-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project........................................................................... ES-2 Comments Received..................................................................................................... ES-5

1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1.0-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR..................................................................1.0-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process.............................................................................1.0-2

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR.................................................................................1.0-4

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses ..............................................................................2.0-1

2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................2.0-1

2.2 List of Commenters...............................................................................................2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses....................................................................................2.0-2 Requirements for Responding to Comments on a DEIR...............................2.0-2 Responses to Comment Letters ...................................................................2.0-2 Master Response to Comments...................................................................2.0-3

3.0 Responses to Comments Received After FEIR Public Circulation........................................3.0-1

3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................3.0-1

3.2 List of Commenters...............................................................................................3.0-1

3.3 Comments and Responses....................................................................................3.0-2 Requirements for Responding to Comments on a DEIR...............................3.0-2 Responses to Comment Letters ...................................................................3.0-2 Master Response to Comments...................................................................2.0-3

4.0 Errata………………………...........................................................................................................4.0-1

4.1 Revisions to the DEIR ............................................................................................4.0-1

5.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..........................................................5.0-1

5.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................................................5.0-1 3242
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TOC [TYPE THE DOCUMENT TITLE]
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This page left intentionally blank.
3243
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North ES-1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Clovis (City) determined that a Project-level environmental impact report (EIR) was required for the proposed Shepherd North (proposed Project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A Project EIR is an EIR which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed Project. A Project EIR examines all phases of a project including planning, construction, and operation. The Project EIR approach is appropriate for the proposed Project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the proposed Project, including development and operation of the proposed Project, as described in greater detail below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a summary and overview of the proposed Project. Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed Project, including maps and graphics. The reader is referred to Chapter 2.0 for a more complete and thorough description of the components of the proposed Project.

The Shepherd North Project (Project) site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line at the northeast corner of North Sunnyside Avenue and East Shepherd Avenue. The Project site is bounded on the north by Perrin Road, on the east by North Fowler Avenue, on the south by East Shepherd Avenue, and on the west by North Sunnyside Avenue. The Project site is in the southwest quadrant of Section 21, Township 12 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM). Figure 2.0-3 illustrates the Annexation Area).

The Project site includes several distinct planning boundaries. The following terms are used throughout this document to describe planning area boundaries within the Project site:
• Project Area – Includes the whole of the Project site (approximately 155 acres), encompassing the approximate 77-acre Development Area and the approximate 78-acre Non-Development Area.1
o Development Area - Includes the parcels being annexed that will be entitled for subdivision and development. This will include a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Expansion, General Plan Amendment, Pre-zone, Annexation/Reorganization, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Residential Site Plan Review.
1 It should be noted that the term ‘Project Area’ is used interchangeably with ‘Project Site,’ throughout this EIR.
3244
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North o Non-Development Area - Includes the parcels being included in the SOI expansion that will not be entitled for subdivision or development. This includes two separate areas, each described as an Expansion SubArea. The two Expansion SubAreas total 78 acres and are defined as Expansion SubArea North and Expansion SubArea East.

The principal Project objective is the expansion of the City’s SOI to include the Project site, and the annexation/reorganization, approval, and subsequent development of the Development Area.

The City has established five additional project goals and objectives of the proposed development that more fully inform the Project purpose. These goals and objectives are as follows:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis, consistent with policies stated in A Landscape of Choice to modestly increase urban density.
• Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand, consistent with City requirements as stated in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA).
• Provide infrastructure that meets City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections.
• Establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet City standards. • Expand the City’s Sphere of Influence in order to establish a logical and orderly boundary that promotes the efficient extension of municipal services.

The Project goals and objectives presented above, were developed by the City in response to the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, and the City’s desire to facilitate the construction of new housing in the face of the housing crisis. The City staff has responded with adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of reduced housing density by establishing a quantified target density that provided the City with significant flexibility to evaluate different scenarios for residential projects on the Project site while also considered the critical need for additional housing.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project or to the location of the Project site which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed Project. Four alternatives to the proposed Project were developed based on input from City staff and the technical analysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed Project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Project.
3245
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition. • Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 62 acres would be developed with 605 residential units under the medium-high density residential use, 10 acres would be developed with 195 apartments under the high-density residential use, and 5 acres would be developed with 108,000 square feet under the neighborhood commercial use. • Reduced Density Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would have a reduced density for the residential uses. Approximately 150 residential units would be developed under the very low-density residential designation. • Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative: Physically, there is little difference between the proposed Project and this alternative. It is noted, however, that the reduction in the SOI would eliminate the possibility of the Non-Development Area connecting to City services at some point in the future, if desired by those residents.

Alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. Table ES-1 provides a comparison of the alternatives using a qualitative matrix that compares each alternative relative to the other Project alternatives.

TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE

NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)

ALTERNATIVE

INCREASED

DENSITY MIXED

USE ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE

REDUCED SPHERE

OF INFLUENCE

ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual
Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Agricultural Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Air Quality Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Biological Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Cultural and Tribal
Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Geology and Soils Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Greenhouse Gases,
Climate Change and
Energy
Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Hydrology and Water
Quality Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Land Use, Population,
and Housing Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Noise Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Public Services and
Recreation Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Transportation and
Circulation Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Utilities Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) GREATER = GREATER IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3246
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North LESS = LESS IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
EQUAL = NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN IMPACT FROM THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Table ES-1 presents a comparison of the alternative Project impacts with those of the proposed Project. As shown in the table, the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because all environmental issues would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is noted that the Reduced Density Alternative does not fully meet all the Project objectives. The following two project objectives are not fully met:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis, consistent with policies stated in A Landscape of Choice to modestly increase urban density.
• Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand, consistent with City Requirements as stated in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA).

