CEQA Addendum for the Villages at Fairfield Project
(VAF EIR: E.R. 2003-29; 2011 Addendum; 2015 Addendum; 2018 Addendum) September 2025
On September 20, 2005, the Fairfield City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-296 certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Villages at Fairfield (the “EIR”). The EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Final EIR, including Responses to Comment, bound in volumes. The Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR and approved tentative maps in Resolution 2005-33 and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-297 approving a General Plan Amendment for the Project on September 20, 2005, adopted Ordinance 2005-15 amending the Zoning Code, and adopted Ordinance No. 2005-14 approving a Development Agreement for the Villages at Fairfield. On May 3, 2011, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with its approval of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“First Amended DA”).
On August 10, 2015, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with its approval of the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“Second Amended DA”). The 2011 and 2015 Addenda analyzed shifts in residential densities and minor land use revisions, all in substantial conformance with the previously approved tentative maps. On January 15, 2019, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with its approval of the First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“First Amendment to Second Amended DA”), which adjusted the timing of certain infrastructure improvements described in Exhibit H of the Second Amended and Restated DA. The City is now contemplating approval of the Third Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and the necessary changes to the Project EIR associated with that amendment, which are reviewed by the 2025 (Lago Vista) Addendum.
This 2025 (Parkside) Addendum to the EIR has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project, as described below. The proposed Villages at Fairfield Parkside project (“Parkside”) would develop up to 76 single-family detached dwelling units on a currently undeveloped parcel on the southeast corner of the Passion Lane and Gulf Drive intersection located in Village I of Villages at Fairfield. The subject parcel was originally assumed to be the site of a future elementary school in the EIR. As such, this 2025 (Parkside) Addendum considers the development of the Parkside site with up to 76 residential units instead of an elementary school. This 2025 (Parkside) Addendum also considers a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to redesignate the approximately 7.99-acre site from Public Facility (PF) to Residential Medium (RM).
The modifications to the Project described in this 2025 (Parkside) Addendum do not cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed because all of the impacts of the Parkside project have already been effectively analyzed under the VAF EIR. As documented in this Addendum, the impacts of the Parkside project related to Aesthetics, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Noise, Population & Housing, Public Facilities & Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities & Service Systems, Wildfire, Energy, Agricultural & Forest Resources, and Mineral Resources have been sufficiently analyzed by the VAF EIR such that no major
EXHIBIT A
2 revisions to the VAF EIR are required. Where applicable, mitigation measures from the previously certified EIR are referenced and incorporated into this Addendum.
PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Villages at Fairfield Project site is located within the boundaries of the Peabody Walters Master Plan (“PWMP”), which the City adopted in 1994 after preparing the Peabody Walters Master Plan Focused Environmental Impact Report (“Peabody Walters EIR”). Fairfield City Council Resolution Nos. 94-173 and 94-174, September 6, 1994. In 2002, the City undertook a comprehensive review of its General Plan and certified the General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the amended 2002 City of Fairfield General Plan (Fairfield City Council Resolution No. 2002-128, June 5, 2002). The Villages at Fairfield EIR (“VAF EIR”) utilized these prior analyses in evaluating the Project’s impacts. The EIR examined the potential change from current conditions to conditions under the proposed Project and alternatives for the following resources: Land Use, Housing, and Population (Chapter 3); Transportation and Circulation (Chapter 4); Public Facilities and Services (Chapter 5); Biology and Natural Resources (Chapter 6); Air Quality (Chapter 7); Hydrology and Water Quality (Chapter 8); Agriculture (Chapter 9); Noise (Chapter 10); Other Resources (visual, cultural, geologic and seismic, fire hazards and hazardous materials) (Chapter 11); and Project Alternatives (Chapter 12). Chapters 3-12 discussed each of the primary substantive subject areas identified in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Appendices 3 through 57 were included in the EIR and consisted of the detailed reports which formed the technical basis for the environmental evaluation in the EIR.
The full VAF EIR; its set of appendices; copies of the Peabody Walters Master Plan EIR and the General Plan EIR; and the 2011, 2015 and 2018 Addenda to the VAF EIR and 2025 (Lago Vista) Addendum are all incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review together with this 2025 (Parkside) Addendum at the City’s Community Development Department (1000 Webster Street, 2nd Floor).
DETERMINATION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if changes or additions are necessary and when none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (which calls for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR) have occurred. Section 15162 requires preparation of a Subsequent EIR when:
“(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
EXHIBIT A
3 certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
The “project” at issue for purposes of CEQA’s subsequent review provisions is the residential development of the Parkside site. In this case, all of the environmental impacts associated with Parkside have already been analyzed and accounted for under the certified VAF EIR.
Where none of the above-referenced conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR exist, the CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to prepare an Addendum to the previously certified EIR, including a brief explanation, supported by substantial evidence, of the decision to not prepare a Subsequent EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164(a)).
This Addendum concludes that the proposed Parkside project would not result in new significant adverse impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts under the VAF EIR. Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate form of environmental review under CEQA.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City is considering the approval of modifications to the Villages at Fairfield Development Project (the “proposed Project”) submitted by Rancho Tolenas Corp. (“RTC”). The previously approved Project includes five separate Projects located on approximately 431 acres in the northeastern area of the City of Fairfield, to the south of Cement Hill and the Putah South Canal, north of Air Base Parkway, east of the Woodlake Estates residential development, and west of the Gold Ridge residential development. The Project site is divided into five separate development projects, including four residential projects, Village I, Village II, Village III, and Village IV, and the Laurel Creek Plaza commercial center.
The original Project would have resulted in the construction of approximately 2,327 new residential units, approximately 311,000 square feet of commercial retail and mixed uses, and other public facilities that were provided to serve the development areas and the regional community consistent with City standards. The Project was amended in 2011 to reduce the number of units through reduction in density to 1,961 units and convert the Industrial Business
EXHIBIT A
4 Park Mixed Use area in Village II to residential use. The Project was amended again in 2015 to further reduce the densities of some parcels, lowering the total number of residential units from 1,961 to 1,830. The Project originally analyzed 832 residential units in Village I and 269 residential units in Village II, a total of 1,101 units. The 2011 and 2015 Addenda analyzed shifts in the residential densities for Villages I and II, and the final maps ultimately approved for Village I and II included just 432 units in Village I and 374 units in Village II, a total of 806 units, 295 less than the originally approved Village I-II total of 1,101. The proposed Lago Vista project reallocates 295 of those originally approved Village I-II units to the Lago Vista site, plus an additional 80 units, which integrates into the Village II infrastructure, for a total of 1,181 units between Villages I, II and Lago Vista. The proposed Parkside project would develop up to 76 single-family detached dwelling units on a currently undeveloped parcel on the southeast corner of the Passion Lane and Gulf Drive intersection located in Village I that was originally assumed to be the site of a future elementary school in the EIR. With the proposed Parkside project, there would be a total of 1,259 units between Villages I and II (including Lago Vista).
The Parkside site was part of a larger plan to provide a 10-acre elementary school site. Fairfield Suisun Unified School District (“FSUSD”) did not formally act to acquire the site before the January 2023 deadline required by the Development Agreement, and FSUSD has confirmed that it has no plans to acquire the site and pursue development of a school on it. Accordingly, FSUSD has released RTC from retaining the property for a school site, and the site is now proposed to be developed for residential use.
As such, the Parkside project also includes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to redesignate the approximately 7.99-acre site from Public Facility (PF) to Residential Medium (RM).
The Parkside site is bounded on three sides with streets or Linear Park and to the east by the FSUSD parcel. As such, the site has been continuously used for construction staging. The Parkside project’s proposed streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, and lighting would be maintained as part of the City’s existing Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District “LLMD No. 14 - Woodlake”. The storm drainage would be maintained under the Fairfield-Suisun Storm Drain maintenance program. Lot A will be a water quality basin to meet current water quality regulations for the Parkside project. Lot A is anticipated to be dedicated to the City.
The Parkside Project is immediately adjacent to the multi-use Linear Park trail, with off-street connectivity to Passion Lane to the west and the Village I park to the east.
All modifications to the Project described above result in volume-based impacts such as traffic, air quality, roadway noise, utilities, water supply, and public services that are consistent with the those addressed by the VAF EIR. The footprint of the developed area remains the same or smaller than the development already analyzed in the VAF EIR, so all land-based impacts, such as those related to agriculture, biology, cultural, geology, hydrology, and hazards, remain the same or less significant than those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Where applicable and appropriate, mitigation measures from the EIR are incorporated into this Addendum, ensuring that there are no new or substantially more severe impacts associated with the modifications to the Project. In
EXHIBIT A
5 addition, the modified Project remains less than the impacts considered in the Peabody Walters Master Plan and General Plan, which the Final EIR compared to the approved Project. Overall, the modifications to the Project do not result in any changes to the significance of previously analyzed environmental impacts identified in the Final VAF EIR. Each impact area is considered below to analyze whether the proposed Parkside project will result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the VAF EIR.
On the basis of the evaluation below, the City determines that the potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed Parkside project have been addressed in the certified VAF EIR (and subsequent addenda), and that none of the conditions for preparation of a subsequent EIR set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have been triggered. Accordingly, an Addendum to the VAF EIR shall be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, as set forth below. Note that the VAF EIR and previous addenda to the VAF EIR followed the organizational structure of the Peabody Walters EIR, which combined certain impact discussions into larger chapters. For clarity, this Addendum is organized by individual impact area but references the previous VAF EIR analysis by its heading in the VAF EIR where applicable.
1. Aesthetics
The VAF EIR analyzed impacts related to visual resources in Chapter 11 and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Views of the proposed Parkside development from the surrounding area would be similar to those analyzed in the VAF EIR, and the site itself contains no visual resources. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all applicable VAF EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that any aesthetics impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the aesthetics impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Aesthetic Impacts - Would the
project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
No
Substantial
Change from
Previous VAF
EIR Analysis
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a
State‐designated scenic
highway?
X
EXHIBIT A
6 c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
2. Agricultural Resources
The VAF EIR analyzed impacts related to agricultural resources in Chapter 9 and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all applicable VAF EIR mitigation measures, ensuring that any agricultural resources impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the agricultural resources impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
3. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases
The VAF EIR concluded that the VAF project would contribute to an exceedance of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance thresholds for certain conventional pollutants and that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. With the proposed additional residential units on the Parkside site instead of the previously proposed school, there is no change in this conclusion. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable as in the VAF EIR, but the VAF EIR included mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all applicable VAF EIR mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the air quality impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Air Quality - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the app licable air
quality plan?
X
b) Violate an air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
X
EXHIBIT A
7 c) Result in cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in
non‐attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emission
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
With respect to GHG impacts associated with the Parkside project, the VAF GHG analysis would also apply. In the 2010 and 2015 Addenda to the VAF EIR, the City concluded that although the 2005 EIR did not evaluate the VAF project’s GHG emissions, the later adoption of AB 32 and BAAQMD GHG thresholds did not constitute new information requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR since those regulatory developments did not reveal new site- specific impacts, and GHG impacts were known or knowable in 2005. Since traffic is the primary driver associated with volume-based operational impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, and the Parkside units can be accounted for in the VAF trip generation budget, the GHG analysis does not change. No GHG mitigation would be required under the VAF EIR.
Nevertheless, as a matter of regulatory compliance, the Parkside project is required to comply with Title 24 energy efficiency standards, therefore, the Parkside units will be more energy- and GHG-efficient than the units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR. The Parkside units will also be solar-ready. Accordingly, the GHG impacts associated with the Parkside project would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 151662 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Greenhouse Gas Impacts - Would the
project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
4. Biological Resources
EXHIBIT A
8 Potential impacts to biological resources related to development on the Parkside site were thoroughly analyzed in the VAF EIR. Existing conditions on the Parkside site have not materially changed since the VAF EIR was certified. See EIR Addendum Biological Summary Memorandum prepared by WRA, Inc., attached as Appendix A. The VAF EIR concluded that all impacts to biological resources associated with the VAF project would be less than significant with mitigation. The entire Village I site, including the Parkside Project site, has been periodically graded and disturbed since 2009 and was mass graded in 2017. Since that time, the site has been consistently and continuously used for staging, stockpiling, and general construction-related activities, thus maintaining a disturbed condition. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any biological resources impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the biological resources impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
On October 15, 2024, burrowing owl was listed as a state candidate species by the California Fish and Game Commission. During the listing review process, burrowing owl will be temporarily afforded the same protections as state-listed species throughout the entirety of California. Impacts to burrowing owl were evaluated in connection with the 2011 Addendum and the site was surveyed for burrowing owl in connection with the 2005 EIR and in 2009 prior to Corps and RWQCB permitting, with negative findings. Mitigation Measure BIO-20 requires that a pre-construction burrowing owl survey will be performed 30 days in advance of ground disturbance within the Project area. The Project area has been graded and does not currently support burrows of suitable size for burrowing owl. Given the ongoing disturbance and lack of suitable burrows, burrowing owl are unlikely to occupy the site for overwintering or nesting purposes. No potentially significant impacts to burrowing owl are anticipated with the Parkside project, and the pre-construction survey requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-20 will further reduce the less than significant impacts.
Environmental Issues
Biological Resources - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
X
EXHIBIT A
9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances related to protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
5. Cultural Resources (including Tribal Cultural Resources) The VAF EIR concluded that potential impacts of the VAF project related to cultural resources would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any cultural resources impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the cultural resources impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Cultural Resources – Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5?
X
EXHIBIT A
10 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
Specifically, regarding Tribal Cultural Resources, the VAF EIR analyzed potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources under the Cultural Resources impact category. Since the certification of the VAF EIR, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added various provisions to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) that concern Tribal Cultural Resources, including § 21080.3.1(d). The adoption of AB 52 established the tribal cultural resources environmental factor and related thresholds for Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. On July 30, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the final text for the tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on September 27, 2016. The addition of Tribal Cultural Resources as a separate category from Cultural Resources does not constitute new information requiring a revision to the VAF EIR. Moreover, the requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1 only apply to the preparation of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR; they do not apply to project revisions that do not trigger subsequent environmental review pursuant to Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and require only an addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. See PRC § 21080.3.1(b).
