◦ Coordinate with the City of Fremont to restripe Albrae Street to replace the existing two-way left-turn lane along the project frontage with left-turn lanes on southbound and northbound Albrae Street into the existing Walmart driveway and the proposed main project driveway
◦ Limit northbound Main Street at Stevenson Boulevard to right-turns only, at least during the peak congestion periods, and prohibit through trucks on Main Street ◦ Provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking as required by the City of Fremont Municipal Code for each project building
◦ Provide a continuous sidewalk along the project frontage on Albrae Street ◦ Provide a continuous sidewalk along the project frontage on Encyclopedia Circle The remainder of this memorandum provides more detail on our assumptions and findings on these topics.
Project Description
The project is located south of Stevenson Boulevard between Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle
1. The 22.5-acre project would consist of the following three buildings:
• Building 1 at the southeast part of the site would consist of 8,000 square feet of office and 182,500 square feet of warehouse
• Building 2 at the southwest part of the site would consist of 6,500 square feet of office and 151,280 square feet of warehouse
• Building 3 at the northwest part of the site would consist of 10,000 square feet of office and 36,800 square feet of industrial R&D/manufacturing space.
Overall, the project would provide 24,500 square feet of office, 333,790 square feet of warehouse, and 36,800 square feet of industrial R&D/manufacturing space.
Access to the site would be provided through two driveways on Albrae Street, three driveways on Encyclopedia Circle, and direct access on Main Street. The project would provide 713 automobile parking spaces.
Previously, the site was entitled for a regional retail center. The impacts of the entitled project were evaluated in The Globe General Plan Amendment EIR (published in 2005) and The Globe Supplement to EIR (published December 2006). The 2006 Supplement evaluated the impacts of 469,900 square feet of shopping center and 88,000 square feet of warehouse located on a 31.5- acre site. It is estimated that the 2006 Supplement assumed approximately 295,000 square feet of
1 This memorandum assumes that I-880 and Albrae Street are oriented north-south and Stevenson Boulevard is oriented east-west.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
shopping center on the 22.5 acres that would be used by the currently proposed industrial project.
CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
One performance measure used to quantify automobile travel is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As required by the State, VMT is the metric used to identify impacts of development projects on transportation in CEQA documents published after July 1, 2020. The VMT assessment presented in this memorandum is completed based on the thresholds and guidelines provided in the City of Fremont Transportation Impact Analysis Handbook (Final, June 2020).
The discussion below starts by presenting the City of Fremont’s applicable threshold of significance for the project, describes the applicability of VMT screening, and estimates the VMT for the proposed project.
City of Fremont Thresholds of Significance
The State Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA recommends evaluating VMT impacts using an efficiency-based version of the metric, such as VMT per resident for residential developments or VMT per employee for office or other employment-based developments. Consistent with OPR’s guidelines, City of Fremont uses the metric of home-work VMT per employee for evaluating the impacts of employment-based uses, such as the proposed project. The home-work VMT per employee measures all of the commute trips between homes and workplaces and divides that total distance by the number of employees at the site. Consistent with OPR guidelines, City of Fremont does not include heavy- duty truck VMT as part of VMT analysis.
Based on the City of Fremont guidelines, the following significance thresholds are applicable to the project:
• Office Uses: 15% below the regional average VMT per employee • Industrial Uses: The regional average VMT per employee VMT Screening Assessment
Screening thresholds can be used to quickly identify projects that can be expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The City of Fremont guidelines include several screening methods. The method applicable to the project is the Location Based Screening for Employment criterion.
According to this method, projects that are located in low-VMT areas and that have characteristics similar to other uses already located in those areas can be presumed to generate VMT at similar
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
rates. The low-VMT areas in Fremont are defined based on the results of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Travel Demand Model and are summarized in maps.
Based on the City of Fremont’s employment-based screening map, the project is in an area with a VMT 15% below regional average VMT per employee, which would mean that both the office and industrial components of the project would meet this criterion.
However, this criterion also includes the following conditions that must be satisfied for a project to meet the VMT screening requirements:
• Density: If located in an area that has a maximum density below 0.75 FAR, the maximum density allowed must be met
• Parking: No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required Based on the project site plan, the project would have a FAR of 0.41, compared to a maximum FAR of 0.45. The project would include 713 automobile parking spaces, which is the same as the 713 minimum parking spaces required per City of Fremont Municipal Code. Therefore, the project would not meet the City’s screening criterion.
Project VMT Estimates
Since the project would not meet the City’s screening criterion for VMT, the VMT for the project is estimated using the Alameda CTC Travel Demand Model. The Alameda CTC Model, which covers the entire nine county Bay Area, is a regional travel demand model that uses socio-economic data and roadway and transit network assumptions to forecast traffic volumes, transit ridership, and VMT using a four-step modeling process that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. This process accounts for changes in travel patterns due to future growth and expected changes in the transportation network. This analysis uses the VMT per employee data provided in the City of Fremont’s public GIS database, which is based on the Alameda CTC Model, and is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2040 (i.e., Sustainable Communities Strategy) transportation network and land uses for 2020.
As a regional planning tool, the Alameda CTC Model was developed through an extensive model validation process and is intended to replicate existing vehicular travel behavior. Therefore, it can provide a reasonable estimate of the VMT generated in various geographic areas on a typical weekday.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated home-work VMT per employee under 2020 conditions for the project based on the results of the Alameda CTC Model and compares the results to the City of Fremont’s thresholds applicable to the project.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 1: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary
Land Use Home-Work VMT per Employee1
(2020)
Project (TAZ 906) 15.1
Bay Area Regional Average
(threshold for industrial uses) 18.1
15% below the Bay Area Regional Average
(threshold for office uses) 15.4
Notes:
1. Based on the results of the Alameda CTC Travel Demand Model as represented in the City of Fremont public GIS database (https://egis.fremont.gov/gisapps/fremont/index.html?viewer=Public.gvh) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
It is estimated that the project employees would have an average home-work VMT of 13.5 miles per employee per day in 2020, which is more than 15% below the regional average VMT per employee. Thus, both the office and industrial components of the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT. Since the project is consistent with the City of Fremont General Plan, the cumulative VMT impacts of the project is less than significant.
Local Transportation Analysis
This section evaluates the transportation related effects of the project outside of the CEQA process, consistent with the City of Fremont Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Handbook. It presents the project trip generation, evaluates the effects of the project on traffic operations, and summarizes access and circulation for various travel modes.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would likely access the Project site. Fehr & Peers estimated the trip generation for the project using the data and methodology published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, and the Tenth Edition Supplement.
The specific tenants for the project have not been selected. The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides several different land use types that may be applicable to the proposed warehouse component of the project. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates for these potential uses.
To present the most conservative results, this analysis assumes that the warehouse component of the project would be high-cube fulfillment center warehouse (sort), which is the highest trip generating use in the Trip Generation Manual that could occupy the warehouse component of the project.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 2: Automobile Trip Generation Rate Comparison
Land Use Type ITE Land Use
Code Daily Weekday AM
Peak Hour1
Weekday PM
Peak Hour2
Warehousing 151 1.74 0.17 0.19
High-Cube Transload and
Short-Term Storage Warehouse 154 1.40 0.08 0.10
High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse (Non-Sort) 155 1.81 0.15 0.16
High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse (Sort) 155 6.44 0.87 1.20
High-Cube Parcel Hub
Warehouse 156 4.63 0.70 0.64
Notes.
1. Peak hour of adjacent street traffic one hour between 7:00 and 9:00 AM.
2. Peak hour of adjacent street traffic one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 PM.
Source: ITE Trip Generation (Tenth Edition Supplement), 2020.
According to the ITE Trip Generation Tenth Edition Supplement, the high-cube parcel hub warehouse land use would have the highest truck trip generation of the uses under consideration.
To present a conservative estimate, this trip generation estimate applies the truck trip generation rates for the high-cube parcel hub warehouse to the warehouse and manufacturing components of the project. Since trucks are larger and operate slower than passenger vehicles, A passenger car equivalent (PCE) ratio of 2.0 is used to convert the truck trips to passenger vehicle trips (each truck is counted as two passenger vehicles).
Table 3 summarizes the trip generation for the project based on the ITE methodology.
Accounting for the PCE trips, it is estimated that the project would generate about 2,880 daily, and 396 AM and 478 PM peak hour net new trips.
Comparison with the 2005 Entitled Project
Table 4 compares the trip generation for the proposed project with the trips generated by the entitled retail project that was evaluated in the 2006 Supplement. Since retail uses generate minimal trips during the AM peak hour, the 2006 Supplement did not estimate the project trip generation for the AM peak hour or evaluate the project impacts on intersection operations during the AM peak hour.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 3: Project Automobile Trip Generation
Land Use Size1 Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Office2 24.5 KSF 240 43 7 50 5 25 30
Warehouse3 333.8 KSF 2,150 235 55 290 156 245 401
Manufacturing4 36.8 KSF 280 18 5 23 8 17 25
Total Trips 2,670 296 67 363 169 287 456
Truck Traffic Adjustment5 210 27 6 33 9 13 22
Total PCE Trips 2,880 323 73 396 178 300 478
Notes:
1. KSF = 1,000 square feet.
2. ITE Trip Generation (Tenth Edition) land use category 710 (General Office Building in General Urban/Suburban Setting):
Daily: T = 9.74 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.94 * X + 26.49 (86% in, 14% out)
PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.95 * Ln (X) + 0.36 (16% in, 84% out)
3. ITE Trip Generation (Tenth Edition Supplement) land use category 155 (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) in General Urban/Suburban Setting):
Daily: T = 6.44 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.87 * X (81% in, 19% out)
PM Peak Hour: T = 1.20 * X (39% in, 61% out)
4. ITE Trip Generation (Tenth Edition) land use category 140 (Manufacturing in General Urban/Suburban Setting):
Daily: T = 3.16 * X + 160.04
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.62 * X (77% in, 23% out)
PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.67 * X (31% in, 69% out)
5. Based on ITE Trip Generation (Tenth Edition Supplement), land use category 156 (High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse in General Urban/Suburban Setting). Truck trip generation rates applied to the warehouse and manufacturing components of the project:
Daily: T = 0.58 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.09 * X (directional distribution not provided, assumed 81% in, 19% out) PM Peak Hour: T = 0.06 * X (directional distribution not provided, assumed 39% in, 61% out) This trip generation estimate assumes a PCE of 2.0 for the truck trips.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 4: Automobile Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Industrial Project1 2,880 324 73 397 178 300 478 Entitled Retail Project 14,1702 N/A N/A N/A 3983 4313 8293 Difference - 11,290 N/A N/A N/A -220 -131 -351
Notes:
1. See Table 3 for details
2. Estimated daily trips for the entitled project on the currently proposed project site based on the total daily trips for the EIR project in The Globe General Plan Amendment Draft EIR (2005), Appendix B.
3. Estimated weekday PM peak hour trips for the entitled project on the currently proposed project site based on the total PM peak hour trips for the EIR project in The Globe Supplement to EIR (December 2006) and the 6000 Stevenson Boulevard Redevelopment-Supplement Traffic Letter Report (December 2006).
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
As previously described in the Project Description section of this memorandum, it is estimated that the 2006 Supplement assumed approximately 295,000 square feet of shopping center on the currently proposed project site. Since the 2006 Supplement evaluated the impacts of a larger project that extended beyond the boundaries of the currently proposed project, the trip generation estimate in Table 4 compares the trip generation for the currently proposed project with the components of the entitled project within the current project boundary as evaluated in the 2006 Supplement. The daily and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed industrial project are estimated to be about 20% and 58% of the trips generated by the entitled retail project, respectively. Since the currently proposed industrial project would generate fewer trips than the entitled retail project, it would add fewer trips to the intersections in the vicinity of the project and result in fewer and/or less severe impacts.
Since the proposed project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips, a more detailed traffic operations analysis is conducted for the project consistent with the City of Fremont guidelines, outside of the CEQA process. The next section of this memorandum summarizes the traffic operations analysis completed for the project.