The Reduced Density Alternative would provide housing (150 units), but it would be 455 units less then what is proposed. The first objective listed above references “A Landscape of Choice” which is a regional document that provides direction for the region to utilize urban land as efficiently as possible while providing an adequate supply of a broad range of housing types and densities to meet market demand. One of the guiding principles recommends measures to facilitate and encourage compact growth to all urban land uses, including commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The Reduced Density Alternative is not consistent with this guidance for the region.

The second objective listed above references establishing a mix of housing to provide for local and regional housing demand, and consistent with the City requirements in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). In light of the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing. Government Code section 65889.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” The Reduced Density Alternative would result in 455 fewer units then the proposed Project, which is not consistent with Legislature’s guidance for solving California statewide housing crisis. 3247
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-5 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Draft EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project that are known to the City, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discusses impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas and climate resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, population and housing, noise, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities and service systems.

During the NOP process, several comments were received related to the analysis that were included in the Draft EIR. These comments are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR and were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The City received twenty-four (24) comment letters regarding the Draft EIR, twenty from interested citizens or organizations and four from public agencies. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2.0-1 of this Final EIR. The comments received during the Draft EIR review processes were addressed within a Final EIR circulated in November 2023 prior to a hearing by the Planning Commission.

After the release of the Final EIR (November 2023), there were an additional sixteen comments provided to the City of Clovis. City staff makes every attempt to respond to public comment in writing, however, given that twelve of the comments were provided on the day of, or in the days after, the Planning Commission hearing, and the other four comments were provided just days before the hearing, it was not possible for City staff to adequately address the comments in writing in time for the hearing. The City staff did review the comments prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and indicated that they were not able to provide a written response at that time, but that they would make every attempt to provide a written response prior to a hearing by the City Council. As such, the City staff has prepared this Revised Final EIR to provide a written response to each of the sixteen additional comments, and to make text revisions necessary to clarify or correct Draft EIR text in response to the comments. The contents of this Revised Final EIR does not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This Revised Final EIR includes supplemental information, and is intended to supersede the Final EIR published in November 2023.
3248
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
3249
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 1.0-1 A Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared and circulated in November 2023 prior to a Planning Commission hearing. After the release of the Final EIR, there were an additional sixteen (16) comments provided to the City of Clovis (City). City staff makes every attempt to respond to public comment in writing, however, given that twelve (12) of the comments were provided on the day of, or in the days after, the Planning Commission hearing, and the other four (4) comments were provided just days before the hearing, it was not possible for City staff to adequately address the comments in writing in time for the hearing. The City staff did review the comments prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and indicated that they were not able to provide a written response at that time, but that they would make every attempt to provide a written response prior to a hearing by the City Council. As such, the City staff has prepared this Revised Final EIR to provide a written response to each of the sixteen (16) additional comments, and to make text revisions necessary to clarify or correct Draft EIR text in response to the comments. The contents of this Revised Final EIR does not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This Revised Final EIR includes supplemental information (i.e. additional written responses, and additional text revisions), and is intended to supersede the Final EIR published in November 2023.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Revised Final EIR for the proposed Project has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that a Final EIR consist of the following:
• the Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
• comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary;
• a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and
• any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, subdivision (a), the Draft EIR (July 2023) is incorporated by reference into this Revised Final EIR.

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development, and an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.
3250
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

PURPOSE AND USE
The City, as the lead agency, has prepared this Revised Final EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the proposed Project. Responsible and trustee agencies that may use the EIR are identified in Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 of the Draft EIR.

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed Project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all aspects of construction and operation of the proposed Project. The details and operational characteristics of the proposed Project are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on May 9, 2022 to the State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Persons. A public scoping meeting was held on May 25, 2022, to present the Project Description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on July 21, 2023, inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2022050180) and the County Clerk and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements under CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from July 21, 2023 through September 6, 2023.

Additionally, the Draft EIR was made available at the City’s Planning and Development Department and was posted on the City’s website at:
3251
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 1.0-3 https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/planning/planning-projects/shepherd-north-soi/ The Draft EIR contains the Project Description, Environmental Setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growthinducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The City received twenty-four (24) comment letters regarding the Draft EIR. These comment letters on the Draft EIR, and minor text edits to the Draft EIR, were provided in a Final EIR dated November 2023.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The City of Clovis Planning Commission reviewed and considered the November 2023 Final EIR at a hearing on November 16, 2023. The Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the Clovis City Council deny Shepherd North project.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER FEIR PUBLIC

CIRCULATION/REVISED FINAL EIR
The City received an additional sixteen comment letters after the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. These comment letters, in addition to the twenty-four received during the 45-day public review period, are identified in Table 3.0-1 of this document. This document includes a written response to each of the forty comment letters received. In addition, this document includes a revised Errata (Chapter 4.0) and revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Chapter 5.0). The Revised Final EIR supersedes November 2023 Final EIR.

CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The City Council will review and consider the EIR. The EIR consists of the Draft EIR, and the Revised Final EIR (February 2024). If the City Council finds that the EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the EIR in accordance with CEQA and the City’s environmental review procedures and codes. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project which intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the proposed Project. A decision to approve the proposed Project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in 3252
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the proposed Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during Project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REVISED FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS TO DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written and electronic comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to those written comments. The Chapter 2.0 contained in this Revised Final EIR is the same as the Chapter 2.0 contained in the November 2023 Final EIR.