Environmental Issues
Tribal Cultural Resources - Would the
project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is a resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
EXHIBIT A
11 6. Geology & Soils
The VAF EIR concluded that potential impacts of the VAF project related to geology and soils would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any geology and soils impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the geology and soils impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Geology and Soils - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Expose persons or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Spec ial
Publication 42
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of
topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on‐ or off‐site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
EXHIBIT A
12 e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewer is not available
for the disposal of waste water?
X
7. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
The VAF EIR concluded that potential impacts of the VAF project related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would
the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one‐quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and as a result,
would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) Be located within an airport land use
plan, or where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
EXHIBIT A
13 f) Be located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
X
8. Hydrology & Water Quality
Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality related to development on the Parkside site were thoroughly analyzed in the VAF EIR. The VAF EIR concluded that all impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the VAF project would be less than significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any hydrology and water quality impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the hydrology and water quality impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the
project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of
pre‐existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
X
EXHIBIT A
14 substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or
off‐site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on‐ or
off‐site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff
water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing/structures within
a 100‐year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
X
h) Place within a 100‐year flood
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
X
j) Result in inundation by seiche,
tsunami or mudflow?
X
9. Land Use & Planning
The VAF EIR concluded that potential impacts of the VAF project related to land use and planning would be less -than-significant. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any land use and planning impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the land use and planning impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
EXHIBIT A
15 The proposed Parkside project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to change current land use designations for the Project site from Public Facility (PF) to Residential Medium (RM). Because the Project involves a General Plan Amendment, it will be reviewed by the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission.
Environmental Issues
Land Use - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X
10. Noise
The VAF EIR concluded that potential impacts of the VAF project related to noise would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The Parkside Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I, ensuring that any noise impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the noise impacts associated with Parkside would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
The only project source of potentially increased ambient noise in the vicinity of the Parkside project (impact threshold (c)) is noise generated by vehicle trips. The number of vehicle trips generated by the project is driven by the number of residential units. The Parkside project trips would not exceed the daily trips generated by Villages I and II as studied in the VAF EIR. The combined Villages I, II, Lago Vista, and Parkside would generate 1,905 fewer daily trips, 25 more AM peak hour trips, and 163 fewer PM peak hour trips than the VAF EIR trip generation budget for Villages I and II. The slight difference in AM peak hour trips would not be large enough to affect traffic operations at nearby intersections or result in new traffic impacts or mitigations beyond those studied in the VAF EIR. The slight difference in PM peak hour trips
EXHIBIT A
16 means that PM traffic operations at nearby intersections would be the same or better than operations studied in the VAF EIR. The VAF EIR analyzed traffic noise associated with the Project, including Village I-II, and concluded that those impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Those mitigation measures include the construction of barrier walls along Cement Hill Road and Clay Bank Road and apply to the entire VAF Project. Those mitigation measures will continue to apply to the entire VAF Project, including Parkside, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Environmental Issues
Noise - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Result in the exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Result in the exposure of persons to or
generation of, excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) Result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
d) Result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
11. Population & Housing
The potential impacts of the Parkside project related to population and housing are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 3 (Land Use and Housing and Population), and determined to be less than significant.
As concluded in the VAF EIR, the total future housing and residential population are consistent with the housing and population growth allocated to the VAF project area and considered in the
EXHIBIT A
17 PWMP and the City’s General Plan. The addition of 76 units will not change the VAF-wide total number of units originally studied in the VAF EIR (2,327 units) and therefore, does not result in changes to impact conclusions related to Housing and Population. Accordingly, the Parkside project remains consistent with the conclusions in the VAF EIR and no revisions are required. The potential impacts of the Parkside project related to population and housing would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.
Environmental Issues
Population - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly or indirectly?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
12. Public Facilities & Services
The potential impacts of the Parkside project related to public services and facilities are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 5 (Public Facilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that impacts associated with the originally-entitled 2,327 units would be less-than-significant with mitigation.
Since the Parkside project units will not change the VAF-wide total of 2,327 units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR, the impacts conclusions in the VAF EIR remain unchanged with the addition of the Parkside residential units to the Project. VAF mitigation measures related to Public Facilities and Services would continue to apply to the entire VAF Project, including Parkside. Mitigation measures include the payment of public facilities impact fees that new development within the City must pay before issuance of a building permit. Payment of fees would offset potential increases in service requests and impacts associated with public services would remain less than significant with mitigation.
EXHIBIT A
18 Environmental Issues
Public Services - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for: fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks, and other public
facilities?
X
13. Recreation
With respect to the Recreation impact threshold (a), the increase in demand for neighborhood and regional parks associated with the Parkside project is driven by the number of residential units and associated population. The VAF EIR did not specifically address Recreation, but it analyzed the Project’s potential impacts related to Park Facilities in Chapter 5 (Public Utilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to Park Facilities with the implementation of Mitigation Measures PF-20, 21, and 22, which will apply to Parkside and which require improvement of the Linear Park adjacent to Villages I, II and III and neighborhood-serving parks in Villages I, II and III, along with Mitigation Measure PF-23, which requires payment of applicable AB 1600 development impact fees to fund park improvements.
The Project, including Parkside, will be served by the existing Laurel Creek Community Park, and the continued development of the Linear Park system which runs along and adjacent to the entire VAF master planned community, allowing for pedestrian and bicycle mobility from Clay Bank Road to Peabody Road. The Project will have access to an additional 14.2 acres of parkland within the VAF master planned community (including 5.5 acres in Village I, 0.7 acre in Village II, and 8.0 acres planned for Village III) and 11.1 acres of nearby linear parkway.
Environmental Issues
Recreation - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
X
EXHIBIT A
19 accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction, or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
14. Transportation
Wood Rodgers prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum attached as Appendix B, which compares the trip generation of the proposed Parkside project with the trip generation analyzed in the VAF EIR to confirm that the Parkside project will not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed and mitigated in the VAF EIR. Table 1 shows the approved trip generation for Villages I-III from the VAF EIR.
Table 1: VAF EIR Residential Trip Generation – Villages I and II Development Land Uses Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Village I Residential 204 Low-Med
Density Units, 628
High Density Units
6,115 473 89 384 596 393 203
Village II Residential/
Mixed Use
270 Low-Med
Density Units, 24.3
Acres Mixed-Use
6,978 308 115 193 656 359 297
EIR Approved Total 13,093 781 204 577 1,252 752 500
Source: VAF EIR Table 4-6 and Appendix 3: Traffic Analysis for the Villages at Fairfield (TKJM, February 4, 2005), Tables IX and X (based on rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition).
As noted in the project description, the final maps ultimately approved for Villages I and II included 432 units in Village I and 374 units in Village II, a total of 806 units, 295 less than the originally approved Village I-II total. Table 2 shows the trip generation for the actual built-out Village I-II units. Table 2 also includes the current proposed units for Lago Vista and Parkside.
Table 2: Current Trip Generation – Villages I, II and Proposed Lago Vista, and Parkside Units
Land Use
Category
Units Quantity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
EXHIBIT A
20 Total In Out Total In Out
Village I –
Single-
Family
Detached
Housing
DU 432 3,878 282 71 211 393 248 145
Village II –
Single-
Family
Detached
Housing
DU 374 3,396 247 62 185 343 216 127
Lago Vista –
Single-
Family
Detached,
Single-
Family
Attached
(Duplex)
DU 375 3,130 219 55 164 276 169 107
Parkside –
Single-
Family
Detached
DU 76 784 58 15 43 77 49 28
Total 11,188 806 203 603 1,089 682 407
Notes: Trip rates based on fitted curve equations for the proposed land use consistent with information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
As detailed in Appendix B, the addition of Parkside daily trips to the built-out conditions of Villages I and II and the proposed Lago Vista conditions results in a total of 11,188 daily trips, 1,905 fewer than the 13,093 originally studied and approved in the VAF EIR for Villages I and II. Accordingly, the trips generated by the Parkside site would not exceed the trips generated by Villages I and II in the VAF EIR. The built-out conditions of Villages I and II, with Lago Vista and Parkside, are estimated to generate 25 more AM peak hour trips than VAF EIR conditions.
The slight difference in AM peak hour trips would not be large enough to affect traffic operations at nearby intersections or result in new traffic impacts or mitigations beyond those studied in the VAF EIR. The built-out conditions of Villages I and II with Lago Vista and Parkside are estimated to generate 163 fewer PM peak hour trips than VAF EIR conditions. The slight difference in PM peak hour trips means that PM traffic operations at nearby intersections would be the same or better than operations studied in the VAF EIR. Appendix B includes an analysis of intersection operations with the addition of Parkside units. All of the mitigation measures from the VAF EIR and subsequent addenda would continue to apply to the entire Project, including Parkside.
EXHIBIT A
21 While the CEQA Guidelines now consider VMT, addenda do not need to consider new impact areas added after the EIR was concluded. See Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (adoption of new guidelines for GHG evaluation was no significant new information requiring further CEQA review because GHG emissions were known information and could have been addressed in the original EIR); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health Servs. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605 (new critical habitat regulation was not significant new information because impacts to the species had already been addressed in original EIR.) Since the trip distribution and generation of the combined current VAF Village I, Village II, and Parkside Project would be similar to and less than the values in the approved VAF EIR, the Parkside project would not be projected to result in any new transportation impacts beyond those studied in the VAF EIR.
Environmental Issues
Transportation - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
No Substantial Change
from Previous VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non‐motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but
not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures,
or other standards established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
X
EXHIBIT A
22 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans
or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
X
15. PUBLIC FACILITIES (UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS)
The potential impacts of the Parkside project related to public utilities are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 5 (Public Facilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that all impacts of the Project related to Public Utilities would be less than significant with mitigation. All of the mitigation measures adopted in the VAF EIR and its addenda would continue to apply to the Project, including Parkside. Because the Parkside project does not affect the VAF -wide total number of units that was originally studied in the VAF EIR (2,327 total units), demand for all utility services will be similar to what was originally studied and approved in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, t he proposed Parkside Project will not result in any new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to utilities.
Environmental Issues
Utilities - Would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects
X
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
X
EXHIBIT A
23 commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
16. WILDFIRE
The VAF EIR did not formally analyze potential wildfire impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist thresholds were updated by the State Office of Planning and Research after publication of the VAF EIR. The current State CEQA Appendix G checklist contains separate thresholds for Wildfire, which are incorporated into this Addendum, and shown in the checklist below.
Environmental Issues
Wildfire: If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
EXHIBIT A
24 17. ENERGY
The VAF EIR did not formally analyze potential energy impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist thresholds were updated by the State Office of Planning and Research after publication of the VAF EIR. The current State CEQA Appendix G checklist contains separate thresholds for Energy, which are incorporated into this Addendum, and shown in the checklist below. However, the total number of units in VAF with the addition of Parkside will remain the same as the number of units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR, so any Energy- related impacts associated with Parkside would be consistent with or less than those of the VAF Project. Additionally, the units in the Parkside project will implement Title 24 energy efficiency standards, ensuring that it is more energy-efficient than those originally analyzed in the VAF EIR.
Energy Impacts- Would the project: New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
VAF EIR
Analysis
No Impact
c) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
d) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
18. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A. Mineral Resources: The VAF EIR concluded that the VAF Project would have no impacts related to mineral resources. There is no change to this conclusion with the Parkside project.
CONCLUSION
This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. The Addendum reviews the proposed development activities and project changes discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum, the City determines that the proposed Project does not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the VAF EIR; the 2011, 2015 and 2018 Addenda to the VAF EIR; the 2025 (Lago Vista) Addendum; and this Addendum to the VAF EIR, adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Parkside project.
As provided in Section 15164 of Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered along with the prior environmental documents before making a decision to adopt the Parkside project approvals.
EXHIBIT A
25 The above referenced resolutions, ordinance, EIRs, and the 2011, 2015 and 2018 Addenda, the 2025 (Lago Vista) Addendum, and this Addendum are all available for public review in the Community Development Department (1000 Webster Street, 2nd Floor Fairfield, CA) during regular business hours and are all incorporated herein by reference.
EXHIBIT A
WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
February 4, 2025
Rob White
Vice President Planned Communities
Lewis Management Corp.
9216 Kiefer Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95826
Re: EIR Addendum Biological Summary for the Parkside Development Project
This letter was prepared to support the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addendum for Parkside Development Project (Project) located within in Fairfield, California (Project Area). The purpose of this letter is to summarize additional biological considerations and regulatory changes that have occurred since the preparation of the Villages at Fairfield Environmental Impact Report (EIR; City of Fairfield 2005) and the subsequent EIR Amendment (2010 Amendment; City of Fairfield, 2010), under which the Project Area was initially evaluated.
The report herein also includes a summary of site activities, existing site conditions, and applicable mitigation measures that will need to be completed prior to the initiation of Project construction.
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following sections address activities that have been completed on-site to date as well as outstanding items that will need to be completed prior to the initiation of any further ground disturbance. The Parkside Project is located within the larger Village 1 boundaries.
1.1 EIR Findings Summary, Previous Reports, and Current Conditions Overall, Village I impacted a total of 0.48 acres of jurisdictional aquatic resources, some of which were located with the Project boundaries. Necessary permits were acquired from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB; WDID 2 48C377696) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps; File No. 256570N). Compensation for these impacts occurred through purchase of mitigation credits.
In 2009, a Pre-Construction Survey was conducted for the larger Keswick Village Project, which includes the Project Area. This survey had negative findings for the following species within the Project Site: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). During the 2009 field surveys, two raptor species (white-tailed kite and American kestrel) were found nesting immediately adjacent to and one loggerhead shrike nest was confirmed on the larger Keswick Village Project Site.
EXHIBIT A
WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
2 The Village 1 site, including the Project site, has been periodically graded and disturbed since 2009 and was mass graded in 2017. Since that time, the site has been consistently and continuously used for staging, stockpiling, and general construction-related activities, thus maintaining a disturbed condition. Per the 2010 Amendment, the following mitigation measures outline preconstruction surveys which may be required ahead of Project activities.
Table 1: Applicable Mitigation Measures per the 2010 Amendment.