Traffic Operations Analysis
This section presents the traffic operations analysis completed for the project. Consistent with OPR guidelines which prohibit the use of delay-based metrics in environmental documents, the traffic operations analysis is conducted outside of the CEQA process. This section starts by describing trip distribution and trip assignment for the project, describing the methodologies used to evaluate traffic operations, followed by selection of study intersections, summary of traffic operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, and summary of project effects on delay and level of service (LOS) at the study intersections, queuing at the signalized study
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
intersections, signal warrants at the unsignalized study intersections, and potential improvements at the study intersections.
Trip Distribution, Trip Assignment, and Study Intersection Selection The trip distribution and assignment process estimates how the vehicle trips generated by the project site would distribute across the roadway network. Figure 1 shows the trip distribution for the project site. The directions of approach and departure of project trips were based on the trip distribution documented in the 2005 The Globe General Plan Amendment EIR, modified to account for the project location, the existing travel patterns and street network serving the project site, and the location of the project driveways. Trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network according to the trip distribution described above. This analysis assumes all trucks would use the driveways on Encyclopedia Drive to access the site.
Figure 1 shows the resulting trip assignment at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours. Considering the expected traffic congestion and travel times, this analysis assumes that about 75% of the trips to and from the east would use Albrae Street, about 10% would use Main Street, and about 15% would use Encyclopedia Circle; all vehicles to and from the west would use Encyclopedia Circle.
This analysis evaluates the AM and PM peak hour intersection operations at the following six study intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions:
1. I-880 Northbound Ramps/Stevenson Boulevard
2. I-880 Southbound Ramps/Stevenson Boulevard
3. Albrae Street/Stevenson Boulevard
4. Main Street/Stevenson Boulevard (Unsignalized)
5. Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard (Unsignalized)
6. Albrae Street/Walmart Driveway/Project Driveway (Unsignalized) These intersections were selected for analysis because the proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips, or they are most likely to be affected by the proposed project.
Analysis Methodology and Tools
Intersection operations are described using the term “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Letter grades range from LOS A, with no congestion and little delay, to LOS F, which represents over-capacity conditions with excessive vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a methodology to calculate LOS at intersections based on average vehicle delay. Appendix A describes the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for both signalized and unsignalized intersections based on HCM 2010 methodology. According to the City’s TIA Handbook, the City of Fremont’s goal for the
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
signalized intersections in the project vicinity is LOS D because they are located outside of the Town Centers.
The City of Fremont does not have any LOS goals for unsignalized intersections. Instead, the City requires an assessment of signal warrants at unsignalized intersections.
The intersection operations analysis also includes an assessment of queue length at signalized intersections, which is defined as the length of vehicles waiting to be cleared at the end of a red light. A vehicle is considered to be queued when it approaches within one car length of a stopped vehicle and is itself about to stop. This analysis reports the average and 95th percentile queue lengths2 for the movements most affected by the project at the signalized study intersections.
The Synchro 10 Software is used to estimate delay and the corresponding LOS for the signalized and side-street stop-controlled study intersections, as well as queue lengths for the signalized intersections. Synchro uses the equations provided in the 2010 HCM to calculate control delay and queues. These equations use intersection characteristics, such as vehicle and pedestrian volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasings, as inputs in estimating control delay. At intersections that could not be evaluated using the 2010 HCM, the 2000 HCM is used.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic patterns and travel behavior have shifted substantially in Fremont and throughout Bay Area because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated shelter-in-place orders. As a result, traditional traffic counts collected under current conditions would not reflect typical traffic volumes prior to the start of the pandemic. Thus, this analysis uses a data-driven method for estimating the existing traffic volumes. While “Big Data” approaches for estimating vehicle volumes have been under development for several years, the recent shift in travel patterns related to the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated refinements and applications of this methodology.
This analysis uses data from StreetLight Data (a big data vendor of anonymous location records from GPS devices) to estimate the turning movement counts at the study intersections.
In early 2020, Fehr & Peers conducted an independent review of StreetLight Data volume estimates by comparing the volume estimates to historical count data. The review concluded that StreetLight volume estimates are a reasonable and acceptable source of data as a replacement for traditional traffic counts. Streetlight Data volume estimates are generally more robust than traditional traffic counts since they assess travel patterns across several months, rather than a single day.
3 Streetlight Data volume estimates were downloaded for midweek days (Tuesdays,
2 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a 5% probability of being exceeded during the analyzed peak hour.
3 For more information about the Streetlight data collection approach, including the Fehr & Peers white paper “A Transformative Data Collection Solution”, visit: https://www.fehrandpeers.com/transformative- data-collection-solution/
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Wednesdays, and Thursdays) for the year 2019 (months of March, April, September, and October) and aggregated to averages for the six study intersections. Appendix B presents the detailed StreetLight volume data for the study intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection vehicle volumes (8:00 to 9:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM), lane configurations, and signal controls at the study intersections.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 3 shows the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes, which consists of traffic volumes under Existing No Project conditions (Figure 2) plus traffic generated by the Project (Figure 1). This analysis assumes no other roadway modifications at the study intersections under the Existing Plus Project conditions.
Intersection LOS Analysis
Based on the volumes, intersection controls, and roadway configurations presented on Figures 2 and 3, and the observed signal timings at the signalized study intersections, Fehr & Peers calculated the AM and PM peak hour LOS at the study intersections using the methodologies presented above under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Table 5 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis results. Appendix C provides the detailed calculation worksheets.
According to the City's TIA Handbook, the LOS goal for signalized intersections outside of Town Centers is to maintain LOS D or better. As shown in Table 5, the three signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under both the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Thus, the three signalized study intersections would be consistent with the City’s LOS goal for signalized intersections outside of Town Centers.
The three unsignalized study intersections operate at an overall LOS A with the side-street stop- controlled approaches operating at LOS D or worse during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing conditions. Under Existing Plus Project conditions, the Main Street/Stevenson Boulevard intersection during both AM and PM peak hours and the Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard and the Albrae Street/Walmart Driveway/Project Driveway intersections during the AM peak hour would continue to operate at an overall LOS A, and the Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard and the Albrae Street/Walmart Driveway/Project Driveway intersections during the PM peak hour would operate at LOS C and LOS F, respectively. the side-street stop-controlled approach of the three unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS F during one or both peak hours. The application of signal warrants to the three unsignalized study intersections are described in a subsequent subsection of this memorandum.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 5: Intersection LOS Summary
# Intersection Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing No Project Existing Plus Project
Delay
(Seconds) 1 LOS 1 Delay
(Seconds) 1 LOS 1
1 I-880 Northbound Ramps/
Stevenson Boulevard Signal
AM 8 A 8 A
PM 15 B 16 B
2 I-880 Southbound Ramps/
Stevenson Boulevard Signal
AM 10 A 12 B
PM 15 B 15 B
3 Albrae Street/
Stevenson Boulevard2 Signal
AM 20 C 23 C
PM 33 C 41 D
4 Main Street/
Stevenson Boulevard
Side-Street
Stop
AM 1 (40) A (E) 1 (49) A (E)
PM 2 (97) A (F) 4 (>120) A (F)
5 Encyclopedia Circle/
Stevenson Boulevard
Side-Street
Stop
AM 1 (25) A (C) 2 (27) A (D)
PM 5 (51) A (F) 15 (120) C (F)
6 Albrae Street/Walmart
Driveway/Project Driveway
Side-Street
Stop
AM 2 (10) A (A) 4 (67) A (F)
PM 7 (32) A (D) >120 (>120) F (F)
Notes
1. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the 2010 HCM method, unless noted. Average delay is reported for signalized intersections. Average delay and delay for the movement or approach with the highest delay is reported for unsignalized intersections.
2. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the HCM 2000 method because the intersection cannot be evaluated in the 2010 HCM.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Queuing Summary
Table 6 summarizes the average and 95th percentile queue lengths for the key movements at the study intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Appendix E provides the detailed queuing calculations.
The proposed project would increase the average and 95th percentile queue lengths at some of the movements at the study intersections. The average queue lengths would continue to be accommodated within the available storage lengths during both the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Plus Project conditions at all the reported locations. However, the 95th percentile queues would exceed the available storage lengths at the following movements at the Albrae Street/Stevenson Boulevard intersection:
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 6: Queue Length Summary1
# Intersection Movement2
Storage
Length
(feet)
Peak
Hour
Existing
No Project
Existing Plus
Project
Average
(feet)
95th %
(feet)
Average
(feet)
95th %
(feet)
1 I-880 Northbound
Ramps/Stevenson
Boulevard
NB Left 350
AM 50 110 70 140
PM 50 80 60 90
2 I-880 Southbound
Ramps/Stevenson
Boulevard
SB Right 350
AM 70 120 110 160
PM 70 100 90 130
3 Albrae Street/Stevenson
Boulevard
EB Left 210
AM 10 20 10 30
PM 30 70 40 70
EB Thru 380
AM 80 160 100 170
PM 260 310 280 360
EB Right 210
AM 0 40 0 40
PM 0 40 0 40
WB Left 250
AM 180 220 240 350
PM 140 220 200 310
NB Left/
Thru 310
AM 20 50 20 50
PM 180 480 190 490
NB Right 310
AM 0 20 0 20
PM 130 290 200 470
SB Left 280
AM 60 70 60 70
PM 120 130 120 130
5 Encyclopedia Circle/
Stevenson Boulevard WB Left 200
AM NA3 20 NA3 10
PM NA3 0 NA3 40
Notes:
Bold indicated queue length exceeding the available storage length
1. Average queue and 95th percentile queue lengths in feet as calculated by Synchro.
2. NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound.
3. Synchro does not calculate average queue length for unsignalized intersections.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
• The westbound left-turn lanes during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Plus Project conditions
• The northbound left/through lane during the PM peak hour under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions
• The northbound right-turn lanes during the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions
Although the 95th percentile queues would exceed the available storage length at the locations listed above, the average queues would continue to be contained within the available storage area. In addition, the Albrae Street/Stevenson Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, indicating that the queue exceedance would only occur occasionally during the peak hours and that the queues would generally clear at the end of most signal cycles.
Signal Warrants Analysis
Traffic signal warrants were developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and are described in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2009). These warrants correlate the need for a traffic signal at an intersection based on several factors including vehicular and pedestrian volumes, and the crash experience at the intersection. The MUTCD provides nine signal warrants, five of each are applicable to the three unsignalized study intersections. Satisfying one or more of these warrants could justify the installation of a signal at an intersection. However, satisfying one or more of these warrants does not require the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.
Table 7 summarizes the application of the five warrants to the three unsignalized study intersections. Appendix E provides the detailed signal warrant worksheets. In addition, Appendix F summarizes five years of crash history at the study intersections, which is used to evaluate Warrant 7 (Crash Experience).
The application of the signal warrants at the three unsignalized intersections is discussed below:
• The Main Street/Stevenson Boulevard intersection would not meet any of the five signal warrants; therefore, installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is not recommended at this time.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Table 7: Signal Warrant Analysis Summary
Warrant1
Main Street/
Stevenson Boulevard
Intersection
Encyclopedia Circle/
Stevenson Boulevard
Intersection
Albrae Street/
Walmart Driveway/
Project Driveway
Intersection
Warrant 1: 8-hour Volume Not Met Not Met Met
Warrant 2: 4-Hour Volume Not Met Met Met
Warrant 3: Peak hour Volume Not Met Met Met
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume Not Met Not Met Not Met
Warrant 7: Crash Experience Not Met Not Met Not Met
Notes:
1. Based on application of the MUTCD signal warrants (2009 MUTD, Section 4C-01) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
• The Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard intersection would meet two of the five warrants regardless of the proposed project. It would meet Warrant 2 (4-hour volume) and Warrant 3 (peak-hour volume) primarily due to the traffic volume on the Encyclopedia Circle approach of the intersection turning onto Stevenson Boulevard during the afternoon and evening hours. It is expected that the intersection would meet the signal warrants with the entitled retail project as well. In addition, as shown in Table 5, the stop-controlled northbound Encyclopedia Circle approach at this intersection would operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour regardless of the proposed project. • The Albrae Street/Walmart Driveway/Project Driveway intersection would meet three of the five warrants regardless of the proposed project. It would meet Warrant 1 (8-hour volume), Warrant 2 (4-hour volume), and Warrant 3 (peak-hour volume) primarily due to the traffic volume on the Walmart Driveway approach of the intersection turning right onto Albrae Street during the afternoon and evening hours. It is expected that the intersection would meet the signal warrants with the entitled retail project as well. As shown in Table 5, the stop-controlled westbound Walmart Driveway at this intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under both Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, and the stop-controlled eastbound Project Driveway would operate at LOS F under Existing Plus Project conditions.