CHAPTER 3.0 – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER FEIR

PUBLIC CIRCULATION
Chapter 3.0 provides a list of commenters, and copies of written and electronic comments made after the Final EIR was circulated. The dates of the comments range from November 13, 2023 to November 30, 2023. To distinguish these comments from those circulated in the Final EIR (those contained in Chapter 2.0), each comment is coded with the Letter L (i.e. L-1 through L-16).

CHAPTER 4.0 – ERRATA
Chapter 4.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Chapter 4.0 contained in this Revised Final EIR is intended to supersede the Chapter

3.0 contained in the November 2023 Final EIR.

CHAPTER 5.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 5.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility, timing, and verification of monitoring. The Chapter 5.0 contained in this Revised Final EIR is intended to supersede the Chapter 4.0 contained in the November 2023 Final EIR. 3253
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project, were raised during the comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that: New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final EIR include information that has been added to the EIR since the close of the public review period in the form of responses to comments and revisions.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2.0-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the City of Clovis (City) during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.). During the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR from July 21, 2023 to September 4, 2023, the City received twenty-four (24) comment letters. These letters include Letters A through X.

TABLE 2.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
A Laurence Kimura, P.E. Fresno Irrigation District 8-1-23 B Charles Belemjian Resident of Clovis 8-15-23
C
Robert and Kathy
Shuman 1
Residents of Clovis 8-18-23
D Judith Henry Resident of Clovis 8-18-23
E Eric Poulsen, MD Resident of Clovis 8-28-23
F Jill Poulsen Resident of Clovis 8-28-23
G
Hedieh and Neal
Goodwin
Residents of Clovis 8-26-23
H Brian and Cindy Reinke Residents of Clovis 8-30-23
I
Curtis and Pamela
Cookingham
Residents of Clovis 8-30-23
J Robert Shuman 2 Resident of Clovis 8-31-23
K Julie A. Vance Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-31-23 L
Patrick and Debbie
Menagh
Residents of Clovis 8-31-23
M Eric Poulsen, MD Resident of Clovis 8-31-23
N Charles Keller Resident of Clovis 9-4-23
O
Curtis and Pamela
Cookingham 2
Residents of Clovis 9-4-23
3254
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
P Kirk and Sandra Warner Residents of Clovis 9-4-23
Q Jared Callister Resident of Clovis 9-4-23
R Norman D. Morrison IV Attorney 9-4-23
S David Padilla Department of Transportation 9-5-23
T
Jacqueline and Matthew
Ruiz
Residents of Clovis 9-5-23
U Denise Wade Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 9-5-23 V Harmeet Gurm Resident of Clovis 9-5-23
W Kevin Kercher Resident of Clovis 9-5-23
X
Kristin and Christian
Diener
Resident of Clovis 9-6-23

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the Draft EIR that regard an environmental issue. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the written response must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the proposed Project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the proposed Project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies all revisions to the Clovis Shepherd North Draft EIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).
3255
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-3

MASTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The master responses presented in this chapter address comments related to topics that are common to several comment letters. The intent of a master response is to provide a comprehensive response to a topic in a coordinated, organized manner in one location that clarifies and elaborates on the analysis in the DEIR. The following master responses are included in this chapter and are presented in more detail below:
• Master Response 1: Water Quality
• Master Response 2: Storm Drainage/Flooding
• Master Response 3: Groundwater/Surface Water Supply
• Master Response 4: Infiltration/Natural Recharge
• Master Response 5: Groundwater Extraction
• Master Response 6: Access
• Master Response 7: Traffic generation
• Master Response 8: Traffic volume
• Master Response 9: Pedestrian and Cyclist Traffic
• Master Response 10: Traffic calming/Improvements
• Master Response 11: Safety for children playing
• Master Response 12: Fire gate
• Master Response 13: Traffic on Stanford, Perrin, Ticonderoga, and Fowler • Master Response 14: Annexation, SOI Expansion, and the Provision of City Services • Master Response 15: Neighborhood Meeting
• Master Response 16: Parks/Greenspace
• Master Response 17: Noise
• Master Response 18: Aesthetics/Lights
• Master Response 19: Air Quality, GHG, Energy
Master Response 1: Water Quality. Water quality is addressed in DEIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. Water Quality is specifically addressed for the construction and operational phases of the project.

During the construction phase, the DEIR indicates that Project construction activities are covered under SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, and that the proposed Project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. (DEIR, p. 3.9-12 through 3.9-13, and 3.9-20 through 3.9-24). Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP may be reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency. Upon completion of the proposed Project, the applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Termination to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board to indicate that construction is completed. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to demonstrate compliance 3256
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North with all of the requirements of the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program (SWQMP), and the City of Clovis Municipal Code, which regulate stormwater and prohibits non-stormwater discharges except where regulated by an NPDES permit. The DEIR concluded that water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 3.9-22) During the long-term operations of the proposed Project (all phases) drainage infrastructure will be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB), the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and City of Clovis regulations, standards, and specifications, which ensures that stormwater runoff from the Project Area is treated per the standards in the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit.

The DEIR concluded that with compliance with existing standards and rules, including the implementation of BMPs, the water quality impacts associated with operation of the Project have a less than significant impact.