Mitigation Measure Trigger Timing Requirement
BIO-17 (BIO-1, 15a) Impacts to special status species
raptors. A qualified biologist shall
survey the Project Site for special status
raptors and raptor habitats and identify
any such species occurrence on the site.
The applicant shall conduct pre-
construction surveys 30 days prior to
construction. Permits may be required.
pre-
construction
Raptor habitat and
raptor species surveys
required. An additional
survey 30 days prior to
construction for all
raptor species with the
potential to occur on
site.
BIO-19 Impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat. Preserve 0.5-acre of suitable
habitat land for each acre of urban
development on land identified as
suitable foraging habitat. Consult with
CDFW.
pre-
construction
planning
phase
Swainson’s hawk
habitat surveys and
land mapping prior to
permitting
BIO-20(A-4B, BIO-
17-A)
Impacts to Burrowing Owls. Pre-
construction surveys 30 days prior to
construction aligned with the CDFW
burrowing owl guidelines.
pre-
construction
BUOW survey 30 days
prior to construction
BIO-23 (BIO-1, 15a)
Impacts to loggerhead shrike. Qualified
biologist shall survey the Project site for
loggerhead shrike nests and habitat.
pre-
construction
Nesting and habitat
survey 30 days prior to
construction
*Original EIR Mitigation Measure naming is included in parentheses after the 2010 Amendment Mitigation Measure naming.
1.2 Additional Regulatory Considerations
The following section addresses any relevant regulatory changes that have occurred since the 2010 Amendment was published and evaluates implications that should be considered in the EIR addendum for the current Project.
EXHIBIT A
WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
3 BALD EAGLE
Bald Eagle (BAEA; Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area (CNDDB 2024). Based on a 2018 CNDDB documented occurrence, BAEA have been reported to roost in a large walnut tree that occurs along the west bank of McCoy Pond, approximately
0.6 mile southeast of the Project (CDFW 2022); no nest structures or indications of nesting has been observed to date. The Project Area itself does not provide suitable nesting or roosting habitat for this species and the disturbed nature of the site makes it unlikely to support foraging.
Although BAEA may utilize large trees in the vicinity of McCoy Pond, the distance and existing development between these areas makes it extremely unlikely that Project activities, including noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment would result in impacts to potential nest sites. As such, no impacts to this species are anticipated as a result of the Project.
As previously noted, BIO-17 requires that a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors be conducted within the Project Area no more than 30 days prior to the onset of Project activities during the raptor nesting season (January 1 and August 31). This measure will inherently apply to BAEA, out of an extreme abundance of caution. Given that the Project Area does not provide nesting habitat for BAEA and potential nest trees do not occur in the immediate vicinity, it is WRA's opinion that this measure is sufficient to minimize any potential impacts to this species.
NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE
At the time the 2010 Amendment was completed, northwestern pond turtle (NPT; Actinemys marmorata), formally western pond turtle, was listed as a CDFW Species of Special Concern and could be relocated without the need for additional permits or consultation. However, this species was proposed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on October 3, 2023 (88 FR 68370). Federal proposed species are entitled to procedural protections under the ESA but are not protected from “take” until they are listed. Take as defined under the ESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." It is anticipated that the final rule for NPT will be issued by the end of 2024. If NPT are listed at that time, any subsequent take would be in violation of the ESA without take authorization from the USFWS.
No suitable habitat for NPT occurs within or immediately adjacent to the Project location. As such, no impacts to NPT are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project and the inclusion of avoidance measures is not deemed necessary.
CROTCH BUMBLE BEE
Crotch bumble bee (CBB; Bombus crotchii) was reinstated as a state candidate species on September 30, 2022, and is thus afforded protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). As such, impacts to this species will need to be evaluated under CEQA. Impacts to CBB were not evaluated at the time the PDEIR was published in 2014.
Crotch bumble bee occurs in grassland and scrub habitats, and has also been documented in agricultural areas. Like other bumble bee species, CBB is a social species with an annual life cycle. Queens emerge from hibernation in the late winter/early spring to establish a new colony.
The colony produces workers throughout the spring and summer, and reproductives (i.e. drones and queens) in the early fall. Nests are built in pre-existing cavities. They are commonly found underground, in abandoned rodent burrows, or aboveground in grass tufts, rock piles,
EXHIBIT A
WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
4 abandoned bird nests, or tree cavities. CBB feeds on pollen and nectar during all life stages; preferred host species include (but are not limited to) milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), chaenactis (Chaenactis spp.), clarkias (Clarkia spp.), larkspurs (Delphinium spp.), buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), medicks (Medicago spp.), bladderpod (Peritoma arborea), phacelias (Phacelia spp.), poppies (Eschscholzia spp.), and sages (Salvia spp.). Queens overwinter in hibernacula; little is known about habitat requirements for hibernacula; bare ground, leaf litter and/or duff, and pre-existing cavities may provide overwintering habitat.
The Project Area is within the current known range of CBB and the nearest documented CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4 miles north of the Project Area. However, small mammal burrows are extremely limited within the Project Area. Additionally, existing grassland habitat is regularly disturbed by construction and other activity and therefore lacks host plants that are known to provide pollen and nectar sources for CBB. As such, it in unlikely that the Project Area supports this species. No additional avoidance measures for CBB are recommended.
MOUNTAIN LION
Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) was listed as a state candidate species in April 2020, which granted protection under CESA to populations within a proposed evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) located in Southern California and the central coast of California. While impacts to mountain lions were not evaluated in the 2014 PDEIR, the Project Area is outside of the current designated ESU range. As such, no additional considerations for mountain lions are required at this time.
BURROWING OWL
On October 15, 2024, burrowing owl (BUOW; Athene cunicularia) was listed as a state candidate species by the California Fish and Game Commission. During the listing review process, burrowing owl will be temporarily afforded the same protections as state-listed species throughout the entirety of California. As such, any projects with potential to result in “take” will need to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from CDFW. Under CESA, the term “take” is defined as any effort or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill an individual. It is assumed that passive relocation (i.e. burrow exclusion) efforts will no longer be allowed without an ITP and CDFW-approval.
Impacts to BUOW were evaluated at the time the 2010 Amendment. The mitigation measure for BUOW (BIO-20) requires that a pre-construction burrowing owl survey will be performed 30 days ahead of ground-disturbance within the Project Area.
While the Project Area supports limited gopher activity, no burrows of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) have been observed onsite to date. As such, the Project Area does not currently support burrows of suitable size for BUOW. Given the ongoing disturbance and lack of suitable burrows, BUOW are unlikely to occupy the site for overwintering or nesting purposes.
However, given that materials are often stored onsite and may provide limited refugia, implementation of the pre-construction survey outlined in BIO-20 should be implemented out of an abundance of caution.
EXHIBIT A
WRA, Inc. | 2169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
5 1.2.1 Aquatic Resources
On August 29, 2023, the EPA and the Corps issued a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “Waters of the US” to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. The Conforming Rule limits Federal jurisdiction of wetlands to only those that are adjacent to (touching) relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water. Wetlands isolated from these bodies of water do not meet the Federal definition of wetlands and do not require a Federal Corps permit to fill.
Previously identified Corps-jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters within or immediately adjacent to the Project location were impacted during the grading of the site. These features have been appropriately mitigated for through purchase of wetland credits. No further avoidance measures are required.
1.3 Summary and Recommendations
In summary, additional surveys for BUOW, SWHA, general raptors, and nesting birds will be required prior to the initiation of the Project, as prescribed in the PDEIR. In addition, the Project will need to permanently preserve suitable habitat for impacts to SWHA foraging habitat, pursuant to mitigation measure BIO-19.
Since the PDEIR was published, the regulatory status has changed for the following species:
northwestern pond turtle, Crotch bumblebee, burrowing owl, and mountain lion. No potentially significant impacts to CBB, NPT, BUOW or mountain lion are anticipated as a result of the Project. Therefore, no additional measures are deemed necessary for these species. However, it is recommended that the Project adhere to the pre-construction survey requirements for BUOW, out of an abundance of caution.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lazarotti
WRA, Inc.
Cc: Tommy Dryer
WRA, Inc.
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 1 of 17 Memorandum
To: Tina Do Machado, AICP
Garland Wong, PE, TE
Public Works Department | City of Fairfield
From: Mario Tambellini, PE, TE
Nicole Scappaticci, PE
Date: August 11, 2025
Subject: Villages at Fairfield Parkside Transportation Impact Analysis
1. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared to present the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Villages at Fairfield Village I School Site, also known as Parkside, Project (Project) located in the City of Fairfield (City). The Project is located on one currently undeveloped parcel on the southeast corner of the Passion Lane and Gulf Drive intersection located in Village I of Villages at Fairfield (VAF). The Project parcel was originally assumed to be the site of a future elementary school in the VAF Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The purpose of this TIA is to address the Project’s impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in relation to the prior analyses for the approved VAF project. The local traffic operations analysis in this study was conducted to evaluate the level of service (LOS), delay, and queueing at nearby intersections where traffic patterns may change due to construction of the proposed Project. This study also includes a safe routes to school component where the most feasible routes to the closest schools are identified.
The local access operations analysis portion of this TIA includes the following sections:
1. Introduction
o Project History
o Project Description
o TIA Approach
2. Local Traffic Operations Analysis
o Study Facilities and Analysis Scenarios
o Analysis Methodology
o Traffic Volumes and Geometries
o Intersection LOS and Queueing Analysis
o Site Access and Internal Circulation
The CEQA impact analysis portion of this TIA includes the following sections:
3. CEQA Transportation Analysis
o Multimodal Facilities
o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy Analysis
A safe routes to school section was included in this TIA at the request of the City Traffic Engineer:
4. Safe Routes to School
A Conclusion section is also provided at the end of this memorandum.
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 2 of 17
PROJECT HISTORY
The current Project site (Parkside) was originally proposed to be a future elementary school in VAF Village I. The CEQA impacts of the overall VAF project were studied in The Villages at Fairfield Environmental Impact Report (VAF EIR). The VAF EIR was cert ified in 2005, and the overall VAF project was amended in 2010, 2015, and 2018 pursuant to Addenda to the 2005 VAF EIR. The Addenda to the 2005 VAF EIR did not perform new traffic analysis for the revised VAF project as they found that the proposed changes in scope would not result in new impacts. The entire VAF project is covered by a Development Agreement as it has been amended.
The 2005 VAF EIR originally analyzed a total of 2,341 residential units, including 1,102 units in Villages I and II. The 2005 VAF EIR also originally included 24.3 acres of mixed-use development in Village II and 12.5 acres of commercial development. Subsequently, the approved final maps for Villages I and II included only 806 residential units in Villages I and II (432 in Village I and 374 in Village II). The currently approved Village II does not include any mixed-use area. Note that the land use quantities pertaining to the original VAF EIR described in this TIA refer to the land use quantities analyzed in the 2005 VAF EIR Traffic Impact Study, which studied a slightly higher number of units than included in the original EIR Project Description. Page 29 of the 2005 VAF EIR Traffic Impact Study states:
“This analysis was conducted when the proposed Villages at Fairfield consisted of 2,341 residential units plus commercial, recreation, public facilities, and open space in northeast Fairfield. The current proposed project includes only 2,327 residential units, 14 less than analyzed in this report. Hence, the analysis is slightly conservative however this reduction in units does not affect the impacts or mitigation measures identified in this report.”
Based upon the above, the certified 2005 VAF EIR analyzed the impact of trips from 296 residential units and
24.3 acres of mixed -use development beyond what is currently proposed in the approved final maps for Villages I and II. As a result, the VAF project as originally approved and studied under CEQA can accommodate additional units within the trip generation budget already studied for Villages I and II.
The approved final maps for Villages I and II (806 residential units) are mostly built out. The three final communities/units within Villages I and II are currently under construction. A new development within VAF, Lago Vista, has been proposed which is located directly east of Village II and consists of 151 compact single family residential units and 224 duplex/condominium residential units.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would develop up to 76 single-family detached dwelling units. The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via new local roadway connections to Passion Lane across from Hideaway Lane and Clementine Lane. The Project site plan is included at the end of this memorandum as Attachment A. A recent Illustrative Map for the overall VAF project is shown as Attachment B. The Project is shown in the attached Illustrative Map as the blue Parcel B.
TIA APPROACH
Since the Project is contained within the overall VAF project, and the VAF project has an approved EIR, this TIA evaluates if/how the Project would change transportation impacts previously identified under the VAF EIR. The original VAF EIR studied the Pro ject site as an elementary school which only generated internal neighborhood trips. The Project’s 76 single-family detached dwelling units would generate Project external trips. However, the Project’s trip generation is anticipated to generally fit within the original VAF EIR trip generation for Villages I and II . In other words, trip “credits” from Village s I and II would be used to offset trips from the Project.
The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of Fairfield local transportation analysis guidelines (dated December 22, 2020). Note that since the Project falls under the overall VAF project, which has an approved EIR, this TIA does not evaluate the Project as a “new” project, meaning this TIA does not evaluate the Project against new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considerations such as typical vehicle miles
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 3 of 17 traveled (VMT) per capita thresholds. Instead, this TIA compares Project impacts to the approved VAF EIR in an approach similar to that used in the recent VAF Lago Vista TIA. The TIA includes a qualitative evaluation of VMT in the context of the Project ge nerated VMT compared to the VMT generated by the VAF project in the approved EIR.
2. LOCAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
STUDY FACILITIES AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Traffic operations analyses were performed under the following scenarios:
• Existing Plus Background Conditions – this scenario represents a near-term condition that includes existing conditions traffic volumes with the addition of Background traffic. Background traffic includes trips from the homes in Village I and II that are not yet occupied or constructed and trips from the proposed Lago Vista development.
• Existing Plus Background Plus Project Conditions – this scenario represents Existing Plus Background conditions with the addition of Parkside Project trips.
The following four (4) existing intersections were included in this analysis:
1. Clay Bank Road & Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road
2. Clay Bank Road & Gulf Drive
3. Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle (South)
4. Portland Drive & Cement Hill Road/Manual Campos Parkway The locations of the above study intersection s are shown in Figure 1. The study intersections were chosen based on how the anticipated trip assignment of the Project may cause slightly different travel patterns at these intersections compared to those studied under VAF EIR conditions. The intersection of Clay Bank Road & Air Base Parkway was not evaluated because traffic patterns/distribution of the proposed Project trips at this intersection would be the same as those studied in the approved VAF EIR.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Level of Service Methodology
Synchro 12 software and Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (HCM 7th Edition) methodology were used to determine intersection delay and level of service (LOS) operations under all study conditions.