Thus, the following are recommended:
Recommendation 1: Coordinate with City of Fremont to determine if a traffic signal should be installed at the Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard intersection. If the City of Fremont determines that a signal should be installed at the intersection, the project shall install the traffic signal at this intersection.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Recommendation 2: Coordinate with City of Fremont to determine if a traffic signal should be installed at the Albrae Street/Walmart Driveway/Project Driveway intersection.
If the City of Fremont determines that a signal should be installed at the intersection, the project shall contribute its fair share to installing a traffic signal at this intersection. Since signalizing the intersection would increase the delay experienced by the vehicles turning into and out of the Walmart Driveway, alternatively, consider maintaining the intersection as side-street stop-controlled and prohibiting the left-turns out of the Project Driveway, at least during the peak congestion periods.
Table 8 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis for these two intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions with the installation of signals. Both intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both AM and PM peak hours after signalization, meeting the City’s LOS goal.
Table 8: Intersection LOS Summary with Improvements
# Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project with
Improvements
Traffic
Control
Delay
(Seconds) LOS Traffic
Control
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
5 Encyclopedia Circle/
Stevenson Boulevard
AM Side-
Street
Stop
2 (27) A (D)
Signal
18 B
PM 15 (120) C (F) 27 C
6 Albrae Street/
Walmart Driveway/
Project Driveway
AM Side-
Street
Stop
4 (67) A (F)
Signal
20 C
PM >120
(>120) F (F) 52 D
Notes
1. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the 2010 HCM method. Average delay is reported for signalized intersections. Average delay and delay for the movement or approach with the highest delay is reported for unsignalized intersections.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Project Access and Circulation
This section summarizes an evaluation of access and circulation for all travel modes based on the project site plan dated November 15, 2021, which is provided in Appendix G.
Automobile Access and Circulation
Motor vehicles would access the project site through the following five access points:
• A new driveway on Albrae Street opposite the existing Walmart driveway. This driveway would be 26 feet wide and accommodate passenger vehicles only. Currently, this
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
segment of Albrae Street provides one motor vehicle lane and one bicycle lane in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane. It is recommended that this segment be restriped to convert the center two-way left-turn lane to left-turn lanes on both southbound and northbound Albrae Street to serve the existing Walmart site and the proposed project site. As described in the previous section of this memorandum, this driveway may be signalized.
• The project would have access to the existing driveway on Albrae Street just north of the project site. This driveway would be shared with the adjacent shopping center and used primarily by passenger vehicles driving to and from Building 3. • A new driveway in the northwest corner of the project site on Encyclopedia Circle, just south of the northeast bend in Encyclopedia Circle would be 40 feet wide and accommodate both passenger vehicles and trucks.
• A new driveway in the southwest corner of the project site on Encyclopedia Circle would be 40 feet wide and accommodate both passenger vehicles and trucks. • A new driveway on the west side of the project site on Encyclopedia Circle midway between the two other driveways would be 26 feet wide and accommodate passenger vehicles only.
• The project would also have direct access on Main Street on the north side of the project site. The access point would have a center median and provide 13-foot lanes in each direction. The median would widen at the project site entry to only allow right-turn access at the site, which would limit through truck access between the site and Stevenson Boulevard on Main Street and minimize potential conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles and pedestrians accessing the adjacent shopping center. It is also recommended that the northbound Main Street approach at Stevenson Boulevard be limited to right- turns only, at least during the peak congestion periods.
All six access locations would provide adequate sight distance between vehicles entering or exiting the site and pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalks and vehicles in both direction of the adjacent streets.
The project driveways would provide access to the 713 surface parking spaces provided throughout the site. All parking spaces would be perpendicular spaces along two-way drive aisles.
The drive aisles that accommodate only passenger vehicles would be generally 26 feet wide, which is adequate space for two-way circulation and would accommodate passenger vehicles maneuvering into and out of the parking spaces. The drive aisles that would also accommodate trucks would be generally 40 feet wide which would provide adequate space for truck circulation as well as passenger vehicle access. Based on a review of the site plan, the project parking lot would provide adequate sight distance throughout the site.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Automobile Parking
The City of Fremont Municipal Code establishes minimum parking requirements for various uses.
Table 9 presents the off-street automobile parking requirements for the project per City Code.
The 713 parking spaces provided by the project would meet the minimum 713 parking spaces required by the Code.
Table 9: Automobile Parking Requirements
Building and
Use Size 1 Parking
Rate 2
Minimum
Required
Parking
Provided
Parking Supply
Meets
Requirement?
Building 1
Office 8.0 KSF 5 spaces per KSF 40
Warehouse 182.5 KSF 1.25 spaces per KSF 228
Subtotal 190.5 KSF 268
Minimum
Requirement 190.5 KSF 1.6 spaces per KSF 305 305 Yes
Building 2
Office 6.5 KSF 5 spaces per KSF 33
Warehouse 151.3 KSF 1.25 spaces per KSF 189
Subtotal 157.8 KSF 243
Minimum
Requirement 157.8 KSF 1.6 spaces per KSF 253 253 Yes
Building 3
Industrial 46.8 KSF 3.3 spaces per KSF 155 155 Yes
Total 395.1 KSF 713 713 Yes
Notes:
1. KSF = 1,000 square-feet
2. Per City of Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.183.030 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Truck Access and Circulation
Most trucks would not be able to enter or exit the site through the driveway on Albrae Street.
Thus, trucks would access the site through the two driveways on Encyclopedia Circle. The recommended signal at the Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard intersection would assist trucks in making the turns between Stevenson Boulevard and Encyclopedia Circle..
The project would provide the following loading docks which would be accessed through the two truck driveways on Encyclopedia Circle:
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
• Building 1 would provide 38 loading docks on the west side of the building • Building 2 would provide 38 loading docks on the east side of the building • Building 3 would provide six loading docks on the southwest corner of the building Bicycle Access and Circulation
Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project include:
• Class II buffered bicycle lanes on eastbound Stevenson Boulevard west of Cedar Boulevard, and Class II bicycle lanes on westbound Stevenson Street west of Balentine Drive
• Intermittent Class II bicycle lanes on Stevenson Boulevard east of Albrae Street • Class II bicycle lanes on Balentine Drive north of Stevenson Boulevard • Class II bicycle lanes on Albrae Street south of Stevenson Boulevard • Class II bicycle lanes on Boyce Road and Cherry Street The City of Fremont’s 2018 Bicycle Master Plan proposes the following near the project site:
• Upgrade the existing Class II bicycles lanes on Boyce Road to Class IV separated bikeway Considering the uses at the site, the project is expected to generate minimal bicycle trips. Most cyclists are expected to use Stevenson Boulevard and Albrae Street to access the site.
Bicycle Parking
Per City of Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.183.135, the project is required to provide the following bicycle parking:
• Long-term bicycle parking = 1, plus 5% of required automobile parking for tenants or occupants
• Short-term bicycle parking = 4, plus 5% of required automobile parking for visitors Where long-term bicycle parking is defined as bicycle lockers, indoor bicycle storage, or similar facilities protected from the weather and with a higher degree of security designed to serve primarily employees who leave their bikes for longer periods of times, and short-term bicycle parking is defined as bicycle racks designed to serve visitors who leave their bikes for relatively short periods of time.
The project will provide on-site bicycle parking as required by the Code. Considering the automobile parking requirements for the project, each project building is required to provide the following bicycle parking spaces:
• Building 1: 17 long-term and 20 short-term bicycle parking spaces • Building 2: 14 long-term and 17 short-term bicycle parking spaces
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
• Building 3: 9 long-term and 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces Pedestrian Access and Circulation
In the vicinity of the project, most streets provide a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. The existing sidewalks adjacent to the project site are described below:
• Albrae Street currently provide a nine-foot sidewalk north of the project site on the west side of the street. Adjacent to the project side, intermittent sidewalks with a landscaping strip are currently provided. It is recommended that the project provide a continuous five-foot sidewalk with four feet of landscaping along the project frontage on Albrae Street.
• Encyclopedia Circle provides a 4.5-foot sidewalk on the east side of the street along the north portion of the project frontage and no sidewalk along the south portion of the project frontage. It is recommended that the project provide a continuous five-foot sidewalk along the project frontage on Encyclopedia Circle. • Main Street provides intermittent eight-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street that connect the site to Stevenson Boulevard.
The signalized Albrae Street/Stevenson Boulevard intersection provides marked crosswalks, pedestrian signal heads with pushbuttons, and one curb ramp per corner on all approaches, except the east approach of the intersection. The unsignalized study intersections on Stevenson Boulevard at Main Street and Encyclopedia do not provide marked crosswalks across Stevenson Boulevard, or the side streets.
The project site would provide sidewalks within the project site adjacent to all three buildings, which can be used to walk between the project buildings, parking facilities within the site, and the sidewalks on the adjacent streets.
Transit Access
As of September 2021, no bus service is provided on the streets adjacent to the project site. The nearest bus stops to the project are on both directions of Stevenson Boulevard just west of Main Street. The bus stop is served by AC Transit Line 216 which provides service to various destinations in Fremont, Newark, and Union City, including the Fremont and Union City BART Stations. No amenities are provided at these bus stops. Access between the bus stop on eastbound Stevenson Boulevard and the project site is provided by walking along the sidewalks on Main Street or Albrae Street. Access between the bus stop on westbound Stevenson Boulevard and the project site is provided by walking along Albrae Street and crossing Stevenson Boulevard at the signalized Albrae Street/ Stevenson Boulevard intersection.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Mac Carlsen
January 3, 2022
Access and Circulation Summary and Recommendations
The project would provide access and circulation for passenger automobiles, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians in and around the site. The following are recommended to improve access and circulation for all modes:
• Coordinate with the City of Fremont to restripe Albrae Street to replace the existing two- way left-turn lane along the project frontage with left-turn lanes on southbound and northbound Albrae Street into the existing Walmart driveway and the proposed main project driveway
• Limit northbound Main Street at Stevenson Boulevard to right-turns only, at least during the peak congestion periods, and prohibit through trucks on Main Street • Provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking as required by the City of Fremont Municipal Code for each project building
• Provide a continuous sidewalk along the project frontage on Albrae Street • Provide a continuous sidewalk along the project frontage on Encyclopedia Circle Please contact Sam ([email protected], 510-835-1943) with questions or comments.