Master Response 2: Storm Drainage/Flooding: Storm Drainage/Flooding is addressed in DEIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.14 Utilities. The Draft EIR indicates that stormwater runoff in the City of Clovis is conveyed through a system of street gutters, underground storm drains, retention/detention basins, pumping stations, and open channels that are maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). (DEIR p3.9-3). The FMFCD is the agency that provides flood control and urban storm water services in a 399-square mile watershed located between the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers (FMFCD, 2022a).

The Fresno/Clovis urban area is served by a system of roughly 700 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. FMFCD’s stormwater drainage system discharges to irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River (FMFCD, 2013). The system is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. On average, FMFCD’s regional stormwater basin system captures 92 percent of annual rainfall, of which, 70-85 percent of the captured stormwater runoff is recharged into the local groundwater aquifer (FMFCD, 2020). The stormwater basins also remove 50- 80 percent of the typical stormwater pollutants.

The FMFCD Master Plan storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year) (FMFCD, 2022b). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. If the storm is of sufficient intensity to generate more water than the street can store, the water will continue to rise until it reaches a topographic outlet where it can escape down gradient. This escape route is a feature of the major storm routing system, implemented in 1998, that protects properties from damage in rainfall or runoff events that exceed system design capacities. The Project site is located within Drainage Area BY1.

Master Response 3: Groundwater/Surface Water Supply: Groundwater and water supply is addressed in DEIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.14 Utilities. The DEIR references the City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B), City of Clovis Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A); the City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III (Provost & Pritchard, 2017), and the California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 - San 3257
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-5 Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin/Kings Subbasin (DWR 2006) as a source of information to support the analysis of water supply.

Surface Water Supply: The DEIR indicates that the City has access to surface water through several different contracts, all of which are delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). (DEIR p.

3.9-4). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project. The average delivery the City has received of its total allocation is just over 17,000 AF per year, with the smallest delivery being 9,452 AF in 2015 and the largest of 24,958 in 2017. The City executed a new, firm water supply, agreement with FID in 2019 that provides a surface water supply that does not fluctuate with the FID entitlement or allocation and will be available to the City on a consistent basis. This agreement provides for up to 7,000 AF per year by 2045, beginning at 1,000 AF in 2020. As the City grows and annexes portions of the Garfield and International Water Districts, those CVP, Class I water rights will be transferred to the City and added to the overall water supply portfolio. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 AF. Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015. The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water. Over time, the City has received on average 17,011 AFY, though this has varied from 9,452 AF in the severe drought of 2015 to over 24,958 AF in 2017. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Two additional water districts are located within the City’s General Plan Boundaries: Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD). Both have access to Class I CVP surface water supplies. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out, it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s Supply. As the districts urbanize, supplies associated with these areas are expected to be added to the City’s supply. The City uses their surface water supplies in two primary ways: (1) as potable water supply after being treated at the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) or (2) as groundwater recharge in various basins located in and around the City’s service area. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Groundwater Supply: The DEIR indicates that the City’s groundwater supplies stem from the basin underlying the area, the Kings Subbasin; the Subbasin holds a status of being critically over drafted. The Kings Subbasin, a non-adjudicated basin, is a high-priority basin, which lies within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Basin. This Basin contains multiple interconnected subbasins that transmit, filter and store water. These subbasins are Kaweah and Tulare Lake to the south, Westside and Delta Mendota to the west, and Madera to the North. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

The Kings Subbasin (Subbasin 5-22.08) covers a surface area of approximately 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles). The Department of Water Resources estimated that the total basin storage was about 93,000,000 AF to a depth of more than 1,000 feet. The two major rivers overlying the subbasin are the San Joaquin River and Kings River. The Fresno Slough and James Bypass are along the western edge of the southern basin and connect the Kings River to the San Joaquin River. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). 3258
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The subbasin does have localized water quality impairments, including Dibromochloropropane (DBCP); Nitrate; Ethylene-Dibromide; 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP); Methyl Tert-butyl Ether (MTBE); uranium; arsenic; hexavalent chromium; perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and petroleum hydrocarbons. High concentrations of fluoride, boron, and sodium can be found in localized areas of the subbasin. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

In 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law to provide a framework for management of groundwater supplies by local agencies and restricts state intervention, if required. SGMA provides an opportunity for local agencies overlying the basin to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which is the primary agency responsible for achieving sustainability. As part of the region’s compliance with SGMA, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA) was formed and includes representatives from Bakman Water Company, Biola Community Services District, City of Fresno, City of Clovis, City of Kerman, County of Fresno, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Garfield Water District, and International Water District. The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in late 2019.

North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency: The City is a member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA is working collaboratively, under a coordination agreement with the other six (6) Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the Kings Subbasin to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions by 2040, in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) for critically over drafted groundwater basins, such as the Kings Subbasin. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

SGMA identifies six (6) sustainability indicators to be monitored and reported in order to document sustainability: lowering groundwater levels, reduced [groundwater] storage, seawater intrusion, degraded [groundwater] quality, land subsidence, and surface water depletion. The NKGSA documents five (5) of those with seawater intrusion not being applicable to this region. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

The City will continue increasing its surface water and recycled water supply usage to a point where the groundwater extraction is not greater than the sustainable yield in a normal year. The sustainable yield is currently estimated at 9,400 AF per year (AFY) for the SOI. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Potable water production consists of municipal groundwater wells and a surface water treatment plant (SWTP). The total groundwater pumping that occurs within the City boundaries include City-owned municipal wells and City-owned park irrigation wells. The following section provides a summary of the estimated groundwater pumping that occurs within the current City limits and planning area.