For signalized intersections, the intersection delays and LOS reported are the average values for the whole intersection. The delay-based HCM 7th Edition LOS criteria for different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1.
95th percentile queues for all movements with turn pockets were reported using SimTraffic software. The SimTraffic microsimulation models were run for a 60 -minute analysis period with a 10 -minute warm-up period, and reported queues were based on the average of 10 runs. SimTraffic was used to capture the effects of adjacent signals.
EXHIBIT A
Cla
y B
an
k
Rd
Willow L n
Re
bec
ca Dr
Gulf Dr
Ca
ndleberry Way
Manue
l Campos Pkw y
Avery at the
Villages Sales
Office
Cement Hill Rd
Clay Bank
Rd
Bay
Tr
ee
Dr
Hori zon
Cir
West ern St
Jam
boree Dr
Ren
ewal Ln
Air Base PkwyAir Base Pkw y
Puta h SouthCana
l
Cement Hill Rd
Gul
f DrIn
sp
irat
ion
Dr
Pa
ssion
Ln
Muse Way
Glee
Ln
Center Dr
Cem
ent
Hill Rd
Ma nuel Cam pos Pkwy
Stra ssbe rger Dr
Hig
h Line
Dr
Hor
izon
Ci
r
Tommy
Ln
Bailey Dr
Aspir
e Way
Lea L
n
Nightfa ll Ln
Mille
nniu m Way
Air Base Pkwy
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
Legend
!( Study Intersections
Project Location
Project Location and Study Facilities
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Fairfield, CA
August 2025
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\1000-s\1135-Villages_at_Faifield\VAF-OA\Traffic\GIS\Parkside\ArcGISPro\Base_File\VAF_Parkside_BaseMap\VAF_BaseMap.aprx 4/29/2025 6:18 PM nscappaticci FIGURE 1
NORTH
0 300 600150
Feet
#
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 5 of 17 Table 1. HCM 7th Edition Intersection LOS Thresholds
Level of
Service Description
Intersection Control
Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Signalized
A Free-flow conditions with negligible to minimal delays. delay ≤ 10.0 B Good progression with slight delays. 10.0 < delay ≤ 20.0 C Relatively higher delays. 20.0 < delay ≤ 35.0
D Somewhat congested conditions with longer but tolerable delays. 35.0 < delay ≤ 55.0 E Congested conditions with significant delays. 55.0 < delay ≤ 80.0 F Jammed or grid-lock type operating conditions. delay > 80.0 Source: HCM 7th Edition Exhibit 19-8 and 20-2.
Level of Service Criteria
The City of Fairfield General Plan Update (December 3, 2024) Circulation Element states the following:
“This General Plan sets a performance target of LOS D during peak hours for both intersections and roadway segments within the Planning Area.”
Therefore, the minimum acceptable LOS for the study intersections is considered to be LOS D.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND GEOMETRIES
The study intersections were analyzed under Existing Plus Background conditions lane geometrics and control, which include planned improvements on Clay Bank Road and Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road that would be constructed by VAF in the near-term future as proposed by the Village at Fairfield Village I Phase 3 master Infrastructure Improvement Plans (Wood Rodgers, September 2021) . Existing Plus Background conditions lane geometrics and control are shown in Figure 2.
Existing Traffic Counts
Existing weekday AM and PM peak vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts were collected between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on March 14, 2024, at the Clay Bank Road & Manuel Campos Parkway intersection. Peak hour counts were collected at the remaining three (3) study intersections on February 11, 2025. Traffic data count sheets are included in Attachment C.
Background Trip Generation
Existing Plus Background traffic volumes were developed by adding trips from surrounding developments that were in the process of being completed when counts were taken (March 14, 2024, and February 11, 2025). The number of in -progress and proposed residential dwelling units was provided by the Project applicant. The number of remainder (in -progress and proposed) units in Villages I and II was higher on March 14, 2024 than it was on February 11, 2025 . Therefore, separate trip generations were prepared for the Village I and Village II Remainders for the dates when the counts took place. Trips from the remainder units as of May 1 4, 2024 were distributed to the Clay Bank Road & Manuel Campos Parkway intersection .
Trips from the remainder units as of February 11, 2025 were distributed to the other three study intersections. Volumes between intersections were balanced up when needed between the intersections of Clay Bank Road & Gulf Drive, Clay Bank Road & Manuel Campos Parkway, and Portland Drive & Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road.
A list of background projects is shown below:
• Village I Lot 2 Remainder (under construction): 49 Single-Family Detached Units as of May 14, 2024; 9 Single-Family Detached Units as of February 11, 2025
• Village II Lot 3 Remainder (under construction): 77 Single-Family Detached Units as of May 14, 2024; 52 Single-Family Detached Units as of February 11, 2025
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 6 of 17 • Village II Lot 4 Remainder (under construction): 58 Single-Family Detached Units as of May 14, 2024; 33 Single-Family Detached Units February 11, 2025
• Lago Vista (future): 151 Single-Family Detached Units, 224 Single-Family Attached (Condominium) Units
Locations of the background projects are labeled in the VAF Illustrative Map contained in Attachment B.
Trip generations for the above background projects are contained in Attachment D. Trip distributions for the background project trips were developed using the latest version of the 2020 City of Fairfield Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model and engineering judgement. Background project trip distributions and assignment are shown in Figure 3. Existing Plus Background conditions traffic volumes are shown in Figure
4. Project Trip Generation
The trip generation data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to estimate the number of trips generated by the Parkside Project. The ITE land use category of Single -Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) was used to represent the proposed 76 single-family unit development. Table 2 shows the Parkside Project trip generation estimate.
Table 2. Parkside Project Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Code Quantity Units Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 76 DU2 784 15 43 58 49 28 77 Notes:
1Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2DU = Dwelling Units
As shown in Table 2, the Parkside Project is anticipated to generate a total of 784 daily trips, 58 AM peak hour trips (15 inbound and 43 outbound), and 77 PM peak hour trips (49 inbound and 28 outbound).
Project trip distribution and assignment are shown in Figure 5. Project trip distribution was assumed to be the same as the Lago Vista and remaining Village I and II units. Project trips were added to Existing Plus Background volumes to obtain Existing Plus Background Plus Project traffic volumes, shown in Figure 6.
EXHIBIT A
LMNO
Cement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy
Portland DrLMNO
Horizon Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Horizon Cir
Clay Bank RdLMNO
Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Clay Bank RdLMNO
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Dickson Hill R
d
Evergr
een D
r
Pepp
ertree Dr
Laurel Creek
School
Cement Hill R d
Clay
Ban
k
Rd
Cla
y Bank Rd
Hic
kory Ave
Wil low Ln Re
be
cca
Dr
Gulf Dr
C
andl
eberry Wa
y
Woodm
ont D
r
Hor
izon
Ci
r
Jamb
ore
e Dr
Nightf all Ln
Ceme
nt Hill RdMa nuel Campos Pkwy
Laurel Creek
Park
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy1
Existing Plus Background Lane Geometrics and Control
A
ugust 2025
Figure 2
NORTH
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr2 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Cir3 Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/ Cement Hi
ll Rd4
Fairfield, CA
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Legend
LMNO Stoplight
!(# Intersection Location
Turning Movement
Project Area
EXHIBIT A
8(5)
3(8)
1(3)
3(2)
Cement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy
Portland Dr
47(30)
158(103)
1(4)
52(164)
4(3)16(48)
Horizon Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Horizon Cir
Clay Bank Rd
5(3)
41(27)
2(5)
14(42)
Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Clay Bank Rd
1(2)
13(39)
2(1)
4(12)
12(7)38(24)
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Laur
el Creek
Cemen t Hill Rd
Dick
son Hill
Rd
Redwood
Dr
Evergr
een D
r
Pe
pp
ertree Dr
Gulf Dr
Baltic Dr
E Atlantic Ave
Goldcoa st Dr
Laurel Creek
School
Cement Hill Rd
Clay
Bank
R
d
Cl ay
Bank
Rd
Hick
ory Ave
Willow Ln Rebe
cca
Dr
Gulf Dr
Ca
ndl
eberry W
ay
Woodm
ont
Dr
Hori
zon
Cir
West ernSt
Nig htf all Ln
Ceme
nt Hill Rd
Air Base Pkw y
Man uel Campos Pkwy
Laurel Creek
Park
!(
!(
!(
!(
&& &&
&&
&&
1 2
3 4
73%
15%
5%
7%
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy1
Background Project Trips and Distributions
A
ugust 2025
Figure 3
NORTH
0 1,200600
Feet
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr2 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Cir3 Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/ Cement Hi
ll Rd4
Fairfield, CA
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Legend
& &VAF Village 1, Village 2, Lago Vista Trip Distribution !(# Intersection Location
XX(XX)AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turning Movement
Project Area
EXHIBIT A
323(595)
14(20)
564(429)
28(34)
39(24)19(9)
Cement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy
Portland Dr
1(8)
11(23)
24(57)
4(1)
89(42)
277(164)
329(444)90(248)80(84)
540(373)41(37)63(86)
Horizon Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Horizon Cir
Clay Bank Rd
31(14)
32(23)
61(29)
289(448)
28(40)37(60)
338(337)31(33)22(39)
30(9)
31(25)
33(31)
Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Clay Bank Rd
190(294)
146(198)
11(3)
345(229)
9(9)
229(200)
6(24)
133(312)215(166)
16(11)10(0) 14(9)
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Laur
el Creek
Dickson Hill
Rd
Evergr
een D
r
Pe
pp
ertree Dr
Baltic Dr
Gol dcoa st Dr
Laurel Creek
School
Cement Hill Rd
Clay
Bank
R
d
Cl ay B
ank
Rd
Hick
ory Ave
Willow Ln Rebe
cca
Dr
Gulf Dr
Ca
ndl
eberry W
ay
Woodm
ont
Dr
Hori
zon
Cir
West ernSt
Nig htf all Ln
Ceme
nt Hill Rd
Air Base Pkw y
Man uel Campos Pkwy
Laurel Creek
Park
Air Base Pkwy Air Base Pkwy
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy1
Existing Plus Background Traffic Volumes
A
ugust 2025
Figure 4
NORTH
0 1,200600
Feet
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr2 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Cir3 Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/ Cement Hi
ll Rd4
Fairfield, CA
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Legend
!(# Intersection Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turning Movement
Project Area
EXHIBIT A
1(2)
2(1)
Cement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy
Portland Dr
13(9)
6(21)5(15)
19(12)
Horizon Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Horizon Cir
Clay Bank Rd
7(4)
9(6)
3(10)
2(7)
Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Clay Bank Rd
2(7) 7(4)
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Laur
el Creek
Dickson Hill
Rd
Evergr
een D
r
Pe
pp
ertree Dr
Baltic Dr
Gol dcoa st Dr
Laurel Creek
School
Cement Hill Rd
Clay
Bank
R
d
Cl ay B
ank
Rd
Hick
ory Ave
Willow Ln Rebe
cca
Dr
Gulf Dr
Ca
ndl
eberry W
ay
Woodm
ont
Dr
Hori
zon
Cir
West ernSt
Nig htf all Ln
Ceme
nt Hill Rd
Air Base Pkw y
Man uel Campos Pkwy
Laurel Creek
Park
Air Base Pkwy Air Base Pkwy
!(
!(
!(
!(
&& &&
&&
&&
1 2
3 4
15%
5%
73%
7%
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy1
Project Trips and Distribution
A
ugust 2025
Figure 5
NORTH
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr2 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Cir3 Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/ Cement Hi
ll Rd4
Fairfield, CA
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Legend
& & Parkside Trip Distribution
!(# Intersection Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turning Movement
Project Area
EXHIBIT A
323(595)
14(20)
564(429)
29(36)
41(25)19(9)
Cement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy
Portland Dr
1(8)
11(23)
24(57)
4(1)
89(42)
290(173)
335(465)95(263)80(84)
559(385)41(37)63(86)
Horizon Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Horizon Cir
Clay Bank Rd
31(14)
39(27)
70(35)
289(448)
31(50)37(60)
338(337)31(33)24(46)
30(9)
31(25)
33(31)
Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
Clay Bank Rd
Clay Bank Rd
190(294)
148(205)
11(3)
345(229)
9(9)
229(200)
6(24)
133(312)222(170)
16(11)10(0) 14(9)
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Manuel Campos Pkwy
Clay Bank Rd
Laur
el Creek
Dickson Hill
Rd
Evergr
een D
r
Pe
pp
ertree Dr
Baltic Dr
Gol dcoa st Dr
Laurel Creek
School
Cement Hill Rd
Clay
Bank
R
d
Cl ay B
ank
Rd
Hick
ory Ave
Willow Ln Rebe
cca
Dr
Gulf Dr
Ca
ndl
eberry W
ay
Woodm
ont
Dr
Hori
zon
Cir
West ernSt
Nig htf all Ln
Ceme
nt Hill Rd
Air Base Pkw y
Man uel Campos Pkwy
Laurel Creek
Park
Air Base Pkwy Air Base Pkwy
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy1
Existing Plus Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes
A
ugust 2025
Figure 6
NORTH
0 1,200600
Feet
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr2 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Cir3 Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/ Cement Hi
ll Rd4
Fairfield, CA
V
illages at Fairfield Parkside TIA
Legend
!(# Intersection Location
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Turning Movement
Project Area
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 12 of 17
INTERSECTION LOS AND QUEUING ANALYSIS
Intersection Level of Service
Table 3 presents a summary of the intersection LOS operations under weekday AM and PM peak hour Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions.