Attachments:
Figure 1 – Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 2 – Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 3 – Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls
Appendix A – LOS Evaluation Criteria
Appendix B – Streetlight Intersection Volumes
Appendix C – Intersection LOS worksheets
Appendix D – Intersection Queuing worksheets
Appendix E – Signal Warrant worksheets
Appendix F – Collision Summaries
Appendix G – Project Site Plan
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Don
Edwards
NWR
FREMONT
NEWARK
Mowry Ave
Stevenson Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Boyce Rd
Albrae St
Farwell Dr
Auto Mall Pkwy
Grimmer Blvd
Blacow Rd
Cherry St
Stevenson Blvd
Bunche Dr
Christy St
Blacow Rd
Stewart Ave
Balentine Dr
Encyclopedia Cir
%&880
1 2
3 4
5 6
OK20-0376_X_BaseMap
Base Map
Figure X
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 1
44%
5%
3%
2%
2%
10%
34%
XX% Project Trip Distribution
77 (42)
7 (30)
32 (18)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
40 (164)
143 (77) 109 (60)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
2 (8)
20 (80)
2 (8)
46 (187)
8 (5)
8 (5)
200 (109)
86 (47)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
9 (34)
39 (160)
171 (93)
37 (20)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
2 (12)
41 (169)
12 (8)
181 (98)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ 22 (88)
94 (51)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
A
C
C
C
F
C
CF
AC
CF
AC
F
C
AC
AF
F
A
A
F
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 1
44%
5%
3%
2%
2%
10%
34%
XX% Project Trip Distribution
110 (60)
7 (30)
32 (18)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
40 (164)
143 (77) 142 (78)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
2 (8)
49 (200)
2 (8)
16 (67)
8 (5)
8 (5)
71 (116)
214 (39)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
9 (34)
10 (40)
43 (23)
37 (20)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
2 (12)
12 (49)
12 (8)
53 (28)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ 51 (208)
221 (121)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
A
C
C
C
F
C
CF
AC
CF
AC
F
C
AC
AF
F
A
A
F
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 2
513 (326)
366 (795)
582 (2,256)
1,304 (1,265)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
470 (1,618)
415 (405)
203 (934) 1,562 (1,332)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
11 (151)
62 (692)
8 (47)
565 (1,127)
123 (135)
20 (17)
88 (89)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,135 (797)
508 (411)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
4 (20)
11 (22)
761 (1,284)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,116 (827)
16 (40)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
8 (39)
15 (156)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
75 (6)
1,162 (571)
222 (31)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
85 (801)
2 (7)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Walmart Driveway
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
4 (1)
G
HCE
ACC
E
AC
G
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
623 (386)
366 (795)
589 (2,286)
1,336 (1,283)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
510 (1,782)
558 (482)
203 (934) 1,704 (1,410)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
13 (159)
111 (892)
10 (55)
581 (1,194)
123 (135)
28 (22)
96 (94)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,206 (836)
722 (527)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
13 (54)
11 (22)
771 (1,324)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
4 (1)
1,159 (850)
53 (60)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
10 (51)
27 (205)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
87 (14)
1,162 (571)
275 (59)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
85 (801)
2 (7)
51 (208)
0 (0)
0 (0) 222 (121)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
0 (0)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
G
HCE
ACC
AE
D
AE
D
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
Existing with Project Conditions with Mitigation Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 4
623 (386)
366 (795)
589 (2,286)
1,336 (1,283)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
510 (1,782)
558 (482)
203 (934) 1,704 (1,410)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
13 (159)
111 (892)
10 (55)
581 (1,194)
123 (135)
28 (22)
96 (94)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,206 (836)
722 (527)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
13 (54)
11 (22)
771 (1,324)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,159 (850)
53 (60)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
10 (51)
27 (205)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
87 (14)
1,162 (571)
275 (59)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
85 (801)
2 (7)
51 (208)
0 (0)
0 (0) 139 (76)
743 (366)
238 (300)
34 (222)
0 (0)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
G
HCE
ACC
AE
D
AE
D
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
00 (00)
F 00 (00)
F
00 (00)F 00 (00)F
0000 (0000)
F 0000 (0000)
F
0000 (0000)F 0000 (0000)F
OK20-0376_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Don
Edwards
NWR
FREMONT
NEWARK
Mowry Ave
Stevenson Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Boyce Rd
Albrae St
Farwell Dr
Auto Mall Pkwy
Grimmer Blvd
Blacow Rd
Cherry St
Stevenson Blvd
Bunche Dr
Christy St
Blacow Rd
Stewart Ave
Balentine Dr
Encyclopedia Cir
%&880
1 2
3 4
5 6
OK20-0376_X_BaseMap
Base Map
Figure X
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 1
44%
5%
3%
2%
2%
10%
34%
XX% Project Trip Distribution
77 (42)
7 (30)
181 (98)
32 (18)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
40 (164)
143 (77) 109 (60)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
2 (8)
20 (80)
2 (8)
46 (187)
8 (5)
8 (5)
200 (109)
86 (47)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
9 (34)
39 (160)
171 (93)
37 (20)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
2 (12)
41 (169)
12 (8)
0 (0)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ 22 (88)
94 (51)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
A
C
AC
C
F
C
CF
AC
CF
AC
F
C
AC
AF
F
C
A
F
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 2
513 (326)
366 (795)
582 (2,256)
1,304 (1,265)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
470 (1,618)
415 (405)
203 (934) 1,562 (1,332)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
11 (151)
62 (692)
8 (47)
565 (1,127)
123 (135)
20 (17)
88 (89)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,135 (797)
508 (411)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
4 (20)
11 (22)
761 (1,284)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,116 (827)
16 (40)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
8 (39)
15 (156)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
75 (6)
1,162 (571)
222 (31)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
85 (801)
2 (7)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Walmart Driveway
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACC
4 (1)
G
HCE
ACC
E
AC
G
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
E
Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
590 (368)
366 (795)
589 (2,286)
1,336 (1,283)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
510 (1,782)
558 (482)
203 (934) 1,671 (1,392)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
13 (159)
82 (772)
10 (55)
611 (1,314)
123 (135)
28 (22)
96 (94)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,335 (906)
594 (458)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
2 (2)
13 (54)
11 (22)
800 (1,444)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,287 (920)
53 (60)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
19 (67)
56 (325)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
87 (14)
1,162 (571)
403 (129)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
85 (801)
2 (7)
22 (88)
0 (0)
0 (0) 94 (51)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
0 (0)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
G
HCE
ACC
AE
D
AE
D
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
4 (1)
00 (00)
F 00 (00)
F
00 (00)F 00 (00)F
0000 (0000)
F 0000 (0000)
F
0000 (0000)F 0000 (0000)F
OK20-0376_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Don
Edwards
NWR
FREMONT
NEWARK
Mowry Ave
Stevenson Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Boyce Rd
Albrae St
Farwell Dr
Auto Mall Pkwy
Grimmer Blvd
Blacow Rd
Cherry St
Stevenson Blvd
Bunche Dr
Christy St
Blacow Rd
Stewart Ave
Balentine Dr
Encyclopedia Cir
%&880
1 2
3 4
5 6
OK20-0376_X_BaseMap
Base Map
Figure X
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 1
44%
5%
3%
2%
2%
10%
34%
XX% Project Trip Distribution
77 (42)
7 (30)
32 (18)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
40 (164)
143 (77) 109 (60)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
2 (8)
20 (80)
2 (8)
46 (187)
8 (5)
8 (5)
200 (109)
86 (47)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
9 (34)
39 (160)
171 (93)
37 (20)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
2 (12)
41 (169)
12 (8)
181 (98)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ 22 (88)
94 (51)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
A
C
C
C
F
C
CF
AC
CF
AC
F
C
AC
AF
F
A
A
F
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 1
44%
5%
3%
2%
2%
10%
34%
XX% Project Trip Distribution
110 (60)
7 (30)
32 (18)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
40 (164)
143 (77) 142 (78)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
2 (8)
49 (200)
2 (8)
16 (67)
8 (5)
8 (5)
71 (116)
214 (39)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
9 (34)
10 (40)
43 (23)
37 (20)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
2 (12)
12 (49)
12 (8)
53 (28)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ 51 (208)
221 (121)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
A
C
C
C
F
C
CF
AC
CF
AC
F
C
AC
AF
F
A
A
F
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 2
513 (326)
366 (795)
582 (2,256)
1,304 (1,265)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
470 (1,618)
415 (405)
203 (934) 1,562 (1,332)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
11 (151)
62 (692)
8 (47)
565 (1,127)
123 (135)
20 (17)
88 (89)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,135 (797)
508 (411)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
4 (20)
11 (22)
761 (1,284)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,116 (827)
16 (40)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
8 (39)
15 (156)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
75 (6)
1,162 (571)
222 (31)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
85 (801)
2 (7)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Walmart Driveway
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
4 (1)
G
HCE
ACC
E
AC
G
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 3
623 (386)
366 (795)
589 (2,286)
1,336 (1,283)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
510 (1,782)
558 (482)
203 (934) 1,704 (1,410)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
13 (159)
111 (892)
10 (55)
581 (1,194)
123 (135)
28 (22)
96 (94)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,206 (836)
722 (527)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
13 (54)
11 (22)
771 (1,324)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
4 (1)
1,159 (850)
53 (60)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
10 (51)
27 (205)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
87 (14)
1,162 (571)
275 (59)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
85 (801)
2 (7)
51 (208)
0 (0)
0 (0) 222 (121)
660 (321)
238 (300)
34 (222)
0 (0)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
G
HCE
ACC
AE
D
AE
D
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
Existing with Project Conditions with Mitigation Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls Figure 4
623 (386)
366 (795)
589 (2,286)
1,336 (1,283)
1. I-880 NB/Stevenson Blvd
510 (1,782)
558 (482)
203 (934) 1,704 (1,410)
2. I-880 SB/Stevenson Blvd
14 (162)
13 (159)
111 (892)
10 (55)
581 (1,194)
123 (135)
28 (22)
96 (94)
182 (440)
334 (529)
1,206 (836)
722 (527)
3. Albrae St/Stevenson Blvd
9 (16)
2 (2)
13 (54)
11 (22)
771 (1,324)
23 (34)
4 (2)
3 (7)
1 (9)
1,159 (850)
53 (60)
4. Main St/Stevenson Blvd
10 (51)
27 (205)
0 (0)
426 (1,179)
87 (14)
1,162 (571)
275 (59)
5. Encyclopedia Cir/Stevenson Blvd
0 (0)
85 (801)
2 (7)
51 (208)
0 (0)
0 (0) 139 (76)
743 (366)
238 (300)
34 (222)
0 (0)
1 (3)
6. Albrae St/Project Dwy/Walmart Dwy
STOP
STOP
AAFF
CCC
CCCC
CCC
AAFF
CCC
BFF
ACCCF
AABF
AACCCF
D
ACCE
D
ACCE
G
HCE
ACC
AE
D
AE
D
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 NB Off
Stevenson Blvd
I-880 SB Off
Stevenson Blvd
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Main St
Stevenson Blvd
Encyclopedia Circ
Project Driveway Walmart Driveway
Albrae St
00 (00)
F 00 (00)
F
00 (00)F 00 (00)F
0000 (0000)
F 0000 (0000)
F
0000 (0000)F 0000 (0000)F
OK20-0376_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#
Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
Appendix A:
LOS Evaluation Criteria
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
Appendix A – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Criteria Intersection operations are evaluated using the methods provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These methods use intersection characteristics to estimate average control delay and then assigns a Level of Service (LOS) value. Control delay is defined as the delay associated with deceleration, stopping, moving up in the queue, and acceleration experienced by drivers at a signalized intersection. Tables A-1 and A-2 describe the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
TABLE A-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0
Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Operations with very low delay, when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.
B >10.0 and ≤20.0
Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: Generally occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized.
C >20.0 and ≤35.0
Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays:
Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/ or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
D >35.0 and ≤55.0
Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays result from unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.
E >55.0 and ≤80.0
Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection.