City-Produced Groundwater: The City’s system contains more than 30 wells with a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute with another 4,750 gpm of additional capacity planned in the next few years. In 2020, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Wells are spaced at intervals across the City and are connected to a distribution system. The pipes are sized for local distribution and have, in certain instances, presented some restrictions to cross-town water 3259
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-7 supply distribution. The transmission network consists primarily of 12-inch mains on a one-half mile grid with extensive looping. The wells are controlled by a telemetry system that controls pump operation as well as independent controls in case of remote computer failure. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

As of 2016, there are 34 wells operating in the City of Clovis system. Of these 34 wells, there are two functioning for standby purposes only. There are also three additional wells operating within the Tarpey system. Typically, wells are put on standby status as a result of water quality problems and are maintained for emergency use. The production rate of the existing wells varies from approximately 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to approximately 2,200 gpm. The total production for the City of Clovis in the year 2014 was approximately 15,500 acre-feet. The Tarpey Village wells accounted for approximately 540 acre-feet of this total. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

Existing wells are not evenly distributed across the service area, but rather generally located in the western one-half of the City of Clovis. In general, older wells are in the southwest quarter of the City and the newest wells are located to the northwest quarter of the City. The northern portion of the City of Clovis (north of Herndon Avenue), has experienced the highest growth in recent years, and has dramatically shifted the production and demand characteristics of the City’s water system. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

Pumping rates for individual City wells in recent years have ranged from about 200 gpm to almost 1,500 gpm. However, the pumping rates for most wells have ranged from about 600 to 1,300 gpm. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

The average water level-decline in the City’s wells from 2007 to 2014 was 1.5 feet per year. These wells represent an area of about 15,200 acres. When extrapolated over the acreage associated with the SOI boundary (21,100 acres) and the General Plan boundary (47,500 acres), the change in storage is 3,800 and 8,550 acre-feet per year, respectively. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

Historical Groundwater Pumping: The water system was initially constructed near the turn of the 20th century, when the first municipal well was installed, and, up until July 2004, the City’s sole source of drinking water was groundwater. The City currently obtains groundwater from 36 active wells and one standby well, which have a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute (gpm). There are also six planned wells, adding an additional planned capacity of 4,750 gpm, bringing the total well capacity to 42,440 gpm. Two of the existing active wells (Wells 10 and T-5) are offline due to TCP and PFAS water quality concerns, and one well is listed as standby due to iron and manganese concerns. TCP, PFAS, DBCP and high iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) are the main water quality constraints in the Clovis area. Five (5) more of the City’s wells are currently on inactive status due to being dry or producing too much sand (Wells 3, 11, 33, T-1, and T-3). (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

In 2020, groundwater provided approximately 49 percent of the total potable water use. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City over the past five years is ranged from 10,956 in 2019 to as high as 13,187 in 2016. The groundwater extraction has reduced since 2016 and is expected to continue to be reduced, as discussed later in this section. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

In 2020, recharge was 5,316 AF, while the City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY. In the past 30 years, the groundwater table has dropped 48 feet, from a depth 3260
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North of 92 feet in 1991 to a depth of 140 feet in 2019. Recharge efforts began in 1974, and in 2004, the City began utilizing surface water with the goal of reducing groundwater extraction. Recharge efforts by the City have not been enough to stem the decline as the basin is shared with other users who either don’t recharge or inadequately recharge. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Master Response 4: Infiltration/Natural Recharge: The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement, significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff. (DEIR p3.9-24 through 3.9-27).

The DEIR indicates that the soils contained on the Project site have a hydrologic rating ranging from “A,” which is indicative of soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet, to “D,” which is indicative of soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. Figure 3.2-2 in the DEIR identifies Project site soils, and Table 3.9-2 provides a list of the soils and hydrologic rating of each soil, including the percentage of the project area.

The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. As indicated in the Geotechnical Report (Krazan & Associates, 2019), cemented silty sand and silty sand with trace clay, locally referred to as "hardpan," were encountered in several of the borings at the Project site. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition. Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.

The Project site is located in the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. The Kings Subbasin is recharged by water from sources including streams, percolation of rainfall and irrigation water, inflow from other groundwater basins, and intentional recharge at numerous facilities. Intentional recharge is conducted in recharge ponds and on some farm fields with compensation to landowners. The hardpan encountered on the Project site generally does not allow for a high infiltration rate. While the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site when compared to existing conditions, it is not anticipated that the proposed development would interfere with groundwater recharge, as much of the groundwater recharge in the basin occurs in the sand and gravels along the San Joaquin River from Sierra Nevada snowmelt flowing downstream.

Moreover, as further evidence that the reduction in onsite recharge capabilities and elimination of onsite extraction will not result in significant environmental effects, onsite water extraction for orchard trees will be replaced by City of Clovis infrastructure and water supplies, which come from wells located in a different location than the project site. The water usage on a per acre basis for residences on the Site is far less than the prior agricultural use for orchard trees. Additionally, on-farm recharge does not result in the return of all pumped irrigation water. Evaporation, evapotranspiration, and osmosis occur during 3261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-9 irrigation and plant growth, which results in a net loss of water. While rain events can provide some recharge, given the hardpan limitations, recharge opportunities at the Site from precipitation are limited.

As a result, the amount of water saved from not pumping for agricultural irrigation will be far more than any recharge on the Site from agricultural irrigation. It is also anticipated that recharge will continue to occur from flows through City and FMFCD infrastructure to collect in FMFCD basins which are sources of recharge for the local aquifer.