Table 3. Intersection Level of Service
# Intersection Control
Type
LOS
Criteria
Peak
Hour
Existing Plus
Background
Existing Plus Background
Plus Project
Delay
(sec/veh)1 LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Clay Bank Rd & Manuel
Campos Pkwy Signal D
AM 25.2 C 25.3 C
PM 29.5 C 29.7 C
2 Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr Signal D
AM 13.7 B 13.9 B
PM 12.6 B 13.0 B
3 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon
Rd/Horizon Circle Signal D
AM 19.3 B 19.7 B
PM 16.9 B 17.3 B
4 Portland Drive & Manual
Campos Pkwy/ Cement
Hill Rd
Signal D
AM 6.6 A 6.7 A
PM 6.9 A 7.0 A
Notes:
1 For Signals, average delay and LOS are reported.
As shown in Table 3, all study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions. Synchro software HCM 7th Edition intersection LOS output reports are included in Attachment E.
Intersection Queueing
95th Percentile queues for movements with turn pockets were evaluated using SimTraffic software to determine if currently proposed storage lengths would accommodate near-term future queues. Intersection queueing results are shown in Table 4.
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 13 of 17 Table 4. Intersection Queueing
# Intersection Movement Storage
(ft)
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Existing Plus
Background
Existing Plus
Background
Plus Project
1 Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos
Pkwy
NBL 205 AM 161 156
PM 125 138
SBL 160 AM 43 40
PM 31 29
EBL 340
AM 26 28
PM 13 13
WBL 215 AM 151 158
PM 144 137
2 Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
NBL 215 AM 53 55
PM 64 69
SBL 200
AM 44 49
PM 57 59
EBL 70 AM 54 48
PM 52 54
WBL 95 AM 64 68
PM 48 56
3 Clay Bank Rd & Horizon
Rd/Horizon Circle
NBL 155 AM 83 86
PM 80 85
SBL 200 AM 74 76
PM 89 93
EBL 155 AM 50 50
PM 67 69
WBL 130 AM 165 177
PM 114 125
4 Portland Drive & Manual
Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd WBL 100 AM 47 46
PM 48 49
Notes: Bold values indicate queues exceed storage length.
As shown in Table 4, all queues are projected to fit within storage except for the westbound left-turn queue at Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle, which would exceed storage during the AM peak hour under Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions.
The westbound left-turn queue at Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle would exceed storage by up to 47 feet (approximately two vehicle lengths) during the AM peak hour under Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions. Westbound left-turn storage at this location is limited by the Ambrosia Way cross street. A potential improvement at this location could be to re -stripe the westbound approach to include a left-turn lane and shared left-through-right-turn lane and implement split phasing for the westbound and eastbound approaches.
SimTraffic queueing reports are included in Attachment F.
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 14 of 17
SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via new local road extensions of Hideaway Lane and Clementine Lane. Internal circulation of the site would be provided by new local residential streets. The new residential streets would typically be 46 feet wide including one travel lane in each direction, on-street parking, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. There would be one (1) cul-de-sac on the south side of the project to be designed consistent with City standards.
3. CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
MULTIMODAL FACILITIES
The Project residential streets would include new sidewalks on both sides of the road which would serve Project residents. The increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit demand from the Project is not projected to put existing facilities over capacity or adversely affect existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in a way that would discourage their use. The Project would not result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists or pedestrians or result in unsafe bicycle/pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts. The Project would remain generally consistent with multimodal facilities studied in the VAF EIR for Village I.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) POLICY ANALYSIS
Approved Environmental Document
As stated in the Project History section of this TIA, t he certified 2005 VAF EIR originally included a total of 1,102 units in Villages I and II, as well as 24.3 acres of mixed-use development in Village II. Subsequently, the approved final maps for Villages I and II included only 806 residential units and no mixed -use area .
Therefore, the certified 2005 VAF EIR analyzed the impact of trips from 296 residential units and 24.3 acres of mixed-use development beyond what is currently included in the approved final maps for Villages I and II. As a result, the VAF project as originally approved and studied under CEQA can accommodate additional units within the trip generation budget already studied for Villages I and II.
Trip Generation Comparison
The land uses proposed by the combined current VAF Village I , Village II , Lago Vista development, and Parkside Project are different than those that were proposed and studied for VAF Villages I and II under the VAF EIR. However, a comparison of the trip generation shows that the combined current VAF Village I, Village II, Lago Vista development (located east of Village II), and proposed Parkside Project, would generally generate less trips than the land uses studied for VAF Villages I, II under the VAF EIR.
The VAF EIR project description included development of 204 low -medium density units and 628 high density units in Village I and 270 low-medium density units with a 24.3 -acre mixed-use lot (assumed to be 77% commercial use with half the intensity of typical commercial use in Appendix 3 of the VAF EIR) in Village II. The previously approved Villages I , and II trip generation was obtained from Chapter 4 of the VAF EIR Appendix 3: Traffic Analysis for The Villages at Fairfield (TJKM, February 4, 2005).
Currently proposed build-out of Village I includes 432 single -family dwelling units and currently proposed build-out of Village II includes 374 single -family dwelling units. The currently proposed Lago Vista development, which is an extension of Village II, includes 151 single-family dwelling units and 224 condominium/duplex dwelling units. The current ly proposed Parkside Project includes 76 single-family dwelling units. Trip generation for the combined current VAF Village I, Village II, Lago Vista development, and Parkside Project was estimated using industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition trip generation rates.
Table 5 summarizes the trip generation comparison of the land uses studied for VAF Villages I and II under the VAF EIR (VAF EIR Conditions) and the combined current VAF Village I, Village II, Lago Vista development, and Parkside Project (Currently Proposed Conditions).
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 15 of 17 Table 5. VAF Villages I and II EIR vs Currently Proposed Trip Generation Comparison Location Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
VAF EIR
Conditions1
Village I 204 Low-Med Density Units,
628 High Density Units 6,115 89 384 473 393 203 596
Village II 270 Low-Med Density Units,
24.3 Acres Mixed-Use 6,978 115 193 308 359 297 656
Total 13,093 204 577 781 752 500 1,252
Currently
Proposed
Conditions2
Village I 432 Single-Family Detached
DU3 3,878 71 211 282 248 145 393
Village II 374 Single-Family Detached
DU 3,396 62 185 247 216 127 343
Lago Vista
151 Single-Family Detached
DU, 224 Single-Family
Attached (Duplex) DU
3,130 55 164 219 169 107 276
Parkside 76 Single-Family Detached
DU 784 15 43 58 49 28 77
Total 11,188 203 603 806 682 407 1,089
Difference (EIR – Final Buildout) 1,905 1 -26 -25 70 93 163 Notes:
1 Source: Villages at Fairfield Environmental Impact Report, Table 4-6 and VAF EIR Appendix 3: Traffic Analysis for The Villages at Fairfield (TJKM, February 4, 2005), Tables IX and X.. The VAF EIR trip generation is based on rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition.
2 Trip rates based on fitted curve equations for the proposed land use consistent with information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
3DU = Dwelling Units
As shown in Table 5, the Currently Proposed Conditions of Village I and Village II, with the addition of the proposed Lago Vista development and Parkside Project trips would generate 1,905 fewer daily trips, 25 more AM peak hour trips, and 163 fewer PM peak hour trips than the VAF EIR Conditions trip generation for Villages I and II.
The Currently Proposed Conditions of VAF Village I, Village II, Lago Vista development, and Parkside Project have similar access points to the surrounding local roadway network as the VAF EIR Conditions project layouts did, including direct access to Clay Bank Road and Manual Campos Parkway. The similar access points means that traffic generated by the combined c urrent VAF Village I, Village II, Lago Vista development, and Parkside Project would generally distribute to study intersections similar to the project distribution assumed in the VAF EIR.
Currently Proposed Conditions are estimated to generate 25 more AM peak hour trips than VAF EIR conditions. The slight difference in AM peak hour trips would not be large enough to affect traffic operations at nearby intersections or result in new traffic impacts or mitigations beyond those studied in the VAF EIR.
Currently Proposed Conditions are estimated to generate 163 less PM peak hour trips than VAF EIR conditions. The slight difference in PM peak hour trips means that PM traffic operations at nearby intersections would be the same or better than operations studied in the VAF EIR. Currently Proposed Conditions are estimated to generate 1,905 less daily trips than VAF EIR conditions. The slight difference in daily trips means that VMT generated by the Currently Proposed Conditions overall VAF development would be the same or less than studied in the VAF EIR.
Since the background land use and transportation context in the Project area has not changed substantially such that new environmental impacts are anticipated from development of the Project site , reliance on the approved EIR is generally acceptable as established in Concerned Dublin Citizens (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1318–1320 and Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) Cal.App.5th. These court decisions found that a change in the CEQA Guidelines is not new information triggering new CEQA analysis so long as the impacts of the project were considered in the initial EIR. Since VMT was included in the air quality analysis section of the approved VAF EIR , it can be argued that VMT was considered for development of the Project
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 16 of 17 site. Since the proposed Project site has a previously approved EIR that considered VMT, reliance on the approved EIR is acceptable and the Project would not be required to reevaluate transportation CEQA impacts.
VAF EIR Mitigation Measures at Offsite Intersections
The approved VAF EIR included implementation of several transportation mitigation measures at nearby intersections, including improvements at the intersection of Clay Bank Road and Air Base Parkway. Since the improvements identified by the VAF EIR have alr eady been installed at the intersection of Clay Bank Road and Air Base Parkway, the intersection is projected to have sufficient capacity to serve VAF development trips, including trips from Lago Vista and Parkside.
4. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
The closest elementary school to the Project is Laurel Creek Elementary School, located approximately one (1) mile from the Project site. Students would walk or bike to this school primarily along Gulf Drive.
Sidewalks are present along the entire walking route to this school. There are no marked bike lanes on the route; however, travel to/from the school would take place on residential fronted streets where bikes could share the road.
The closest middle school to the Project is Grange Middle School, located approximately two (2) miles from the Project site. Students would walk or bike to this school primarily along Passion Lane, Horizon Circle, Clay Bank Road, Tabor Avenue, and Blossom Avenue. Sidewalks are present along the entire walking route to this school. Class II striped bike lanes are present on Tabor Avenue and on Clay Bank Road between Horizon Circle and Air Base Parkway, and a Class III marked bike route is present on Clay Ban k Road between Quail Drive and Tabor Avenue. Travel on Horizon Circle and Passion Lane between Clay Bank Road and the Project site would take place on residential fronted streets where bikes could share the road.
The closest high school to the Project site is Fairfield High School, located approximately two (2) miles from the Project site. Students would walk or bike to this school primarily along Gulf Drive and Cement Hill Road.
Sidewalks are present along the entire walking route to this school. There are no marked bike lanes on Gulf Drive; however, travel to/from the school would take place on residential fronted streets where bikes could share the road. Class II striped bike lanes are present on Cement Hill Road between Gulf Road and the school.
As described above, no major gaps were identified for existing walking and biking facilities on routes between the Project site and local schools.
5. CONCLUSION
Project Description
The Project would develop up to 76 single-family detached dwelling units. The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via new local roadway connections to Passion Lane across from Hideaway Lane and Clementine Lane.
LOCAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Project Trip Generation
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 784 daily trips, 58 AM peak hour trips (15 inbound and 43 outbound), and 77 PM peak hour trips (49 inbound and 28 outbound) under typical weekday traffic demand conditions.
Intersection LOS and Queueing Analysis
The following four (4) existing intersections were evaluated for LOS and queueing:
1. Clay Bank Road & Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road
2. Clay Bank Road & Gulf Drive
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis 17 of 17
3. Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle (South)
4. Portland Drive & Cement Hill Road/Manual Campos Parkway All study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions. All queues are projected to fit within storage except for the westbound left-turn queue at Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle, which would exceed storage during the AM peak hour under Existing Plus Background and Existing Plus Background Plus Project conditions. A potential improvement at the Clay Bank Road & Horizon Road/Horizon Circle intersection could be to re-stripe the westbound approach to include a left -turn lane and shared left-through-right-turn lane and implement split phasing for the westbound and eastbound approaches.
Site Access and Internal Circulation
The Project would gain access to the existing roadway network via new local road extensions of Hideaway Lane and Clementine Lane. Internal circulation of the site would be provided by new local residential streets.
The new residential streets would typical ly be 46 feet wide including one travel lane in each direction, on - street parking, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. There would be one (1) cul-de-sac on the south side of the project to be designed consistent with City standards.
CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Multimodal Facilities
The Project residential streets would include new sidewalks on both sides of the road which would serve Project residents. The increase in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit demand from the Project is not projected to put existing facilities over capacity or adversely affect existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities in a way that would discourage their use. The Project would not result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists or pedestrians or result in unsafe bicycle/pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts. The Project would remain generally consistent with multimodal facilities studied in the VAF EIR for Village I.
VMT Policy Analysis
The Currently Proposed Conditions of Village I, Village II, and Lago Vista development with the addition of the proposed Parkside Project trips would generate 1,905 fewer daily trips, 25 more AM peak hour trips, and 163 fewer PM peak hour trips than the VAF EIR Conditions trip generation for Villages I and II. The slight difference in AM peak hour trips would not be large enough to affect traffic operations at nearby intersections or result in new traffic impacts or mitigations beyond those studied in the VAF EIR. Therefore the Parkside Project would not be projected to result in any new transportation impacts beyond those studied in the VAF EIR. Since the proposed Project site has a previously approved EIR that considered VMT, and the background land use and transportation context in the Project area has not changed substantially such that new environmental impacts are anticipated from development of the Project site, reliance on the approved EIR is acceptable and the Project would not be required to reevaluate transportation CEQA impacts.
The approved VAF EIR included implementation of several transportation mitigation measures at nearby intersections, including improvements at the intersection of Clay Bank Road and Air Base Parkway. Since the improvements identified by the VAF EIR have alr eady been installed at the intersection of Clay Bank Road and Air Base Parkway, the intersection is projected to have sufficient capacity to serve VAF development trips, including trips from Lago Vista and Parkside.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
The Project is located such that no major gaps were identified for existing walking and biking facilities on routes between the Project site and local schools.