F >80.0
Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Occurs with oversaturation when flows exceed the intersection capacity. Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. Queues may block upstream intersections.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
TABLE A-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0 Little or No Delays
B >10.0 and 15.0 Short Traffic Delays
C >15.0 and 25.0 Average Traffic Delays
D >25.0 and 35.0 Long Traffic Delays
E >35.0 and 50.0 Very Long Traffic Delays
F >50.0 Extreme Traffic Delays with Intersection Capacity Exceeded Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
Appendix B:
Streetlight Intersection Volumes
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu‐Th)
W leg E Leg S Leg N Leg
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 1 16,932 2,492 7 16,494 10,066 5,831 1 8,830 ‐ ‐ ‐ 60,655 01: 12am (12am‐1am) ‐ 146 27 ‐ 70 57 33 ‐ 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ 403 02: 1am (1am‐2am) ‐ 59 12 ‐ 24 35 26 ‐ 26 ‐ ‐ ‐ 182 03: 2am (2am‐3am) ‐ 53 10 ‐ 20 31 39 ‐ 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ 189 04: 3am (3am‐4am) ‐ 56 11 ‐ 25 74 20 ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ 196 05: 4am (4am‐5am) ‐ 51 15 ‐ 187 184 28 ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ 483 06: 5am (5am‐6am) ‐ 111 35 ‐ 420 229 89 ‐ 61 ‐ ‐ ‐ 945 07: 6am (6am‐7am) ‐ 241 67 1 693 758 219 ‐ 151 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,130 08: 7am (7am‐8am) ‐ 435 90 1 1,249 908 383 ‐ 277 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,344 09: 8am (8am‐9am) ‐ 439 91 ‐ 1,304 946 513 ‐ 366 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,659 10: 9am (9am‐10am) ‐ 489 95 1 1,097 779 439 ‐ 240 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,140 11: 10am (10am‐11am) ‐ 576 110 ‐ 884 590 347 ‐ 322 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,828 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) ‐ 668 142 ‐ 962 471 373 ‐ 344 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,959 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) ‐ 834 177 1 953 506 464 ‐ 463 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,399 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 1 933 203 1 997 460 438 ‐ 512 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,544 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) ‐ 1,505 180 ‐ 910 515 330 ‐ 660 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,100 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) ‐ 1,448 160 1 1,054 424 284 ‐ 596 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,968 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) ‐ 1,669 140 ‐ 1,040 369 293 ‐ 760 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,270 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 1 1,769 232 1 1,265 467 326 ‐ 795 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,857 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) ‐ 1,670 225 1 1,137 465 303 ‐ 759 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,560 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) ‐ 1,332 163 1 900 511 312 ‐ 715 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,935 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) ‐ 1,033 127 ‐ 575 479 243 1 643 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,101 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) ‐ 695 118 ‐ 365 333 178 ‐ 467 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,157 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) ‐ 383 54 ‐ 212 240 89 ‐ 308 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,286 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) ‐ 236 32 ‐ 103 127 56 ‐ 203 ‐ ‐ ‐ 757 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 0% 87% 13% 0% 62% 38% 40% 0% 60% ‐‐‐ 01: 12am (12am‐1am) 0% 84% 16% 0% 55% 45% 32% 0% 68% ‐‐‐ 02: 1am (1am‐2am) 0% 82% 18% 0% 41% 59% 50% 0% 50% ‐‐‐
03: 2am (2am‐3am) 0% 84% 16% 0% 39% 61% 53% 0% 47% ‐‐‐
04: 3am (3am‐4am) 0% 83% 17% 0% 25% 75% 64% 0% 36% ‐‐‐
05: 4am (4am‐5am) 0% 77% 23% 0% 50% 50% 61% 0% 39% ‐‐‐
06: 5am (5am‐6am) 0% 76% 24% 0% 65% 35% 59% 0% 41% ‐‐‐
07: 6am (6am‐7am) 0% 78% 22% 0% 48% 52% 59% 0% 41% ‐‐‐
08: 7am (7am‐8am) 0% 83% 17% 0% 58% 42% 58% 0% 42% ‐‐‐
09: 8am (8am‐9am) 0% 83% 17% 0% 58% 42% 58% 0% 42% ‐‐‐
10: 9am (9am‐10am) 0% 84% 16% 0% 58% 42% 65% 0% 35% ‐‐‐ 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 0% 84% 16% 0% 60% 40% 52% 0% 48% ‐‐‐ 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 0% 82% 18% 0% 67% 33% 52% 0% 48% ‐‐‐ 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 0% 82% 18% 0% 65% 35% 50% 0% 50% ‐‐‐ 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 0% 82% 18% 0% 68% 32% 46% 0% 54% ‐‐‐
15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 0% 89% 11% 0% 64% 36% 33% 0% 67% ‐‐‐
16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 0% 90% 10% 0% 71% 29% 32% 0% 68% ‐‐‐
17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 0% 92% 8% 0% 74% 26% 28% 0% 72% ‐‐‐
18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 0% 88% 12% 0% 73% 27% 29% 0% 71% ‐‐‐
19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 0% 88% 12% 0% 71% 29% 29% 0% 71% ‐‐‐
20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 0% 89% 11% 0% 64% 36% 30% 0% 70% ‐‐‐
21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 0% 89% 11% 0% 55% 45% 27% 0% 73% ‐‐‐
22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 0% 86% 14% 0% 52% 48% 28% 0% 72% ‐‐‐ 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 0% 88% 12% 0% 47% 53% 22% 0% 78% ‐‐‐ 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 0% 88% 12% 0% 45% 55% 22% 0% 78% ‐‐‐ Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg I ‐880 WB Off‐Ramp ‐ S Leg 0 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg I ‐880 WB Off‐Ramp ‐ S Leg 0 TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu‐Th)
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am‐12am) ‐ 14,666 7,476 ‐ 15,798 3,491 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,107 2 6,581 58,121 01: 12am (12am‐1am) ‐ 111 68 ‐ 84 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 ‐ 45 429 02: 1am (1am‐2am) ‐ 38 39 ‐ 33 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 55 ‐ 56 227 03: 2am (2am‐3am) ‐ 64 17 ‐ 51 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 29 ‐ 62 227 04: 3am (3am‐4am) ‐ 54 14 ‐ 31 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 34 ‐ 57 196 05: 4am (4am‐5am) ‐ 60 35 ‐ 117 54 ‐ ‐ ‐ 46 ‐ 162 473 06: 5am (5am‐6am) ‐ 110 88 ‐ 302 111 ‐ ‐ ‐ 79 ‐ 290 981 07: 6am (6am‐7am) ‐ 269 260 ‐ 513 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ 148 ‐ 281 1,664 08: 7am (7am‐8am) ‐ 485 423 ‐ 1,197 264 ‐ ‐ ‐ 212 ‐ 247 2,829 09: 8am (8am‐9am) ‐ 470 478 ‐ 1,402 255 ‐ ‐ ‐ 203 ‐ 415 3,222 10: 9am (9am‐10am) ‐ 504 405 ‐ 1,239 202 ‐ ‐ ‐ 270 ‐ 425 3,045 11: 10am (10am‐11am) ‐ 537 348 ‐ 837 209 ‐ ‐ ‐ 361 ‐ 386 2,679 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) ‐ 608 452 ‐ 871 234 ‐ ‐ ‐ 418 1 403 2,986 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) ‐ 860 437 ‐ 1,003 230 ‐ ‐ ‐ 430 1 457 3,418 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) ‐ 853 505 ‐ 1,002 221 ‐ ‐ ‐ 607 ‐ 436 3,624 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) ‐ 1,186 470 ‐ 823 208 ‐ ‐ ‐ 961 ‐ 419 4,068 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) ‐ 1,235 480 ‐ 924 203 ‐ ‐ ‐ 847 ‐ 318 4,008 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) ‐ 1,321 530 ‐ 963 189 ‐ ‐ ‐ 913 ‐ 349 4,265 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) ‐ 1,618 605 ‐ 1,145 223 ‐ ‐ ‐ 934 ‐ 405 4,929 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) ‐ 1,408 512 ‐ 1,090 165 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,003 ‐ 421 4,597 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) ‐ 1,051 402 ‐ 886 161 ‐ ‐ ‐ 836 ‐ 337 3,672 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) ‐ 781 371 ‐ 549 139 ‐ ‐ ‐ 670 ‐ 224 2,735 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) ‐ 558 276 ‐ 375 82 ‐ ‐ ‐ 461 ‐ 176 1,929 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) ‐ 268 171 ‐ 188 63 ‐ ‐ ‐ 303 ‐ 95 1,087 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) ‐ 153 88 ‐ 93 38 ‐ ‐ ‐ 208 1 59 638 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 0% 66% 34% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 61% 0% 39% 01: 12am (12am‐1am) 0% 62% 38% 0% 88% 12% ‐‐‐ 71% 0% 29% 02: 1am (1am‐2am) 0% 49% 51% 0% 86% 14% ‐‐‐ 49% 0% 51%
03: 2am (2am‐3am) 0% 79% 21% 0% 94% 6% ‐‐‐ 32% 0% 68%
04: 3am (3am‐4am) 0% 80% 20% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 37% 0% 63%
05: 4am (4am‐5am) 0% 63% 37% 0% 68% 32% ‐‐‐ 22% 0% 78%
06: 5am (5am‐6am) 0% 56% 44% 0% 73% 27% ‐‐‐ 21% 0% 79%
07: 6am (6am‐7am) 0% 51% 49% 0% 73% 27% ‐‐‐ 34% 0% 66%
08: 7am (7am‐8am) 0% 53% 47% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 46% 0% 54%
09: 8am (8am‐9am) 0% 50% 50% 0% 85% 15% ‐‐‐ 33% 0% 67%
10: 9am (9am‐10am) 0% 55% 45% 0% 86% 14% ‐‐‐ 39% 0% 61% 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 0% 61% 39% 0% 80% 20% ‐‐‐ 48% 0% 52% 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 0% 57% 43% 0% 79% 21% ‐‐‐ 51% 0% 49% 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 0% 66% 34% 0% 81% 19% ‐‐‐ 48% 0% 52% 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 0% 63% 37% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 58% 0% 42%
15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 0% 72% 28% 0% 80% 20% ‐‐‐ 70% 0% 30%
16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 0% 72% 28% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 73% 0% 27%
17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 0% 71% 29% 0% 84% 16% ‐‐‐ 72% 0% 28%
18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 0% 73% 27% 0% 84% 16% ‐‐‐ 70% 0% 30%
19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 0% 73% 27% 0% 87% 13% ‐‐‐ 70% 0% 30%
20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 0% 72% 28% 0% 85% 15% ‐‐‐ 71% 0% 29%
21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 0% 68% 32% 0% 80% 20% ‐‐‐ 75% 0% 25%
22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 0% 67% 33% 0% 82% 18% ‐‐‐ 72% 0% 28% 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 0% 61% 39% 0% 75% 25% ‐‐‐ 76% 0% 24% 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 0% 64% 36% 0% 71% 29% ‐‐‐ 78% 0% 22% Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg 0 0 EB to Stevenson Blvd Offramp ‐ N TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg 0 EB to Stevenson Blvd Offramp ‐ N TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu‐Th)
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 348 11,431 1,770 5,881 10,678 5,484 1,287 1,134 5,241 4,789 1,254 268 49,564 01: 12am (12am‐1am) ‐ 135 2 23 79 23 5 2 19 27 2 1 317 02: 1am (1am‐2am) ‐ 57 ‐ 46 41 6 1 5 10 6 2 1 175 03: 2am (2am‐3am) 1 62 3 51 50 12 5 1 13 9 3 ‐ 211 04: 3am (3am‐4am) 1 44 4 47 28 13 21 ‐ 18 7 1 ‐ 183 05: 4am (4am‐5am) ‐ 54 6 77 159 34 3 2 18 17 4 1 377 06: 5am (5am‐6am) 2 105 20 162 325 51 11 10 24 55 13 2 780 07: 6am (6am‐7am) 4 310 55 210 492 60 16 7 61 102 32 1 1,350 08: 7am (7am‐8am) 8 565 123 376 823 234 14 11 62 182 88 20 2,505 09: 8am (8am‐9am) 8 549 218 500 997 310 23 16 84 187 102 22 3,016 10: 9am (9am‐10am) 13 469 143 424 874 361 37 22 153 198 93 14 2,802 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 14 495 86 344 517 357 46 39 155 170 45 12 2,279 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 26 562 111 333 548 358 59 67 206 220 69 18 2,579 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 37 705 128 384 668 393 108 87 262 283 94 34 3,183 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 27 592 96 345 687 381 71 108 351 363 98 23 3,142 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 21 845 99 317 586 311 86 81 469 345 85 21 3,266 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 24 954 89 351 573 321 92 97 476 312 78 15 3,381 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 31 1,025 112 353 540 426 123 113 508 327 90 14 3,663 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 47 1,127 135 360 693 456 162 151 692 440 89 17 4,368 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 31 923 123 415 609 487 155 123 545 446 74 15 3,945 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 26 686 107 308 497 421 110 88 395 349 78 16 3,081 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 14 440 73 217 329 217 78 57 345 350 58 10 2,189 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 7 347 30 149 265 133 53 35 223 236 39 9 1,525 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 4 217 10 60 140 77 11 8 106 100 11 1 745 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 2 140 2 31 78 36 16 8 39 46 6 1 404 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 3% 84% 13% 27% 48% 25% 17% 15% 68% 76% 20% 4% 01: 12am (12am‐1am) 0% 99% 1% 19% 63% 18% 19% 7% 74% 92% 7% 2% 02: 1am (1am‐2am) 0% 100% 0% 49% 44% 7% 6% 31% 62% 70% 24% 6% 03: 2am (2am‐3am) 2% 94% 5% 45% 44% 11% 28% 5% 67% 73% 27% 0% 04: 3am (3am‐4am) 1% 91% 8% 53% 32% 15% 54% 0% 46% 88% 13% 0% 05: 4am (4am‐5am) 0% 90% 10% 29% 59% 13% 13% 10% 76% 77% 18% 5% 06: 5am (5am‐6am) 2% 83% 15% 30% 60% 10% 24% 22% 54% 79% 19% 3% 07: 6am (6am‐7am) 1% 84% 15% 28% 65% 8% 19% 8% 73% 76% 24% 1% 08: 7am (7am‐8am) 1% 81% 18% 26% 57% 16% 16% 13% 71% 63% 30% 7% 09: 8am (8am‐9am) 1% 71% 28% 28% 55% 17% 19% 13% 68% 60% 33% 7% 10: 9am (9am‐10am) 2% 75% 23% 26% 53% 22% 18% 10% 72% 65% 30% 5% 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 2% 83% 15% 28% 42% 29% 19% 16% 65% 75% 20% 5% 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 4% 80% 16% 27% 44% 29% 18% 20% 62% 72% 22% 6% 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 4% 81% 15% 27% 46% 27% 24% 19% 57% 69% 23% 8% 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 4% 83% 13% 24% 49% 27% 13% 20% 66% 75% 20% 5% 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 2% 88% 10% 26% 48% 26% 14% 13% 74% 77% 19% 5% 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 2% 89% 8% 28% 46% 26% 14% 15% 72% 77% 19% 4% 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 3% 88% 10% 27% 41% 32% 17% 15% 68% 76% 21% 3% 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 4% 86% 10% 24% 46% 30% 16% 15% 69% 81% 16% 3% 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 3% 86% 11% 27% 40% 32% 19% 15% 66% 83% 14% 3% 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 3% 84% 13% 25% 41% 34% 18% 15% 67% 79% 18% 4% 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 3% 84% 14% 28% 43% 28% 16% 12% 72% 84% 14% 2% 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 2% 90% 8% 27% 48% 24% 17% 11% 72% 83% 14% 3% 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 2% 94% 4% 22% 50% 28% 9% 6% 85% 90% 10% 1% 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 1% 97% 1% 21% 54% 25% 25% 13% 62% 87% 11% 2% Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Albrae St ‐ S Leg Balentine Dr ‐ N Leg TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Albrae St ‐ S Leg Balentine Dr ‐ N Leg TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu‐Th)