Master Response 5: Groundwater Extraction: Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040, as required. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. In the 2010 and 2015 UWMPs, the City’s groundwater supplies were shown to be increasing with population growth into the future. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City from 2016 to 2020 ranged from 10,956 in 2019 to as high as 13,187 in 2016. In 2020, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY.

The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.

The City has been searching for additional land to construct another dedicated groundwater recharge facility in the City. The facility will likely be in North Clovis upgradient of City wells. A minimum of 20 to 40 acres is desired with a minimum recharge capability of 1,500 to 3,000 AF per year. An additional project that the City is pursuing in cooperation with FID, FMFCD, and the City of Fresno, is either reoperation of Big Dry Detention Basin, known as the Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project, to allow storage of East Side Stream Flood releases or a project to increase recharge capabilities upstream of the Basin. This is currently in the study phase. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

In addition, there are two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facilities (WBF) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (BGBF), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City plans on taking the water in dry years to augment supply. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

The groundwater supplies the City relies upon are not in the process of adjudication. The surface water supplies have either long-range contracts or newly executed contracts to document quantities and availability to the City. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Recycled water is considered a consistent source; however, because it is mainly dependent upon indoor residential use, it is susceptible to water rationing. In 2020, the City utilized approximately 28 percent of its treated wastewater, an increase over past years; however, the use primarily was limited by its existing infrastructure and seasonal need. The amount of recycled water the City intends to use for beneficial 3262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North purposes is expected to increase as additional infrastructure is built, wastewater generation increases, and the Clovis Water Reuse Plant expands. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area. The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City’s planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells. Groundwater use may increase as population increases and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).

The ’sustainable yield’ is defined as the amount of groundwater pumping that can occur while maintaining groundwater at sustainable levels and avoiding undesirable results. The sustainable yield can be estimated as the total groundwater recharge (from natural and artificial sources) minus the groundwater outflow (as shown below). The GSP of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency indicates that the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin is approximately 1,140,000 AFY/acre (1,360,000 AF -220,000 AF).

A water supply assessment (Tract 6205, Northwest Sphere of Influence Expansion Area. Water Supply Assessment) was prepared by Provost & Pritchard (2022) and is summarized in Section 3.14 Utilities. The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The water supply for the City as a whole is shifting more toward surface water supplies since 2015 and will continue on that path through 2040 to ensure compliance with the Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). The DEIR (p3.14-30) concludes that the proposed Project would not cause the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

The Applicant retained Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates to prepare an analysis of the groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The report is dated September 2023 and was submitted to the City of Clovis for their review and consideration. The City’s Supervising Engineer reviewed the report and concurs with the opinions provided. Furthermore, the City’s Supervising Engineer indicated that the author has been an expert in this field for many decades.

After the City had reviewed and concurred with the report, it was provided to the City’s EIR consultant for a second independent review. The City’s EIR consultant found that the opinions in the report are consistent with, and supportive of, the original findings in the DEIR. It was found that the report is a good source of information for further affirmation of the DEIR conclusions, and it was determined that including the report as an Appendix to the EIR would amplify and clarify information already provided in the EIR.

The conclusion of the report is that the proposed project would use water from the City of Clovis distribution system as opposed to on-site wells. In terms of groundwater, there would be an overall reduction in groundwater pumpage of about 400 acre-feet per year. This would be beneficial to the local groundwater supplies. The full report is included in Section 3.0 Errata. 3263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-11 The DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s onsite groundwater usage would be less than existing conditions, is based on several factors, most notably the fact that the Project’s onsite groundwater usage would be less than existing conditions. At full build-out, total water demand for the Project would be approximately 255.8 AFY. Since at least 2020, less than half of the City’s water supplies have derived from groundwater pumping; instead, most of the City’s supplies come from the City’s surface water rights or stored water.

In other words, actual groundwater usage following the completion of the Project will be less than half (i.e., less than 127.9 AFY, and decreasing over time) of the Project’s total consumptive water use. As such, the Project’s groundwater usage will be less than historic groundwater usage at the site as estimated in either the Schmidt Report or the WSA. Moreover, the proportion of the City’s water supply needs that will be served by groundwater extractions will continue to decrease through at least 2030. In addition, unlike the historic agricultural uses on the Property, the City’s water supplies do not draw from onsite wells, but rather from wells located in other locations within and around the City of Clovis. Further, a significant amount of the site will remain pervious (i.e. landscaping front and backyards, parks, open space, etc.). To the extent that runoff occurs offsite because of impervious surfaces, groundwater recharge associated with runoff would occur in nearby FMFCD stormwater facilities. The presence of hardpan soils in some of the geotechnical bore samples at the project site was provided in the DEIR for appropriate context. However, the presence of hardpan was not the basis for the DEIR’s conclusion that the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater recharge. Because the project’s groundwater usage is less than the status quo (i.e., the pecan orchard), the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management under the applicable GSA or result in any potentially significant impacts related to groundwater resources.

Master Response 6: Access: Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways:
two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin is a requirement of the City of Clovis Fire Department, it provides secondary accessto only the101 lot gated subdivision. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin will be an exit only driveway to the 101-lot gated subdivision and will provide emergency access. Because this point has limited access to major thoroughfares, it is not anticipated to generate significant traffic and the TIA has estimated approximately 10% to use this egress. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Master Response 7: Traffic generation: The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences.