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT A
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/CPAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
LARAAPN:
0170-331-011
TAGULAOAPN:
0170-331-012
CHAN
APN:
0170-332-007
CRUZ
APN:
0170-332-008
AFICIAL
APN:
0170-333-006
GRAHAM
APN:
0170-333-006
TAGUINOD
APN:
0170-334-007
GUNDRAN
APN:
0170-334-008
RAMOS
APN:
0170-351-013
AUGUSTIN
APN:
0170-351-014
CABRERA
APN:
0170-352-013
ESLAVA
APN:
0170-351-014
FAIRFIELD SUISUN
SCHOOL DISTRICT
APN: 0170-010-051
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
APN: 0170-010-019
KUMLER
APN:0170-332-040
VILLAGES AT
FAIRFIELD
29 30
28 21
25 23
24 27
19 31
18 47
44 49
20 22
46 26
48 35
36 65
63 33
1 2
3 74
75 71
72 73
70 69
16 14
13 12
11 10
7 8
9 53
62 54
76 55
57 58
50 59
51 60
52 61
34 56
67 68
66 43
45 42
64 15
32 17
38 37
6 40
41 4
5 39
COURT A
STREET B
STREET C
STREET B
STREET B
STREET A
STREET C
LOT A
WATER QUALITY
0.35± AC.
PROJECT
SITE
NORTH
LOCATION MAP
JUNE 2025
VILLAGES AT FAIRFIELD - PARKSIDE
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3875 HOPYARD ROAD STE 345 TEL 925.847.1556
PLEASANTON, CA 94588 FAX 925.847.1557
200
100
50 0
NORTH
REVISED JULY 3, 2025
SITE PLAN
HOUSING SUMMARY
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
UNIT COUNT HOUSE SIZE (SQ. FT.)
19 19
19 1,654
2,062
2,129
TOTAL 76 -
PARKING SPACE TYPE
STREET
DRIVEWAY*
GARAGE
UNIT
SPACE/NO. OF
SPACES
1.183
1.5114
2.0152
TOTAL 4.6 SPACES/UNIT349
PARKING SUMMARY
50.0'x54.5' PERCENT MIX*
25%
25%
25%
100%
PLAN 4 19 2,195 25%
*HOUSE PLANS 1 AND 4 CONTAIN A ONE-CAR DRIVEWAY SPACE. PLANS 2 AND 3 CONTAIN TWO-CAR DRIVEWAY SPACES.
*HOUSE PLAN MIX IS APPROXIMATE AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 3 OF 9
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT B
VAF ILLUSTRATIVE MAP
EXHIBIT A
Project Site
Lago Vista
Village I Lot
2 Remainder
Village II Lot
4 Remainder
Village II Lot
3 Remainder
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT C
TRAFFIC COUNTS
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 1 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 23 2 22 0 2 5 0 0 0 42 30 0 30 81 0 0 237
7:15 AM 30 0 25 0 2 4 5 0 2 38 40 0 69 77 2 0 294
7:30 AM 45 0 33 0 4 3 2 0 3 46 26 2 58 91 2 0 315
7:45 AM 45 4 30 0 4 5 0 0 1 48 33 1 46 81 3 0 301
8:00 AM 53 2 31 0 4 4 3 0 1 57 34 1 47 87 2 0 326
8:15 AM 23 1 32 0 5 5 1 0 1 55 29 0 42 63 3 0 260
8:30 AM 31 0 27 0 2 2 0 0 2 38 30 0 45 68 1 0 246
8:45 AM 25 4 30 0 1 4 3 0 2 50 24 1 44 63 2 0 253
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 275 13 230 0 24 32 14 0 12 374 246 5 381 611 15 0 2232 APPROACH %'s : 53.09% 2.51% 44.40% 0.00% 34.29% 45.71% 20.00% 0.00% 1.88% 58.71% 38.62% 0.78% 37.84% 60.68% 1.49% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 173 6 119 0 14 16 10 0 7 189 133 4 220 336 9 0 1236 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.816 0.375 0.902 0.000 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.000 0.583 0.829 0.831 0.500 0.797 0.923 0.750 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 1 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 44 3 68 0 5 5 1 0 0 60 46 0 36 73 4 0 345
4:15 PM 44 8 82 0 2 1 0 0 1 54 46 0 57 56 2 0 353
4:30 PM 30 7 74 0 1 1 0 0 0 70 35 0 44 50 4 0 316
4:45 PM 39 3 63 0 4 4 0 0 2 72 37 0 44 52 0 0 320
5:00 PM 29 6 71 0 1 5 0 0 0 82 41 0 43 70 3 0 351
5:15 PM 42 2 64 0 1 1 1 0 0 74 47 0 38 44 7 0 321
5:30 PM 26 3 81 0 0 1 0 0 0 73 39 0 43 38 3 0 307
5:45 PM 24 5 59 0 3 4 0 0 1 64 36 0 39 55 1 0 291
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 278 37 562 0 17 22 2 0 4 549 327 0 344 438 24 0 2604 APPROACH %'s : 31.70% 4.22% 64.08% 0.00% 41.46% 53.66% 4.88% 0.00% 0.45% 62.39% 37.16% 0.00% 42.68% 54.34% 2.98% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 142 24 290 0 8 11 0 0 3 278 159 0 188 228 9 0 1340 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.807 0.750 0.884 0.000 0.500 0.550 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.848 0.864 0.000 0.825 0.814 0.563 0.000 Data - Totals
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Manuel Campos Pkwy Manuel Campos Pkwy
0.866 0.909 0.895 0.935
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
24-080057-001
3/14/2024
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.9490.851 0.594 0.894 0.916
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.948
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 1 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 1 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 4:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Manuel Campos Pkwy Manuel Campos Pkwy AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
24-080057-001
3/14/2024
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy Project ID:
City: Fairfield Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00%
PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 37 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 4:15 PM 287 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Manuel Campos Pkwy Manuel Campos Pkwy 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
AM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
24-080057-001
3/14/2024
0.3750.500 0.250
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.2500.250
EXHIBIT A
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080057-001 Day:
City: Fairfield Date:
AM 10 16 14 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 11 8 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 1 0 0.5 9 0 9
1 228 0 336
4 0 0 0 0.5 188 0 220
7 0 3 0.3 TEV 1236 0 1340 0 0 0 0
189 0 278 0.3 PHF 0.95 0.95
133 0 159 0.3 0 0.5 0.5 1
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 142 24 290 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 173 6 119 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 369
NORTHBOUND
Clay Bank Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
576 0 322
Totals (AM) 358 Total Bikes (AM)
Manuel Campos Pkwy
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
Manuel Campos Pkwy523 0 370
CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 36
Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Clay Bank Rd Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 3/14/2024
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM 22 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 228
188159
278
3 0
11 8
290
24 142
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
336
220133
189
7 10
16 14
119
6 173
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 5 44 7 0 5 48 2 0 4 0 3 0 7 0 9 0 134
7:15 AM 3 43 6 0 3 63 11 0 7 2 12 0 15 3 9 0 177
7:30 AM 5 48 2 0 2 80 8 0 9 1 7 0 14 8 13 0 197
7:45 AM 15 80 6 1 6 68 10 0 7 9 8 0 18 17 6 0 251
8:00 AM 7 61 10 2 8 73 4 0 8 18 6 0 10 3 7 0 217
8:15 AM 7 59 8 0 3 58 5 0 9 2 10 0 14 3 6 0 184
8:30 AM 8 50 9 2 7 69 6 0 9 3 8 0 9 1 7 0 188
8:45 AM 5 54 3 0 4 55 4 1 7 6 6 0 3 1 8 0 157
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 55 439 51 5 38 514 50 1 60 41 60 0 90 36 65 0 1505 APPROACH %'s : 10.00% 79.82% 9.27% 0.91% 6.30% 85.24% 8.29% 0.17% 37.27% 25.47% 37.27% 0.00% 47.12% 18.85% 34.03% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 34 248 26 3 19 279 27 0 33 30 31 0 56 31 32 0 849 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.567 0.775 0.650 0.375 0.594 0.872 0.675 0.000 0.917 0.417 0.775 0.000 0.778 0.456 0.615 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 13 74 10 3 7 70 17 0 9 3 5 0 6 3 4 0 224
4:15 PM 10 73 13 5 15 62 11 0 8 3 7 0 8 2 3 0 220
4:30 PM 11 72 10 2 6 59 8 1 7 4 7 0 2 3 1 0 193
4:45 PM 16 78 3 0 12 68 11 0 4 2 6 0 10 4 4 0 218
5:00 PM 11 89 11 2 10 72 5 1 6 3 4 0 7 3 8 0 232
5:15 PM 16 76 11 2 6 70 10 0 7 0 8 0 7 4 4 0 221
5:30 PM 11 72 13 0 7 50 9 1 8 2 2 0 6 1 8 0 190
5:45 PM 10 82 8 2 7 56 5 0 5 3 5 0 14 1 3 0 201
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 98 616 79 16 70 507 76 3 54 20 44 0 60 21 35 0 1699 APPROACH %'s : 12.11% 76.14% 9.77% 1.98% 10.67% 77.29% 11.59% 0.46% 45.76% 16.95% 37.29% 0.00% 51.72% 18.10% 30.17% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 54 315 35 6 34 269 34 2 24 9 25 0 26 14 17 0 864 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.844 0.885 0.795 0.750 0.708 0.934 0.773 0.500 0.857 0.563 0.781 0.000 0.650 0.875 0.531 0.000 Data - Totals
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
0.762 0.903 0.734 0.726
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-001
2/11/2025
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
0.9310.907 0.931 0.806 0.792
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.846
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-001
2/11/2025
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
0.5000.250 0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr Project ID:
City: Fairfield Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 7
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 38 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 6
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 288 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Gulf Dr Gulf Dr
0.250 0.500
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
AM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
25-080051-001
2/11/2025
0.2500.250
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
0.625
EXHIBIT A
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 25-080051-001 Day:
City: Fairfield Date:
AM 27 279 19 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 34 269 34 2 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 1 0 0 17 0 32
1 14 0 31
0 0 0 0 1 26 0 56
33 0 24 1 TEV 849 0 864 0 0 0 0
30 0 9 1 PHF 0.85 0.93
31 0 25 0 0 1 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 6 54 315 35 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 3 34 248 26 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 358
Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Clay Bank Rd Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/11/2025
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 313 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
78 0 75
Totals (AM) 326 Total Bikes (AM)
Gulf Dr
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
Gulf Dr
92 0 102
CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 369
NORTHBOUND
Clay Bank Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
1 2
0 3
0 0
1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
17 14
2625
9 24
34 269
34 35
315
54 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
32 31
5631
30 33
27 279
19 26
248
34 EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 6 57 9 2 2 71 10 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 4 0 172
7:15 AM 10 58 6 2 3 120 8 0 2 0 0 0 32 0 4 0 245
7:30 AM 11 66 1 5 6 148 12 2 4 0 2 0 50 1 7 0 315
7:45 AM 22 99 11 5 8 134 8 0 6 0 0 0 27 2 22 0 344
8:00 AM 15 93 12 7 16 132 14 2 8 0 5 0 23 0 4 0 331
8:15 AM 13 70 14 2 13 122 7 0 6 1 4 0 18 1 9 0 280
8:30 AM 10 88 17 4 2 129 10 1 3 1 4 0 24 0 1 0 294
8:45 AM 18 77 10 2 4 108 9 4 8 0 3 0 19 1 3 0 266
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 105 608 80 29 54 964 78 9 38 2 18 0 203 5 54 0 2247 APPROACH %'s : 12.77% 73.97% 9.73% 3.53% 4.89% 87.24% 7.06% 0.81% 65.52% 3.45% 31.03% 0.00% 77.48% 1.91% 20.61% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 61 328 38 19 43 536 41 4 24 1 11 0 118 4 42 0 1270 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.693 0.828 0.679 0.679 0.672 0.905 0.732 0.500 0.750 0.250 0.550 0.000 0.590 0.500 0.477 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 10 111 8 1 5 94 8 1 17 0 6 0 19 0 3 0 283
4:15 PM 8 119 24 3 6 79 4 0 10 1 1 0 7 0 5 0 267
4:30 PM 12 111 21 3 5 87 9 1 12 2 2 0 17 1 1 0 284
4:45 PM 23 104 22 3 4 95 9 3 17 4 6 0 13 1 3 0 307
5:00 PM 20 109 24 4 10 85 15 1 21 2 6 0 10 0 4 0 311
5:15 PM 8 114 23 3 11 98 8 1 11 2 8 0 18 0 3 0 308
5:30 PM 17 113 15 6 8 92 5 0 8 0 3 0 20 0 2 0 289
5:45 PM 15 96 34 4 3 83 11 1 8 2 3 0 11 1 1 0 273
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 113 877 171 27 52 713 69 8 104 13 35 0 115 3 22 0 2322 APPROACH %'s : 9.51% 73.82% 14.39% 2.27% 6.18% 84.68% 8.19% 0.95% 68.42% 8.55% 23.03% 0.00% 82.14% 2.14% 15.71% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 68 440 84 16 33 370 37 5 57 8 23 0 61 1 12 0 1215 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.739 0.965 0.875 0.667 0.750 0.944 0.617 0.417 0.679 0.500 0.719 0.000 0.763 0.250 0.750 0.000 Data - Totals
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
0.814 0.929 0.692 0.707
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-002
2/11/2025
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
0.9770.968 0.943 0.759 0.841
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.923
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 6
APPROACH %'s : 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
0.250
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-002
2/11/2025
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
0.5000.500 0.250 0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.250
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr Project ID:
City: Fairfield Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 6
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 38 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 289 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Clay Bank Rd Clay Bank Rd Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
AM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
25-080051-002
2/11/2025
0.5000.500
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
0.250
EXHIBIT A
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 25-080051-002 Day:
City: Fairfield Date:
AM 41 536 43 4 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 37 370 33 5 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 1 0 0.5 12 0 42
0.5 1 0 4
0 0 0 0 1 61 0 118
24 0 57 1 TEV 1270 0 1215 0 0 0 0
1 0 8 0.5 PHF 0.92 0.98
11 0 23 0.5 0 1 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 16 68 440 84 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 19 61 328 38 AM
0 NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 514
Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Clay Bank Rd Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/11/2025
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 398 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
125 0 82
Totals (AM) 470 Total Bikes (AM)
Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
Horizon Cir/Horizon Dr106 0 106
CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 684
NORTHBOUND
Clay Bank Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
12 1
6123
8 57
37 370
33 84
440
68 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
42 4
11811
1 24
41 536
43 38
328
61 EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Portland Dr & Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 5 0 4 115 0 0 193
7:15 AM 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 4 0 2 162 0 0 245
7:30 AM 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 3 0 10 154 0 0 240
7:45 AM 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 3 0 4 136 0 0 237
8:00 AM 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 3 0 8 141 0 0 236
8:15 AM 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 5 0 5 130 0 0 258
8:30 AM 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 4 0 5 120 0 0 213
8:45 AM 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 2 0 6 117 0 0 214
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 40 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 583 29 0 44 1075 0 0 1836 APPROACH %'s : 38.10% 0.00% 61.90% 0.00% 0.00% 95.26% 4.74% 0.00% 3.93% 96.07% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 19 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 14 0 27 561 0 0 971 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.528 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.748 0.700 0.000 0.675 0.911 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 4 0 4 107 0 0 255
4:15 PM 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 3 0 4 99 0 0 248
4:30 PM 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 4 0 5 96 0 1 243
4:45 PM 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 5 0 10 74 0 0 230
5:00 PM 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 4 0 11 118 0 0 286
5:15 PM 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 7 0 5 90 0 0 247
5:30 PM 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 5 0 4 74 0 0 265
5:45 PM 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 4 0 11 83 0 0 238
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 19 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 36 0 54 741 0 1 2012 APPROACH %'s : 26.39% 0.00% 73.61% 0.00% 0.00% 96.85% 3.15% 0.00% 6.78% 93.09% 0.00% 0.13% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 293 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 8 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 590 20 0 31 365 0 0 1036 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.667 0.000 0.611 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.843 0.714 0.000 0.705 0.773 0.000 0.000 Data - Totals
Portland Dr Portland Dr Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy
0.859 0.745 0.896
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-003
2/11/2025
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
0.9060.625 0.847 0.767
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.941
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Portland Dr & Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy City: Fairfield Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 293 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Portland Dr Portland Dr Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
25-080051-003
2/11/2025
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
EXHIBIT A
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Portland Dr & Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy Project ID:
City: Fairfield Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 38 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR :
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 290 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR :
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Portland Dr Portland Dr Cement Hill Rd/Manuel
Campos Pkwy
Cement Hill Rd/Manuel
Campos Pkwy
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
AM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
PM
NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
25-080051-003
2/11/2025
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
EXHIBIT A
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 25-080051-003 Day:
City: Fairfield Date:
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 365 0 561
0 0 0 0 0 31 0 27
0 0 0 0 TEV 971 0 1036 0 0 0 0
314 0 590 0.5 PHF 0.94 0.91
14 0 20 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 8 0 22 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 19 0 36 AM
0 NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM 0
Portland Dr & Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Portland Dr Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 2/11/2025