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 290 13,294 334 561 12,056 118 148 106 208 82 87 58 27,340 01: 12am (12am‐1am) ‐ 134 ‐ 3 83 ‐ 1 3 3 ‐ 1 ‐ 229 02: 1am (1am‐2am) ‐ 54 ‐ ‐ 43 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 2 ‐ 101 03: 2am (2am‐3am) 3 64 ‐ 1 49 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 135 04: 3am (3am‐4am) ‐ 42 ‐ 1 46 ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 95 05: 4am (4am‐5am) ‐ 51 ‐ 3 159 22 ‐ 2 1 6 ‐ 1 246 06: 5am (5am‐6am) 15 109 ‐ 2 336 34 ‐ ‐ 2 3 ‐ 3 504 07: 6am (6am‐7am) 10 356 11 8 526 2 1 5 2 5 6 2 935 08: 7am (7am‐8am) 17 694 16 17 888 2 3 3 1 1 1 5 1,646 09: 8am (8am‐9am) 11 761 23 16 1,116 4 9 2 4 1 3 4 1,953 10: 9am (9am‐10am) 9 616 16 19 951 3 6 ‐ 2 5 4 3 1,634 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 10 594 12 18 581 5 5 6 6 4 5 4 1,251 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 30 714 38 56 597 5 7 5 7 1 3 1 1,464 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 31 835 25 79 762 ‐ 8 7 17 3 6 2 1,775 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 23 666 21 37 792 4 15 12 22 6 ‐ 12 1,609 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 22 947 22 17 687 4 7 8 17 7 11 ‐ 1,747 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 19 1,069 14 20 672 7 10 11 19 1 1 3 1,846 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 24 1,184 14 27 617 6 9 9 12 8 2 1 1,913 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 22 1,284 34 40 827 1 16 2 20 9 7 2 2,263 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 17 1,063 31 60 720 3 18 3 15 9 4 4 1,946 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 13 794 31 52 582 1 11 2 20 9 9 6 1,528 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 2 495 17 42 393 3 12 4 12 3 6 ‐ 988 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 6 353 4 26 317 ‐ 6 9 12 2 9 6 751 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 3 223 2 10 160 ‐ 2 2 11 2 5 ‐ 420 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 3 150 ‐ 5 94 6 3 4 6 ‐ 2 ‐ 274 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 2% 96% 2% 4% 95% 1% 32% 23% 45% 36% 38% 25% 01: 12am (12am‐1am) 0% 100% 0% 3% 97% 0% 14% 43% 43% 0% 100% 0% 02: 1am (1am‐2am) 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 03: 2am (2am‐3am) 4% 96% 0% 1% 73% 25% ‐‐‐ 0% 100% 0%
04: 3am (3am‐4am) 0% 100% 0% 2% 98% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 05: 4am (4am‐5am) 0% 100% 0% 2% 86% 12% 0% 67% 33% 86% 0% 14% 06: 5am (5am‐6am) 12% 88% 0% 0% 90% 9% 0% 0% 100% 52% 0% 48% 07: 6am (6am‐7am) 3% 94% 3% 2% 98% 0% 13% 63% 25% 38% 46% 15% 08: 7am (7am‐8am) 2% 96% 2% 2% 98% 0% 39% 46% 15% 15% 15% 70% 09: 8am (8am‐9am) 1% 96% 3% 1% 98% 0% 60% 14% 26% 13% 38% 50% 10: 9am (9am‐10am) 1% 96% 3% 2% 98% 0% 75% 0% 25% 42% 35% 23% 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 2% 96% 2% 3% 96% 1% 29% 38% 34% 31% 38% 31% 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 4% 91% 5% 9% 91% 1% 37% 26% 37% 25% 55% 21% 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 3% 94% 3% 9% 91% 0% 25% 21% 54% 27% 55% 18% 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 3% 94% 3% 4% 95% 0% 31% 25% 44% 33% 0% 67% 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 2% 96% 2% 2% 97% 1% 21% 26% 53% 38% 62% 0% 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 2% 97% 1% 3% 96% 1% 26% 28% 47% 19% 25% 56% 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 2% 97% 1% 4% 95% 1% 29% 30% 41% 73% 18% 9% 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 2% 96% 3% 5% 95% 0% 42% 5% 53% 49% 39% 11% 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 1% 96% 3% 8% 92% 0% 50% 8% 42% 52% 24% 24% 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 2% 95% 4% 8% 92% 0% 32% 6% 62% 39% 36% 25% 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 0% 96% 3% 10% 90% 1% 44% 14% 42% 33% 67% 0% 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 2% 97% 1% 8% 92% 0% 23% 33% 44% 12% 53% 35% 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 1% 98% 1% 6% 94% 0% 13% 13% 73% 29% 71% 0% 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 2% 98% 0% 5% 89% 6% 25% 30% 46% 0% 100% 0% Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Main St ‐ S Leg Driveway ‐ N Leg TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Main St ‐ S Leg Driveway ‐ N Leg TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu‐Th)
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am‐12am) ‐ 10,980 313 1,380 10,541 ‐ 205 ‐ 963 ‐ ‐ ‐ 24,381 01: 12am (12am‐1am) ‐ 122 2 22 62 ‐ 1 ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ 227 02: 1am (1am‐2am) ‐ 40 ‐ 30 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 116 03: 2am (2am‐3am) ‐ 45 2 32 26 ‐ 2 ‐ 22 ‐ ‐ ‐ 129 04: 3am (3am‐4am) ‐ 34 4 14 21 ‐ 4 ‐ 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ 92 05: 4am (4am‐5am) ‐ 39 ‐ 17 172 ‐ 1 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 231 06: 5am (5am‐6am) ‐ 84 17 64 327 ‐ 3 ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ 506 07: 6am (6am‐7am) ‐ 196 17 150 463 ‐ 1 ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ 834 08: 7am (7am‐8am) ‐ 383 25 167 894 ‐ 3 ‐ 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,489 09: 8am (8am‐9am) ‐ 426 75 222 1,162 ‐ 8 ‐ 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,908 10: 9am (9am‐10am) ‐ 413 44 104 946 ‐ 6 ‐ 34 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,548 11: 10am (10am‐11am) ‐ 497 16 91 506 ‐ 6 ‐ 51 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,167 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) ‐ 662 31 85 496 ‐ 13 ‐ 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,361 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) ‐ 775 16 66 718 ‐ 11 ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,636 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) ‐ 556 22 82 752 ‐ 10 ‐ 41 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,461 15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) ‐ 844 24 85 618 ‐ 12 ‐ 29 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,612 16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) ‐ 915 9 33 568 ‐ 32 ‐ 107 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,664 17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) ‐ 1,065 5 18 466 ‐ 34 ‐ 112 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,700 18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) ‐ 1,179 6 31 571 ‐ 39 ‐ 156 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,982 19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) ‐ 1,005 11 25 521 ‐ 24 ‐ 102 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,688 20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) ‐ 702 5 38 441 ‐ 16 ‐ 36 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,237 21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) ‐ 381 2 41 282 ‐ 2 ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 718 22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) ‐ 254 2 30 207 ‐ 3 ‐ 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ 509 23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) ‐ 168 1 15 141 ‐ 1 ‐ 56 ‐ ‐ ‐ 382 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) ‐ 109 1 7 62 ‐ ‐ ‐ 57 ‐ ‐ ‐ 236 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB Thru WB Right NB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am‐12am) 0% 97% 3% 12% 88% 0% 18% 0% 82% ‐‐‐ 01: 12am (12am‐1am) 0% 98% 2% 26% 74% 0% 5% 0% 95% ‐‐‐
02: 1am (1am‐2am) 0% 100% 0% 54% 46% 0% 0% 0% 100% ‐‐‐
03: 2am (2am‐3am) 0% 96% 4% 55% 45% 0% 8% 0% 92% ‐‐‐
04: 3am (3am‐4am) 0% 89% 11% 40% 60% 0% 20% 0% 80% ‐‐‐
05: 4am (4am‐5am) 0% 100% 0% 9% 91% 0% 31% 0% 69% ‐‐‐
06: 5am (5am‐6am) 0% 83% 17% 16% 84% 0% 21% 0% 79% ‐‐‐
07: 6am (6am‐7am) 0% 92% 8% 24% 76% 0% 6% 0% 94% ‐‐‐
08: 7am (7am‐8am) 0% 94% 6% 16% 84% 0% 13% 0% 87% ‐‐‐
09: 8am (8am‐9am) 0% 85% 15% 16% 84% 0% 34% 0% 66% ‐‐‐
10: 9am (9am‐10am) 0% 90% 10% 10% 90% 0% 16% 0% 84% ‐‐‐ 11: 10am (10am‐11am) 0% 97% 3% 15% 85% 0% 11% 0% 89% ‐‐‐ 12: 11am (11am‐12noon) 0% 96% 4% 15% 85% 0% 15% 0% 85% ‐‐‐ 13: 12pm (12noon‐1pm) 0% 98% 2% 8% 92% 0% 18% 0% 82% ‐‐‐ 14: 1pm (1pm‐2pm) 0% 96% 4% 10% 90% 0% 19% 0% 81% ‐‐‐
15: 2pm (2pm‐3pm) 0% 97% 3% 12% 88% 0% 29% 0% 71% ‐‐‐
16: 3pm (3pm‐4pm) 0% 99% 1% 5% 95% 0% 23% 0% 77% ‐‐‐
17: 4pm (4pm‐5pm) 0% 100% 0% 4% 96% 0% 23% 0% 77% ‐‐‐
18: 5pm (5pm‐6pm) 0% 100% 0% 5% 95% 0% 20% 0% 80% ‐‐‐
19: 6pm (6pm‐7pm) 0% 99% 1% 5% 95% 0% 19% 0% 81% ‐‐‐
20: 7pm (7pm‐8pm) 0% 99% 1% 8% 92% 0% 31% 0% 69% ‐‐‐
21: 8pm (8pm‐9pm) 0% 99% 1% 13% 87% 0% 17% 0% 83% ‐‐‐
22: 9pm (9pm‐10pm) 0% 99% 1% 13% 87% 0% 17% 0% 83% ‐‐‐
23: 10pm (10pm‐11pm) 0% 99% 1% 10% 90% 0% 2% 0% 98% ‐‐‐ 24: 11pm (11pm‐12am) 0% 99% 1% 10% 90% 0% 0% 0% 100% ‐‐‐ Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Encyclopedia Cir ‐ S Leg 0 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Stevenson Blvd ‐ W Leg Stevenson Blvd ‐ E Leg Encyclopedia Cir ‐ S Leg 0 TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Day Type
1: Weekday (Tu-Th)
EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB ThruWB RightNB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part Total
00: All Day (12am-12am) - - - 1,380 10,541 - 205 - 963 - - - 13,088 01: 12am (12am-1am) - - - - - 1 - 14 - 2 16 - 33 02: 1am (1am-2am) - - - - - 1 - 13 - 3 46 - 63 03: 2am (2am-3am) - - - - - 1 - 17 - 13 56 - 87 04: 3am (3am-4am) - - - - - - - 46 - 9 53 - 108 05: 4am (4am-5am) - - - - - 1 - 25 - 10 84 - 120 06: 5am (5am-6am) - - - - - 9 - 45 - 24 191 - 269 07: 6am (6am-7am) - - - 1 - 12 - 72 1 42 276 - 404 08: 7am (7am-8am) - - - 2 - 28 - 59 2 125 511 - 727 09: 8am (8am-9am) - - - 1 - 37 - 87 2 240 663 - 1,030 10: 9am (9am-10am) - - - 3 - 69 - 153 2 155 579 - 961 11: 10am (10am-11am) - - - 2 - 81 - 164 4 170 340 - 761 12: 11am (11am-12noon) - - - 3 - 117 - 226 1 222 320 - 889 13: 12pm (12noon-1pm) - - - 1 - 145 - 347 3 257 367 - 1,120 14: 1pm (1pm-2pm) - - - 6 - 169 - 363 2 249 357 - 1,146 15: 2pm (2pm-3pm) - - - 2 - 164 - 477 4 244 324 - 1,215 16: 3pm (3pm-4pm) - - - 4 - 166 - 525 2 220 331 - 1,248 17: 4pm (4pm-5pm) - - - 7 - 193 - 581 2 254 346 - 1,383 18: 5pm (5pm-6pm) - - - 4 - 223 - 802 8 301 323 - 1,661 19: 6pm (6pm-7pm) - - - 4 - 271 - 580 4 292 339 - 1,490 20: 7pm (7pm-8pm) - - - 3 - 208 - 380 6 276 226 - 1,099 21: 8pm (8pm-9pm) - - - 4 - 203 - 266 1 216 143 - 833 22: 9pm (9pm-10pm) - - - - - 149 - 132 2 119 97 - 499 23: 10pm (10pm-11pm) - - - 1 - 35 - 74 1 18 48 - 177 24: 11pm (11pm-12am) - - - - - 22 - 28 - 2 27 - 79 EB Left EB Thru EB Right WB Left WB ThruWB RightNB Left NB Thru NB Right SB Left SB Thru SB Right Day Part
00: All Day (12am-12am) - - - 12% 88% 0% 18% 0% 82% - - - 01: 12am (12am-1am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 11% 89% 0% 02: 1am (1am-2am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 6% 94% 0% 03: 2am (2am-3am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 19% 81% 0% 04: 3am (3am-4am) - - - - - - 0% 100% 0% 15% 85% 0%
05: 4am (4am-5am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 11% 89% 0% 06: 5am (5am-6am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 11% 89% 0% 07: 6am (6am-7am) - - - 8% 0% 92% 0% 99% 1% 13% 87% 0%
08: 7am (7am-8am) - - - 7% 0% 93% 0% 97% 3% 20% 80% 0%
09: 8am (8am-9am) - - - 3% 0% 97% 0% 98% 2% 27% 73% 0%
10: 9am (9am-10am) - - - 4% 0% 96% 0% 99% 1% 21% 79% 0% 11: 10am (10am-11am) - - - 2% 0% 98% 0% 98% 2% 33% 67% 0% 12: 11am (11am-12noon) - - - 3% 0% 98% 0% 100% 0% 41% 59% 0% 13: 12pm (12noon-1pm) - - - 1% 0% 99% 0% 99% 1% 41% 59% 0% 14: 1pm (1pm-2pm) - - - 3% 0% 97% 0% 99% 1% 41% 59% 0%
15: 2pm (2pm-3pm) - - - 1% 0% 99% 0% 99% 1% 43% 57% 0%
16: 3pm (3pm-4pm) - - - 2% 0% 98% 0% 100% 0% 40% 60% 0% 17: 4pm (4pm-5pm) - - - 4% 0% 97% 0% 100% 0% 42% 58% 0% 18: 5pm (5pm-6pm) - - - 2% 0% 98% 0% 99% 1% 48% 52% 0%
19: 6pm (6pm-7pm) - - - 1% 0% 99% 0% 99% 1% 46% 54% 0%
20: 7pm (7pm-8pm) - - - 1% 0% 99% 0% 98% 2% 55% 45% 0%
21: 8pm (8pm-9pm) - - - 2% 0% 98% 0% 100% 0% 60% 40% 0% 22: 9pm (9pm-10pm) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 99% 1% 55% 45% 0% 23: 10pm (10pm-11pm) - - - 3% 0% 97% 0% 99% 1% 27% 73% 0% 24: 11pm (11pm-12am) - - - 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 7% 93% 0% 0 Walmart Driveway - E Leg Albrae Street - S Leg Albrae Street - N Leg
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Walmart Driveway - E Leg Albrae Street - S Leg Albrae Street - N Leg
TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Appendix C
Intersection LOS
Worksheets
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Fremont Industrial Project 1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 582 0 0 1304 513 366
Future Volume (veh/h) 582 0 0 1304 513 366
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 0 0 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 582 0 0 1304 513 366
Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 0 4 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2562 0 0 3229 959 777
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 5421 0 0 6929 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 582 0 0 1304 513 366
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1695 0 0 1602 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.6 4.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.6 4.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2562 0 0 3229 959 777
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.53 0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 5253 0 0 6619 3181 2576
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 11.2 11.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.3 1.6
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 11.7 11.5
LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 582 1304 879
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.2 5.8 11.6
Approach LOS A A B
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 22.5 14.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 38.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 6.7 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 11.9 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.5
HCM 2010 LOS A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Fremont Industrial Project 2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 470 1562 0 203 415
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 470 1562 0 203 415