The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar single-family residential developments. Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic 3264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area. As stipulated by statutory directives in SB743, congestion is not an environmental impact and the City is voluntarily addressing these issues only to help the public better understand. The project would be conditioned to require construction of improvements, payment of Development impact fees and Regional Transportation Mitigation fee and payment of fair-share contributions towards improvements not included in any existing fee programs.

Master Response 8: Traffic volume: The TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project.

Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity.

This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

Master Response 9: Pedestrian and Cyclist Traffic: The project will be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site.

As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, Fordham Avenue, and Heirloom Avenue and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings have been recommended to enhance, pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. This includes a signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

In addition, Shepherd Avenue will be constructed curb to curb between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenue including a trail/sidewalk along the north side of Shepherd Avenue and bike lanes along this segment of Shepherd Avenue. This will enhance both vehicular safety and pedestrian safety along this corridor.

Master Response 10: Traffic calming/Improvements: the project proposes to connect to the existing roundabout at the northerly project location along Sunnyside Avenue. Additionally, sidewalks and bike lanes will be constructed along the project frontage on Shepherd Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fordham Avenue. Addition of these project design features would help in traffic calming as well as enhance safety around the project site.

Master Response 11: Safety for children playing: The project will be implementing several project design features around the project site that will improve safety for children. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue, Shepherd Avenue, Heirloom Avenue, and Fordham Avenue, and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location. As such, implementation of the signal and said sidewalks would help address speeding and safety issues along these corridors.
3265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-13 Master Response 12: Fire gate: The project will have four separate access points. As such, in case of any fire related events, Firefighters can access the project through multiple access points around the project site. Therefore, the project is not estimated to have any fire related access concerns.

Master Response 13: Traffic on Stanford, Perrin, Ticonderoga, and Fowler: The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to the local roads including Stanford, Perrin, and Ticonderoga. Similarly, it is estimated to add nominal trips to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. Based on the TIA, only 15 percent of project traffic is anticipated to utilize Fowler Avenue heading south of Shepherd Avenue towards SR-168. As such, the project is not estimated to create any traffic related issues along the local streets or Fowler Avenue. A signal at the intersection of Fowler Avenue/Teague Avenue is in the City’s Development Impact Fee program and will be constructed when warranted but not as a requirement of the project. It should be noted that the segment of Fowler Avenue between Ticonderoga and Shepherd Avenue is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative (2046) without and plus project conditions. However, this segment is designated as a Rural collector (2‐ lanes) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and already constructed as per the General Plan Circulation Element designation. Additionally, the project is not estimated to add any traffic at this segment during either peak hours. Therefore, no improvement has been recommended for this roadway segment.

Master Response 14: Annexation, SOI Expansion, and the Provision of City Services: Annexations and Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansions are regulated by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. (DEIR p.3.10-3 through 3.10-4) The regulations establish procedures for local government changes of organization, including city incorporations, annexations to a city or special district, and city and special district consolidations. In approving an annexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will consider the following factors:
• Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; and the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years.
• The need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; and the probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
• The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local government structure of the county. • The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, and efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Government Code section 56377. • The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code section 56016.
3266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. • Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. • The sphere of influence of any local agency that may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. • The comments of any affected local agency.
• The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services that are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.
• Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Government Code section 65352.5.
• The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs, as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Housing Element laws.
• Any information or comments from lawmakers.
• Any information relating to existing land use designations.

In addition to the above factors, LAFCo may also consider any resolution raising objections to the action that may be filed by an affected agency; and any other matters which the commission deems material.

In Fresno County, including the City of Clovis, the Fresno LAFCo is responsible for coordinating orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. (DEIR p. 3.10-6 through 3.10-9).

Any annexation of the Project site to the City is subject to LAFCo approval, and LAFCo will review proposed annexations for consistency with LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.

Fresno LAFCo has adopted Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment to and from all agencies within their jurisdiction. It is Fresno LAFCo policy (102-01) that “within the sphere of influence each agency should implement an orderly, phased annexation program. A proposal should not be approved solely because the area falls within the sphere of influence of an agency.” The City of Clovis follows the Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment when annexing land into the City.

LAFCo recommends that each local agency fulfill this policy through the exercise of several basic principles and actions that are outlined on page 3.10-6 through 3.10-9 of the DEIR.

The DEIR includes an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the LAFCo policies on page 3.10-26 through 3.10-30 of the DEIR. The DEIR indicates that Fresno LAFCo will review the proposed annexation for consistency with the Annexation Policies and Procedures. The DEIR presents the following policies that will be reviewed as part of the annexation process by the Fresno LAFCo, and provides a specific project discussion for each.

1. The annexation program is consistent with LAFCo’s Sphere of influence (SOI) for the City.

Suggested actions:
• City and county shall reach agreement on development standards and planning and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner 3267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-15 that reflects the concerns of the affected City and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. GC §56425 • City responds to a request to extend service outside of its City limits and SOIs in consultation with GC §56133 and Fresno LAFCo policy.

Project discussion:

The proposed Project includes an amendment of the City’s SOI to include the entirety the approximately 155-acre Project site. The area is currently located in the City’s Planning Area, but outside of the City’s SOI. The amendment of the City’s SOI will require an application and approval by the Fresno LAFCo. The SOI amendment would be reviewed by the City and LAFCo prior to proceeding with the requested annexation. If the SOI Amendment is approved, the Project would then be able to begin the annexation process.