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
PEAK HOURS
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 0 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
612 0 350
Totals (AM) 51 Total Bikes (AM)
Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
Cement Hill Rd/Manuel Campos Pkwy
580 0 373
CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 41
NORTHBOUND
Portland Dr
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 365
3120
590
0 0
0 0
22 0
8 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 561
2714
314
0 0
0 0
36 0
19 EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT D
BACKGROUND TRIP GENERATION
EXHIBIT A
Background Project Trip Generations
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 9 DU2 110 2 6 8 6 4 10 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 52 DU2 553 10 31 41 34 20 54 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 33 DU2 364 7 20 27 22 13 35 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 49 DU2 523 10 29 39 32 19 51 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 77 DU2 793 15 44 59 49 29 78 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 58 DU2 611 11 34 45 38 22 60 In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 150 DU 1,465 27 81 108 91 54 145 Single-Family Attached Housing (Duplex) 215 226 DU 1,672 28 84 112 78 54 132 3,137 55 165 220 169 108 277
Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Village II Lot 4 Remainder - as of 05/15/2024
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 Village I Lot 2 Remainder - as of 05/15/2024
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 Village I Lot 2 Remainder - as of 02/24/2025
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Village II Lot 3 Remainder - as of 02/24/2025
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Village II Lot 4 Remainder - as of 02/24/2025
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1 AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1 Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Land Use Quantity Units
Lago Vista
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
ITE Code Daily1
Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Village II Lot 3 Remainder - as of 05/15/2024
Land Use ITE Code Quantity Units Daily1
Notes:
1 Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations or average rates. 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Total
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs\1000-s\1135-Villages_at_Faifield\VAF-OA\Traffic\Parkside\Analysis\VAF_Parkside_Trip_Gen_20250327.xlsx
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT E
SYNCHRO HCM 7
TH
EDITION LOS REPORTS
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 190 146 229 345 9 215 6 133 14 16 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 190 146 229 345 9 215 6 133 14 16 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 200 154 241 363 9 226 6 140 15 17 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 236 281 206 293 621 15 297 317 269 309 178 115 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1958 1431 1781 3543 88 1781 1870 1585 1781 1061 686 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 181 173 241 182 190 226 6 140 15 0 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1613 1781 1777 1854 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 5.9 6.3 8.0 5.7 5.8 7.4 0.2 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 5.9 6.3 8.0 5.7 5.8 7.4 0.2 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 255 232 293 312 325 297 317 269 309 0 294 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.71 0.75 0.82 0.58 0.59 0.76 0.02 0.52 0.05 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 875 1164 1056 875 1164 1215 875 1133 960 875 0 1087 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.1 24.9 25.1 24.7 23.1 23.1 24.3 21.1 23.1 21.0 0.0 21.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.3 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.3 2.2 3.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 23.2 26.3 26.9 26.9 23.8 23.8 25.8 21.1 23.7 21.1 0.0 21.5 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 366 613 372 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 25.0 24.9 21.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 14.6 15.3 15.4 13.9 16.5 15.2 15.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.1 * 5.1 5.8 5.8 4.6 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 40.0 30.0 * 38 30.0 40.0 30.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 8.3 9.4 2.8 2.4 7.8 2.4 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 30 31 61 31 32 37 289 28 22 338 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 30 31 61 31 32 37 289 28 22 338 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 35 36 72 36 38 44 340 33 26 398 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 169 80 82 184 86 91 87 941 91 56 890 80
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 844 868 1781 833 879 1781 3275 316 1781 3295 297 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 71 72 0 74 44 184 189 26 214 220 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1712 1781 0 1712 1781 1777 1814 1781 1777 1814 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 3.1 3.2 0.5 3.8 3.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 3.1 3.2 0.5 3.8 3.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 0 162 184 0 177 87 511 521 56 480 490 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.44 0.39 0.00 0.42 0.51 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1683 0 1617 1683 0 1617 935 1632 1666 935 1632 1666 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 0.0 16.3 16.0 0.0 16.0 17.7 10.8 10.8 18.1 11.5 11.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.6 4.5 0.4 0.4 5.8 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 16.6 0.0 18.1 17.3 0.0 17.6 22.2 11.2 11.2 23.9 12.2 12.2 LnGrp LOS B B B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 110 146 417 460
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.6 17.5 12.4 12.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 6.5 14.9 8.5 5.8 15.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 20.0 35.0 36.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 2.9 5.8 3.5 2.5 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.7
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 1 11 277 4 89 80 329 90 63 540 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 1 11 277 4 89 80 329 90 63 540 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 1 12 301 4 97 87 358 98 68 587 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 54 11 138 375 17 419 125 767 207 109 896 69
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 123 1472 1781 63 1532 1781 2766 747 1781 3339 256 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 13 301 0 101 87 228 228 68 312 320 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1595 1781 0 1595 1781 1777 1736 1781 1777 1818 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 0.4 8.1 0.0 2.5 2.4 5.4 5.5 1.9 7.8 7.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.4 8.1 0.0 2.5 2.4 5.4 5.5 1.9 7.8 7.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 0 149 375 0 436 125 493 481 109 477 488 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.09 0.80 0.00 0.23 0.70 0.46 0.47 0.63 0.65 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 708 0 1047 708 0 983 708 1166 1139 248 883 904 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 0.0 20.8 18.9 0.0 14.2 22.9 15.1 15.1 23.0 16.3 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 0.0 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.3 6.9 0.7 0.7 5.8 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.8 1.1 1.9 1.9 0.9 3.1 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.5 0.0 21.1 22.9 0.0 14.4 29.7 15.8 15.8 28.8 17.9 17.8 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 39 402 543 700
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 20.8 18.0 18.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 9.3 8.1 18.1 5.7 18.4 7.7 18.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 33.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 31.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.1 2.4 4.4 9.9 2.7 4.5 3.9 7.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.3
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 323 14 28 564 19 39
Future Volume (veh/h) 323 14 28 564 19 39
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 344 15 30 600 20 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 827 36 67 1788 37 76
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.50 0.07 0.07
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 151 1781 3647 532 1090
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 183 30 600 62 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1843 1781 1777 1648 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.9 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.08 1.00 0.32 0.66
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 424 440 67 1788 115 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.34 0.54 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2785 2889 3280 5569 1937 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 8.2 12.0 3.8 11.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.6 4.6 0.1 3.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.9 8.8 16.7 3.9 15.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 359 630 62
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 4.5 15.4
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 11.9 18.6 6.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 40.0 40.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 4.1 4.6 2.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.9 4.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.6
HCM 7th LOS A
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 294 198 200 229 9 166 24 312 9 11 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 294 198 200 229 9 166 24 312 9 11 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 309 208 211 241 9 175 25 328 9 12 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 199 374 246 255 747 28 250 443 375 257 438 0 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2055 1349 1781 3494 130 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 266 251 211 122 128 175 25 328 9 12 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1627 1781 1777 1847 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 10.5 10.8 8.4 4.2 4.2 6.8 0.8 14.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 10.5 10.8 8.4 4.2 4.2 6.8 0.8 14.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 199 324 296 255 380 395 250 443 375 257 438 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.32 0.32 0.70 0.06 0.88 0.03 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 736 978 896 736 978 1017 736 953 805 736 978 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.7 28.6 28.7 30.2 24.1 24.1 29.8 21.4 26.7 26.7 21.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 4.1 3.5 1.6 1.7 2.9 0.3 5.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.7 30.6 31.3 32.8 24.3 24.3 31.1 21.5 29.3 26.7 21.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 520 461 528 21
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 28.2 29.5 23.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 19.0 15.3 22.1 13.9 21.3 15.1 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.1 * 5.1 5.8 5.8 4.6 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 40.0 30.0 * 38 30.0 40.0 30.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 12.8 8.8 2.4 2.1 6.2 2.3 16.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.5
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 9 25 29 14 23 60 448 40 39 337 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 9 25 29 14 23 60 448 40 39 337 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 10 27 31 15 25 65 482 43 42 362 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 125 31 84 126 45 74 118 992 88 85 921 88
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 447 1206 1781 630 1051 1781 3301 294 1781 3268 314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 37 31 0 40 65 259 266 42 196 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1653 1781 0 1681 1781 1777 1818 1781 1777 1804 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.8 1.3 4.3 4.3 0.8 3.2 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.8 1.3 4.3 4.3 0.8 3.2 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 0 116 126 0 119 118 534 546 85 501 508 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00 0.32 0.25 0.00 0.34 0.55 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1782 0 1654 1782 0 1682 990 1728 1768 990 1728 1755 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 0.0 15.9 15.8 0.0 15.9 16.3 10.3 10.3 16.7 10.4 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.7 3.9 0.7 0.7 4.4 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.0 0.0 17.5 16.8 0.0 17.6 20.2 11.0 11.0 21.1 10.9 10.9 LnGrp LOS B B B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 70 71 590 439
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.3 17.2 12.0 11.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 7.0 14.7 7.1 6.3 15.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 20.0 35.0 36.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 3.3 5.2 2.8 2.8 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.1 2.6 0.3 0.1 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.6
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 8 23 164 1 42 84 444 248 86 373 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 8 23 164 1 42 84 444 248 86 373 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 8 23 167 1 43 86 453 253 88 381 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 101 38 109 223 6 244 129 712 395 131 1057 105 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 426 1224 1781 36 1554 1781 2205 1223 1781 3264 324 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 31 167 0 44 86 364 342 88 206 213 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1650 1781 0 1591 1781 1777 1650 1781 1777 1811 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.8 4.2 0.0 1.1 2.2 8.1 8.2 2.2 4.1 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.8 4.2 0.0 1.1 2.2 8.1 8.2 2.2 4.1 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 0 146 223 0 250 129 574 533 131 576 587 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.21 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.67 0.36 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 772 0 1180 772 0 1068 772 1270 1180 270 962 981 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 0.0 19.5 19.5 0.0 16.9 20.9 13.3 13.3 20.9 11.9 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.0 0.7 5.0 0.0 0.3 5.8 1.2 1.3 5.9 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.4 1.0 2.7 2.6 1.1 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.2 0.0 20.2 24.5 0.0 17.2 26.7 14.5 14.6 26.8 12.3 12.3 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 89 211 792 507
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 23.0 15.9 14.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 8.7 7.9 19.6 6.8 11.8 8.0 19.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 33.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 31.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 2.8 4.2 6.2 3.5 3.1 4.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.9
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 595 20 34 429 9 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 595 20 34 429 9 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 654 22 37 471 10 26
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1230 41 79 2096 20 51
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.59 0.04 0.04
Sat Flow, veh/h 3602 118 1781 3647 443 1153
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 331 345 37 471 37 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1849 1781 1777 1641 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 4.4 0.6 1.9 0.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 4.4 0.6 1.9 0.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.06 1.00 0.27 0.70
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 623 648 79 2096 73 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.22 0.51 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2387 2484 2812 4774 1653 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 7.7 13.9 2.9 13.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.7 4.3 0.1 5.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.4 8.4 18.2 2.9 19.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 676 508 37
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 4.1 19.3
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 16.2 23.4 6.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 40.0 40.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 6.4 3.9 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.0 3.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.9
HCM 7th LOS A
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 190 148 229 345 9 222 6 133 14 16 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 190 148 229 345 9 222 6 133 14 16 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 200 156 241 363 9 234 6 140 15 17 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 236 281 208 293 624 15 297 317 268 309 178 115 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1947 1441 1781 3543 88 1781 1870 1585 1781 1061 686 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 182 174 241 182 190 234 6 140 15 0 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1611 1781 1777 1854 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 6.0 6.3 8.0 5.7 5.8 7.7 0.2 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 6.0 6.3 8.0 5.7 5.8 7.7 0.2 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 256 232 293 313 327 297 317 268 309 0 293 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.71 0.75 0.82 0.58 0.58 0.79 0.02 0.52 0.05 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 874 1163 1054 874 1163 1214 874 1132 960 874 0 1086 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 24.9 25.1 24.7 23.1 23.1 24.4 21.2 23.1 21.1 0.0 21.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.3 2.3 3.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 23.2 26.3 26.9 26.9 23.7 23.7 26.2 21.2 23.7 21.1 0.0 21.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 368 613 380 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 25.0 25.2 21.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 14.6 15.3 15.4 13.9 16.6 15.2 15.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.1 * 5.1 5.8 5.8 4.6 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 40.0 30.0 * 38 30.0 40.0 30.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 8.3 9.7 2.8 2.4 7.8 2.4 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 30 31 70 31 39 37 289 31 24 338 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 30 31 70 31 39 37 289 31 24 338 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 35 36 82 36 46 44 340 36 28 398 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 169 80 82 192 80 103 87 921 97 60 885 80