Number 5 2 6 16 7 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 470 1562 0 203 415
Adj No. of Lanes 0 3 3 0 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 3228 3228 0 733 593
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5421 5421 0 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 470 1562 0 203 415
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1695 1695 0 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.2 9.6 0.0 2.9 8.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.2 9.6 0.0 2.9 8.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3228 3228 0 733 593
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.15 0.48 0.00 0.28 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3228 3228 0 1951 1580
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.3 5.7 0.0 19.4 21.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.0 4.5 0.0 1.4 3.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.4 6.2 0.0 19.6 23.0
LnGrp LOS A A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 470 1562 618
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.4 6.2 21.9
Approach LOS A A C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 17.1 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 33.5 37.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 10.1 11.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.5 2.4 13.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.6
HCM 2010 LOS A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fremont Industrial Project 3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 8 565 123 508 1135 334 14 11 62 182 88 20 Future Volume (vph) 8 565 123 508 1135 334 14 11 62 182 88 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1555 3433 5085 1562 1812 2779 3221 1681 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1555 3433 5085 1562 1812 2779 3221 1681 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 565 123 508 1135 334 14 11 62 182 88 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 17
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 565 58 508 1135 334 0 25 14 164 106 3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 Free 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 52.3 52.3 21.4 72.7 110.0 3.9 25.3 15.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 52.3 52.3 21.4 72.7 110.0 3.9 25.3 15.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.19 0.66 1.00 0.04 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 16 2417 739 667 3360 1562 64 639 465 242 225 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.11 c0.15 c0.22 0.01 0.00 0.05 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.21 0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.23 0.08 0.76 0.34 0.21 0.39 0.02 0.35 0.44 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 17.0 15.7 41.9 8.1 0.0 51.9 32.8 42.4 43.0 40.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.5 0.2 0.2 5.1 0.3 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 Delay (s) 76.8 17.3 15.9 47.0 8.4 0.3 55.8 32.8 42.9 44.2 40.3 Level of Service E B B D A A E C D D D
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 17.0 39.4 43.2
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
4: Main St & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 761 23 16 1116 4 9 2 4 1 3 4
Future Vol, veh/h 11 761 23 16 1116 4 9 2 4 1 3 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 160 - 75 90 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 761 23 16 1116 4 9 2 4 1 3 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1125 0 0 789 0 0 1285 1957 402 1487 1966 570 Stage 1 - - - - - - 800 800 - 1155 1155 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 485 1157 - 332 811 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 340 - - 494 - - 173 63 511 131 62 398 Stage 1 - - - - - - 274 395 - 155 269 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 486 269 - 601 391 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 338 - - 492 - - 155 58 506 119 57 394 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 155 58 - 119 57 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 264 380 - 149 259 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 458 259 - 571 376 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 31.8 39.6
HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 149 338 - - 492 - - 112
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 0.033 - - 0.033 - - 0.071
HCM Control Delay (s) 31.8 16 - - 12.6 - - 39.6
HCM Lane LOS D C - - B - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.2
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 426 75 222 1162 8 15
Future Vol, veh/h 0 426 75 222 1162 8 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 5 0 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 426 75 222 1162 8 15
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1162 0 0 506 0 1499 261
Stage 1 - - - - - 469 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 1030 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 1055 - 113 738
Stage 1 - - - - - 596 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 305 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 1050 - 88 731
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 88 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 593 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 239 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 24.7
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 206 261 - - 1050 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 - - - 0.211 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 24.7 0 - - 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0.8 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
6: Albrae St & Walmart Driveway Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 34 85 2 238 660
Future Vol, veh/h 1 34 85 2 238 660
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 0 5 5 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 34 85 2 238 660
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1232 96 0 0 92 0
Stage 1 91 - - - - -
Stage 2 1141 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 960 - - 1503 -
Stage 1 933 - - - - -
Stage 2 305 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 163 951 - - 1496 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 163 - - - - -
Stage 1 928 - - - - -
Stage 2 255 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0 2.1
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 836 1496 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.042 0.159 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.5 7.9 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.6 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Fremont Industrial Project 1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2256 0 0 1265 326 795
Future Volume (veh/h) 2256 0 0 1265 326 795
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 0 0 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2256 0 0 1265 326 795
Adj No. of Lanes 3 0 0 4 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2714 0 0 3420 1205 975
Arrive On Green 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 5421 0 0 6929 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2256 0 0 1265 326 795
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1695 0 0 1602 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 25.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 4.7 17.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 4.7 17.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2714 0 0 3420 1205 975
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.27 0.82
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2807 0 0 3537 1700 1376
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 0.0 0.0 9.3 16.1 20.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.2 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.2 7.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.6 0.0 0.0 9.4 16.2 23.0
LnGrp LOS B A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2256 1265 1121
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 9.4 21.0
Approach LOS B A C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.7 40.7 28.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 38.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.6 9.9 19.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.2 10.9 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.2
HCM 2010 LOS B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Fremont Industrial Project 2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1618 1332 0 934 405
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1618 1332 0 934 405
Number 5 2 6 16 7 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1618 1332 0 934 405
Adj No. of Lanes 0 3 3 0 2 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 2694 2694 0 1180 956
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5421 5421 0 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1618 1332 0 934 405
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1695 1695 0 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 15.5 11.8 0.0 17.3 7.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 15.5 11.8 0.0 17.3 7.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2694 2694 0 1180 956
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.60 0.49 0.00 0.79 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2694 2694 0 1629 1319
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.5 10.6 0.0 21.0 17.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.4 5.6 0.0 8.5 3.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.5 11.3 0.0 22.8 18.2
LnGrp LOS B B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1618 1332 1339
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 11.3 21.4
Approach LOS B B C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 28.8 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 33.5 37.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 19.3 13.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.1 5.0 10.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.9
HCM 2010 LOS B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fremont Industrial Project 3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 47 1127 135 411 797 529 162 151 692 440 89 17 Future Volume (vph) 47 1127 135 411 797 529 162 151 692 440 89 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1555 3433 5085 1562 1816 2759 3221 1654 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1555 3433 5085 1562 1816 2759 3221 1654 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 47 1127 135 411 797 529 162 151 692 440 89 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 14
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 1127 35 411 797 529 0 313 573 352 177 3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 Free 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 27.0 27.0 14.5 34.8 103.0 25.0 39.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 27.0 27.0 14.5 34.8 103.0 25.0 39.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.34 1.00 0.24 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 115 1332 407 483 1718 1562 440 1058 625 321 302 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.22 c0.12 0.16 c0.17 0.08 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.34 0.13 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.85 0.09 0.85 0.46 0.34 0.71 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.2 36.0 28.7 43.2 26.8 0.0 35.7 24.7 37.5 37.5 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 6.8 0.4 13.5 0.9 0.6 5.4 0.6 1.2 2.0 0.0 Delay (s) 48.6 42.8 29.1 56.7 27.7 0.6 41.1 25.3 38.7 39.5 33.5 Level of Service D D C E C A D C D D C
Approach Delay (s) 41.6 26.3 30.2 38.8
Approach LOS D C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
4: Main St & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 1284 34 40 827 1 16 2 20 9 7 2
Future Vol, veh/h 22 1284 34 40 827 1 16 2 20 9 7 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 160 - 75 90 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 1284 34 40 827 1 16 2 20 9 7 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 833 0 0 1323 0 0 1769 2263 669 1477 2280 424 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1350 1350 - 913 913 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 419 913 - 564 1367 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 471 - - 272 - - 88 40 343 133 39 495 Stage 1 - - - - - - 113 217 - 229 350 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 533 350 - 436 213 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 469 - - 271 - - 62 32 340 101 31 490 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 62 32 - 101 31 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 107 206 - 217 297 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 440 297 - 385 202 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.9 61.6 97.2
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 100 469 - - 271 - - 56
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.38 0.047 - - 0.148 - - 0.321
HCM Control Delay (s) 61.6 13.1 - - 20.6 - - 97.2
HCM Lane LOS F B - - C - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 0.1 - - 0.5 - - 1.1
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1179 6 31 571 39 156
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1179 6 31 571 39 156
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 5 0 5 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1179 6 31 571 39 156
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 1190 0 1540 603
Stage 1 - - - - - 1187 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 353 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 624 - - 582 - 106 442
Stage 1 - - - - - 252 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 682 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 624 - - 579 - 99 438
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 99 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 251 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 642 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 51.1
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 260 624 - - 579 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.75 - - - 0.054 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 51.1 0 - - 11.6 -
HCM Lane LOS F A - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.4 0 - - 0.2 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC Fremont Industrial Project
6: Albrae St & Walmart Driveway Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 222 801 7 300 321
Future Vol, veh/h 3 222 801 7 300 321