2. The annexation program clearly implements the City’s general plan.

Suggested actions:
• City annexation applications shall describe how the proposal implements the City’s general plan, and support these statements with information from other official sources such as the annual budget, capital improvement plan, and so forth.
• A prezoning ordinance shall not be encumbered with extraneous conditions that preclude the ordinance’s effective date by the time of LAFCo hearing on the annexation.

Project discussion:

The proposed Project includes the adoption of pre-zoning for the proposed annexation area, which will serve to regulate the uses of land and structures within the Project area. The Project site is currently located outside of the Clovis City limits, and therefore does not have Citydesignated zoning. The proposed Project includes a request for Development Area pre-zoning (which is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designation). The pre-zoning request is for Single-Family Planned Residential Development Zoning (R-1-PRD) zoning designation over the Development Area lots. The R-1-PRD district is consistent with the proposed Medium-High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. The proposed City of Clovis zoning for the Project site is shown on Figure 2.0-9. The Project will be subject to the development standards as described in the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code is proposed to ensure consistency between land use and zoning designations.

3. The annexation program emphasizes the use of cities’ resolution of application versus property owner/registered voter petitions.

Suggested action:
• For the City to consider opposing property owner petition-initiated reorganizations as these would not have proceeded through the process of City development review and approval, which is an important step in the management of a City’s general plan.

Project discussion:

No opposing property owner petition-initiated reorganizations exist for this Project. 3268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

4. The annexation program supports orderly growth by identifying areas to be annexed, general time frames for growth, and a plan for extension of services to these areas.

Suggested actions:
• Capital improvement plan and/or facilities plans include all lands within the SOI; • Development impact fees that fund the extension of services are established and maintained; • Impacts to service delivery are assessed in the City’s EIR or project-specific CEQA documents and appropriately-scaled mitigation is approved and implemented. • The City coordinates its public policy documents in support of the annexation program.

Project discussion:

The Draft EIR assesses service capacity and demands for utilities services and public services. There are not any service deficiencies noted by the City of Clovis, or contained within this EIR that are anticipated to occur after installation of infrastructure. The Project site is also designated for residential uses by the City’s General Plan.

5. The annexation program anticipates changes of organization of existing service districts and service areas in the SOI or adjacent to the SOI.

Suggested action:
• The Program should describe the transition of services that will occur when the City annexes/detaches (CID, NCFPD, FCFPD, KRCD, etc.); inversely, the document describes the status of or continuation of services when annexations do not result in detachment (FID, FMFCD, etc.).

Project discussion:

As noted previously, the Draft EIR assesses service capacity and demands for utilities services and public services. There are not any service deficiencies noted by the City of Clovis, or contained within this EIR that are anticipated to occur after installation of infrastructure. The Project site is also designated for residential uses by the City’s General Plan.

6. The annexation program anticipates the location of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within a City’s sphere of influence.

Suggested action:
• Cities should become proficient in implementing their responsibilities under Senate Bill 244, should review Fresno LAFCo DUC policy and review Senate Bill 244 Technical Advisory.

Project discussion:

The Project site is not located in or adjacent to a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.

7. The annexation program informs citizens in annexation areas of their rights, benefits, and changes that will occur on annexation.

Suggested actions:
3269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-17 • City to establish and maintain on its website a description of the information above, how citizens can engage the process, how the City engages citizens and stakeholders and other information related to annexation. This information should include a description of the SOI, protest processes, and how LAFCo is involved.
• For those portions of a City’s SOI that contain a large number of rural residential parcels that are planned for urban uses, the City is strongly encouraged to develop a long-term plan to annex and serve these areas.

Project discussion:

As noted previously, the Draft EIR assesses service capacity and demands for utilities services and public services. There are not any service deficiencies noted by the City of Clovis, or contained within this EIR that are anticipated to occur after installation of infrastructure. The Project site is also designated for residential uses by the City’s General Plan. It is noted, however, the proposed annexation area was not included in the City’s latest Municipal Service Review.

8. The annexation program will be coordinated with LAFCo’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) for the City.

Suggested action:
• City applications should include an assessment of current MSR determinations and recommendations.

Project discussion:

As noted previously, the Draft EIR assesses service capacity and demands for utilities services and public services. There are not any service deficiencies noted by the City of Clovis, or contained within this EIR that are anticipated to occur after installation of infrastructure. The Project site is also designated for residential uses by the City’s General Plan. It is noted, however, the proposed annexation area was not included in the City’s latest Municipal Service Review.

9. The annexation program is managed by an assigned and responsible City staff member.

Suggested action:
• City identifies a staff member to serve as a genuine point of contact with LAFCo, that is, a staff member responsible and accountable for managing applications, knowledgeable of the project and of LAFCo’s process, and empowered to facilitate the City’s annexation program.

Project discussion:

This requirement applies to the City and not individual development projects.

H10. City entitlement analysis is integrated with LAFCo policies Suggested action:
• Local agencies, including Fresno County, are strongly advised to include Fresno LAFCo in their initial request for comments.
3270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • When initial planning applications that will eventually require annexation are submitted to cities, they are encouraged to submit a pre-application to LAFCo so that LAFCo can track the project at its beginning and provide comments that would facilitate annexation in time for these to be considered in a timely and efficient manner.

Project discussion:

This City has coordinated with LAFCo through the release of the Notice of Preparation and invitation to the Scoping meeting. The City will ultimately coordinate with LAFCo if the City decides that the Project site should be annexed into the City of Clovis. At that time, the City would submit the appropriate applications and documentations for LAFCo’s consideration of the City’s annexation approval.

← All documents from this meeting