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 844 868 1781 746 953 1781 3245 341 1781 3295 297 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 71 82 0 82 44 185 191 28 214 220 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1712 1781 0 1699 1781 1777 1809 1781 1777 1814 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 3.2 3.2 0.6 3.8 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 3.2 3.2 0.6 3.8 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 0 162 192 0 183 87 504 514 60 478 488 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.44 0.43 0.00 0.45 0.51 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1673 0 1608 1673 0 1596 930 1623 1652 930 1623 1657 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 16.4 16.0 0.0 16.0 17.8 11.0 11.0 18.2 11.6 11.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.0 1.7 4.5 0.4 0.4 5.6 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 16.8 0.0 18.2 17.5 0.0 17.7 22.3 11.4 11.4 23.7 12.3 12.3 LnGrp LOS B B B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 110 164 420 462
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 17.6 12.6 13.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 6.5 14.9 8.7 5.9 15.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 20.0 35.0 36.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 2.9 5.9 3.7 2.6 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 2.9 0.7 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.9
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 1 11 290 4 89 80 335 95 63 559 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 1 11 290 4 89 80 335 95 63 559 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 1 12 315 4 97 87 364 103 68 608 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 54 11 135 388 18 428 123 771 215 107 912 67
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 123 1472 1781 63 1532 1781 2743 766 1781 3349 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 13 315 0 101 87 234 233 68 322 331 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1595 1781 0 1595 1781 1777 1732 1781 1777 1819 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 0.4 8.7 0.0 2.5 2.5 5.6 5.8 1.9 8.3 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.4 8.7 0.0 2.5 2.5 5.6 5.8 1.9 8.3 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 0 147 388 0 446 123 499 487 107 484 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.09 0.81 0.00 0.23 0.71 0.47 0.48 0.63 0.67 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 691 0 1020 691 0 958 691 1137 1108 242 861 882 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.6 0.0 21.4 19.2 0.0 14.3 23.5 15.4 15.4 23.7 16.7 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 0.0 0.3 4.1 0.0 0.3 7.2 0.7 0.7 6.0 1.6 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.9 1.2 2.0 2.0 0.9 3.3 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.2 0.0 21.7 23.3 0.0 14.6 30.7 16.0 16.1 29.7 18.3 18.3 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 39 416 554 721
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.1 21.2 18.4 19.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 9.3 8.2 18.6 5.8 19.0 7.7 19.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 33.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 31.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.7 2.4 4.5 10.3 2.7 4.5 3.9 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.7
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 323 14 29 564 19 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 323 14 29 564 19 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 344 15 31 600 20 44
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 825 36 69 1786 37 80
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.50 0.07 0.07
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 151 1781 3647 506 1113
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 183 31 600 65 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1843 1781 1777 1645 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 2.2 0.4 2.6 1.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 2.2 0.4 2.6 1.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.08 1.00 0.31 0.68
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 423 438 69 1786 119 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.34 0.55 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2772 2875 3265 5544 1924 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.3 8.3 12.1 3.8 11.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.6 4.5 0.1 3.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.9 8.9 16.6 3.9 15.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 359 631 65
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 4.5 15.4
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 11.9 18.7 7.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 40.0 40.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 4.2 4.6 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.9 4.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.7
HCM 7th LOS A
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 294 205 200 229 9 170 24 312 9 11 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 294 205 200 229 9 170 24 312 9 11 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 309 216 211 241 9 179 25 328 9 12 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 198 373 254 255 758 28 249 443 374 256 438 0 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2021 1378 1781 3494 130 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 271 254 211 122 128 179 25 328 9 12 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1622 1781 1777 1847 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 10.7 11.1 8.4 4.2 4.3 7.0 0.8 14.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 10.7 11.1 8.4 4.2 4.3 7.0 0.8 14.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 328 299 255 385 401 249 443 374 256 438 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.83 0.85 0.83 0.32 0.32 0.72 0.06 0.88 0.04 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 732 973 888 732 973 1011 732 947 801 732 973 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 28.6 28.8 30.4 24.1 24.1 30.1 21.6 26.8 26.9 21.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.3 4.1 3.5 1.6 1.7 3.0 0.3 5.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.9 30.7 31.4 33.0 24.2 24.2 31.5 21.6 29.5 26.9 21.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 528 461 532 21
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 28.3 29.8 23.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 19.3 15.3 22.2 13.9 21.6 15.1 22.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.1 * 5.1 5.8 5.8 4.6 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 40.0 30.0 * 38 30.0 40.0 30.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 13.1 9.0 2.4 2.1 6.3 2.3 16.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 9 25 35 14 27 60 448 50 46 337 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 9 25 35 14 27 60 448 50 46 337 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 10 27 38 15 29 65 482 54 49 362 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 124 31 84 138 44 85 118 941 105 96 913 88
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 447 1206 1781 570 1102 1781 3223 360 1781 3267 314 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 37 38 0 44 65 265 271 49 196 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1653 1781 0 1672 1781 1777 1806 1781 1777 1804 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.3 4.5 4.5 1.0 3.2 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.3 4.5 4.5 1.0 3.2 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 0 115 138 0 130 118 519 527 96 497 504 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.32 0.28 0.00 0.34 0.55 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.39 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1767 0 1640 1767 0 1659 982 1714 1741 982 1714 1740 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 0.0 16.1 15.8 0.0 15.9 16.4 10.7 10.7 16.7 10.6 10.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.5 4.0 0.8 0.8 4.2 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.1 0.0 17.6 16.8 0.0 17.4 20.4 11.5 11.5 20.9 11.1 11.1 LnGrp LOS B B B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 70 82 601 446
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.4 17.1 12.4 12.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 7.0 14.7 7.4 6.5 15.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 20.0 35.0 36.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 3.3 5.3 2.9 3.0 6.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.1 2.6 0.3 0.1 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.0
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 8 23 173 1 42 84 465 263 86 385 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 8 23 173 1 42 84 465 263 86 385 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 8 23 177 1 43 86 474 268 88 393 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 100 37 106 235 6 253 127 728 409 129 1090 105 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 426 1224 1781 36 1554 1781 2192 1233 1781 3274 315 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 31 177 0 44 86 384 358 88 212 219 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1650 1781 0 1591 1781 1777 1648 1781 1777 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.8 4.6 0.0 1.1 2.2 8.8 8.9 2.3 4.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.8 4.6 0.0 1.1 2.2 8.8 8.9 2.3 4.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 0 143 235 0 258 127 590 547 129 591 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.22 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.68 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.36 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 747 0 1141 747 0 1033 747 1229 1140 261 931 950 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.0 0.0 20.3 20.0 0.0 17.2 21.6 13.6 13.6 21.6 12.1 12.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.0 0.7 4.8 0.0 0.3 6.2 1.2 1.3 6.3 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.0 0.4 1.0 3.0 2.8 1.1 1.6 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 21.0 24.8 0.0 17.5 27.8 14.8 14.9 27.9 12.4 12.4 LnGrp LOS C C C B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 89 221 828 519
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 23.4 16.2 15.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 8.7 8.0 20.5 6.9 12.4 8.0 20.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 33.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 31.0 7.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 2.8 4.2 6.4 3.5 3.1 4.3 10.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 17.3
HCM 7th LOS B
EXHIBIT A
VAF Parkside TIA
4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 12 Report Wood Rodgers, Inc
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 595 20 36 429 9 25
Future Volume (veh/h) 595 20 36 429 9 25
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 654 22 40 471 10 27
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1227 41 84 2099 20 53
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.59 0.05 0.05
Sat Flow, veh/h 3602 118 1781 3647 431 1165
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 331 345 40 471 38 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1849 1781 1777 1639 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 4.5 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 4.5 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.06 1.00 0.26 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 621 647 84 2099 74 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.22 0.51 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2374 2470 2796 4748 1642 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.8 7.8 13.9 2.9 14.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.7 4.1 0.1 5.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.5 8.5 18.0 2.9 19.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 676 511 38
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 4.1 19.3
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 16.3 23.5 6.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 40.0 40.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 6.5 3.9 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.0 3.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOS A
EXHIBIT A
Villages at Fairfield Parkside Traffic Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT F
SIMTRAFFIC QUEUING REPORTS
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour 04/30/2025
01_E+B_AM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection: 1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 113 111 177 92 96 214 33 82 50 56 Average Queue (ft) 7 57 48 91 32 39 91 4 40 15 20
95th Queue (ft) 26 98 86 151 70 77 161 22 70 43 49
Link Distance (ft) 935 935 1755 1755 782 782 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 215 205 160
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 60 78 75 82 63 129 105 51 98 114
Average Queue (ft) 23 34 33 30 24 47 36 17 41 54
95th Queue (ft) 54 66 64 64 53 103 80 44 80 100
Link Distance (ft) 738 753 3203 3203 782 782
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 75 215 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Intersection: 3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 60 36 192 127 111 170 142 88 166 175 Average Queue (ft) 20 11 102 33 44 71 47 38 79 93
95th Queue (ft) 50 34 165 75 83 129 102 74 136 150
Link Distance (ft) 978 735 974 974 3203 3203
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 130 155 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour 04/30/2025
01_E+B_AM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection: 4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 64 72 52 78 60 67
Average Queue (ft) 17 23 19 25 11 28
95th Queue (ft) 50 59 47 67 41 54
Link Distance (ft) 1755 1755 205 205 2457
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 5
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour 04/30/2025
02_E+B_PM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection: 1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 153 151 163 100 82 153 62 131 41 50 Average Queue (ft) 2 79 65 83 23 28 74 15 68 8 12
95th Queue (ft) 13 133 117 144 59 62 125 46 112 31 39
Link Distance (ft) 935 935 1755 1755 782 782 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 215 205 160
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 52 56 56 77 97 139 67 94 118
Average Queue (ft) 22 21 20 23 34 37 57 27 35 49
95th Queue (ft) 52 49 48 50 64 84 119 57 74 92
Link Distance (ft) 738 753 3203 3203 782 782
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 75 215 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Intersection: 3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 50 136 72 102 143 162 119 121 137 Average Queue (ft) 36 21 69 23 44 75 69 47 51 68
95th Queue (ft) 67 46 114 53 80 124 124 89 99 114
Link Distance (ft) 978 735 974 974 3203 3203
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 130 155 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Existing Plus Background Peak Hour 04/30/2025
02_E+B_PM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection: 4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 98 58 59 40 50
Average Queue (ft) 22 32 22 13 5 20
95th Queue (ft) 63 78 48 42 24 45
Link Distance (ft) 1755 1755 205 205 2457
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour 04/30/2025 03_E+B+P_AM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection: 1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 42 116 115 177 91 100 178 33 82 44 69 Average Queue (ft) 8 56 48 93 33 40 95 3 39 13 23
95th Queue (ft) 28 98 87 158 70 81 156 20 70 40 56
Link Distance (ft) 935 935 1755 1755 782 782 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 215 205 160
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 76 87 86 63 131 92 63 98 120
Average Queue (ft) 19 33 36 33 25 46 37 19 40 54
95th Queue (ft) 48 64 68 68 55 101 79 49 78 100
Link Distance (ft) 738 753 3203 3203 782 782
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 75 215 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 1 0
Intersection: 3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 40 200 196 102 159 138 103 201 223 Average Queue (ft) 21 10 109 42 48 71 52 38 87 99
95th Queue (ft) 50 34 177 119 86 126 105 76 158 168
Link Distance (ft) 978 735 974 974 3203 3203
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 130 155 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour 04/30/2025 03_E+B+P_AM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection: 4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 74 53 84 54 70
Average Queue (ft) 17 22 20 27 11 29
95th Queue (ft) 50 58 46 69 39 55
Link Distance (ft) 1755 1755 205 205 2457
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 7
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour 04/30/2025 04_E+B+P_PM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 1
Intersection: 1: Clay Bank Rd & Manuel Campos Pkwy
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 23 166 168 172 68 78 175 54 138 33 41 Average Queue (ft) 2 82 70 81 21 28 77 14 67 7 10
95th Queue (ft) 13 141 129 137 52 62 138 43 110 29 35
Link Distance (ft) 935 935 1755 1755 782 782 788
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 215 205 160
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 2: Clay Bank Rd & Gulf Dr
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 58 66 62 81 153 180 70 94 106
Average Queue (ft) 23 21 25 24 34 43 62 29 36 50
95th Queue (ft) 54 50 56 52 69 103 123 59 75 92
Link Distance (ft) 738 753 3203 3203 782 782
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 75 215 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Intersection: 3: Clay Bank Rd & Horizon Dr/Horizon Circle Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 55 148 104 103 155 185 111 124 138 Average Queue (ft) 36 21 74 23 47 83 77 50 54 71
95th Queue (ft) 69 49 125 61 85 140 140 93 101 118
Link Distance (ft) 978 735 974 974 3203 3203
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 155 130 155 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT A
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak Hour 04/30/2025 04_E+B+P_PM VAF Parkside TIA SimTraffic Report
Wood Rodgers, Inc Page 2
Intersection: 4: Portland Dr & Manuel Campos Pkwy/Cement Hill Rd Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 106 54 71 45 60
Average Queue (ft) 25 37 23 16 6 23
95th Queue (ft) 67 84 49 51 27 50
Link Distance (ft) 1755 1755 205 205 2457
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
EXHIBIT A