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 0 5 5 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 222 801 7 300 321
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1736 815 0 0 813 0
Stage 1 810 - - - - -
Stage 2 926 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 96 377 - - 814 -
Stage 1 438 - - - - -
Stage 2 386 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 60 373 - - 810 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 60 - - - - -
Stage 1 436 - - - - -
Stage 2 242 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 32.2 0 5.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 349 810 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.645 0.37 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 32.2 12 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 4.3 1.7 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 589 0 0 1336 623 366
Future Volume (veh/h) 589 0 0 1336 623 366
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 0 0 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 589 0 0 1336 623 366
Adj No. of Lanes 300422
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 200222
Cap, veh/h 2497 0 0 3147 1057 856
Arrive On Green 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 5421 0 0 6929 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 589 0 0 1336 623 366
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1695 0 0 1602 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 6.1 4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 6.1 4.2
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2497 0 0 3147 1057 856
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.59 0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4874 0 0 6141 2951 2390
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 11.6 11.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.9 1.6
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 12.1 11.3
LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 589 1336 989
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 6.6 11.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 23.5 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 38.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 7.3 8.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 12.2 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.2
HCM 2010 LOS A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 510 1704 0 203 558
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 510 1704 0 203 558
Number 5 2 6 16 7 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 510 1704 0 203 558
Adj No. of Lanes 033022
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 3018 3018 0 909 736
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5421 5421 0 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 510 1704 0 203 558
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1695 1695 0 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.9 12.9 0.0 2.9 11.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.9 12.9 0.0 2.9 11.6
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 3018 3018 0 909 736
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.17 0.56 0.00 0.22 0.76
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 3018 3018 0 1825 1478
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.8 7.8 0.0 18.2 21.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 6.2 0.0 1.4 4.6
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.9 8.6 0.0 18.3 23.0
LnGrp LOS A A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 510 1704 761
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 8.6 21.8
Approach LOS A A C
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 21.2 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 33.5 37.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 13.6 14.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 3.0 13.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.5
HCM 2010 LOS B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 581 123 722 1206 334 14 13 111 182 96 28 Future Volume (vph) 10 581 123 722 1206 334 14 13 111 182 96 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1536 3433 5085 1562 1816 2781 3221 1682 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1536 3433 5085 1562 1816 2781 3221 1682 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 581 123 722 1206 334 14 13 111 182 96 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 72 00000 7 900 2 4
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 581 51 722 1206 334 0 27 32 164 114 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 88144
Permitted Phases 2 Free 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 45.9 45.9 27.4 72.3 110.0 4.0 31.4 16.2 16.2 16.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 45.9 45.9 27.4 72.3 110.0 4.0 31.4 16.2 16.2 16.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.66 1.00 0.04 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 16 2121 640 855 3342 1562 66 793 474 247 229 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.21 c0.24 0.01 0.01 0.05 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.21 0.00 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.27 0.08 0.84 0.36 0.21 0.41 0.04 0.35 0.46 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 21.1 19.3 39.3 8.5 0.0 51.8 28.4 42.1 42.9 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 57.6 0.3 0.2 7.7 0.3 0.3 4.1 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 Delay (s) 111.9 21.4 19.6 46.9 8.8 0.3 55.9 28.4 42.6 44.3 40.1 Level of Service F C B D A A E CDDD
Approach Delay (s) 22.4 19.7 33.8 43.0
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Main St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 771 23 53 1159 4 9 2 13 1 3 4
Future Vol, veh/h 11 771 23 53 1159 4 9 2 13 1 3 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 05505505505
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 160 - 75 90 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 11 771 23 53 1159 4 9 2 13 1 3 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1168 0 0 799 0 0 1386 2084 407 1608 2093 592 Stage 1 - ----- 8 1 0 8 1 0- 1272 1272 -
Stage 2 - ----- 5 7 6 1274 - 336 821 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 324 - - 489 - - 151 52 507 111 52 385 Stage 1 - ----- 2 6 9 3 9 1- 1 2 8 2 3 7-
Stage 2 - ----- 4 2 8 2 3 6- 5 9 7 3 8 7-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 322 - - 487 - - 125 44 502 92 44 381 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- 1 2 5 4 4- 9 2 4 4-
Stage 1 - ----- 2 5 9 3 7 6- 1 2 3 2 1 0-
Stage 2 - ----- 3 7 0 2 0 9- 5 5 6 3 7 2-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.6 30.1 49.4
HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 167 322 - - 487 - - 89
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.034 - - 0.109 - - 0.09
HCM Control Delay (s) 30.1 16.6 - - 13.3 - - 49.4
HCM Lane LOS D C - - B - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0.4 - - 0.3
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
Future Vol, veh/h 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 055055
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1162 0 0 518 0 1611 267
Stage 1 - ---- 4 7 5-
Stage 2 - ---- 1136 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 1044 - 95 731
Stage 1 - ---- 5 9 2-
Stage 2 - ---- 2 6 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 261 - - 1039 - 69 724
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ---- 6 9-
Stage 1 - ---- 5 8 9-
Stage 2 - ---- 1 9 6-
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.9 26.6
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 203 261 - - 1039 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.182 - - - 0.265 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 26.6 0 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS D A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 1.1 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
6: Albrae St & Project Driveway/Walmart Driveway 11/16/2021 Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2
Future Vol, veh/h 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 05505505505
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 1 0 0-- 2 0 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1360 1344 781 1343 1454 96 887 0 0 92 0 0 Stage 1 1252 1252 - 91 91 -------
Stage 2 108 92 - 1252 1363 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 126 152 395 129 130 960 763 - - 1503 - - Stage 1 211 244 - 916 820 -------
Stage 2 897 819 - 211 216 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 106 127 391 112 108 951 759 - - 1496 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 106 127 - 112 108 -------
Stage 1 210 204 - 911 816 -------
Stage 2 861 815 - 177 181 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 67.1 9.8 0 1.7
HCM LOS F A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 759 - - 106 783 1496 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.481 0.045 0.159 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 67.1 9.8 7.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 2.1 0.1 0.6 - -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2286 0 0 1283 386 795
Future Volume (veh/h) 2286 0 0 1283 386 795
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 0 0 1863 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2286 0 0 1283 386 795
Adj No. of Lanes 300422
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 200222
Cap, veh/h 2710 0 0 3415 1210 980
Arrive On Green 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 5421 0 0 6929 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2286 0 0 1283 386 795
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1695 0 0 1602 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.5 0.0 0.0 8.1 5.7 17.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.5 0.0 0.0 8.1 5.7 17.9
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2710 0 0 3415 1210 980
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.32 0.81
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2786 0 0 3511 1687 1366
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 0.0 9.5 16.4 20.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.9 0.0 0.0 3.6 2.7 7.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.2 0.0 0.0 9.5 16.6 23.0
LnGrp LOS B A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2286 1283 1181
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 9.5 20.9
Approach LOS B A C
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.0 41.0 28.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 38.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.5 10.1 19.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.5 11.1 4.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.6
HCM 2010 LOS B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1782 1410 0 934 482
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1782 1410 0 934 482
Number 5 2 6 16 7 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1863 1863 0 1863 1863
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1782 1410 0 934 482
Adj No. of Lanes 033022
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 2682 2682 0 1191 964
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5421 5421 0 3442 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1782 1410 0 934 482
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1695 1695 0 1721 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 18.1 12.9 0.0 17.3 9.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 18.1 12.9 0.0 17.3 9.7
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2682 2682 0 1191 964
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.66 0.53 0.00 0.78 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2682 2682 0 1622 1313
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 12.2 11.0 0.0 20.9 18.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.8 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 8.7 6.2 0.0 8.5 3.8
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 13.5 11.7 0.0 22.7 18.8
LnGrp LOS B B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1782 1410 1416
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 11.7 21.4
Approach LOS B B C
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 29.1 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.5 33.5 37.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.1 19.3 14.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.0 5.3 11.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.4
HCM 2010 LOS B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 1194 135 527 836 529 162 159 892 440 94 22 Future Volume (vph) 55 1194 135 527 836 529 162 159 892 440 94 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5085 1562 1817 2759 3221 1655 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5085 1562 1817 2759 3221 1655 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 1194 135 527 836 529 162 159 892 440 94 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 100 00000 1 1 900 1 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 1194 35 527 836 529 0 321 773 352 182 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 88144
Permitted Phases 2 Free 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 27.0 27.0 14.5 34.6 103.0 24.9 39.4 20.1 20.1 20.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 27.0 27.0 14.5 34.6 103.0 24.9 39.4 20.1 20.1 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.34 1.00 0.24 0.38 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 1332 402 483 1708 1562 439 1055 628 322 303 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.23 c0.15 0.16 0.18 c0.10 0.11 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.34 0.18 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.90 0.09 1.09 0.49 0.34 0.73 0.73 0.56 0.57 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.3 36.7 28.7 44.2 27.2 0.0 36.0 27.3 37.5 37.5 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 9.7 0.4 67.9 1.0 0.6 6.2 2.7 1.1 2.3 0.0 Delay (s) 49.2 46.3 29.1 112.2 28.2 0.6 42.1 30.0 38.6 39.8 33.5 Level of Service D D C F C A DCDDC
Approach Delay (s) 44.8 43.9 33.2 38.8
Approach LOS DDCD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Main St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 1324 34 60 850 1 16 2 54 9 7 2
Future Vol, veh/h 22 1324 34 60 850 1 16 2 54 9 7 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 05505505505
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 160 - 75 90 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 22 1324 34 60 850 1 16 2 54 9 7 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 856 0 0 1363 0 0 1859 2366 689 1556 2383 436 Stage 1 - ----- 1390 1390 - 976 976 -
Stage 2 - ----- 4 6 9 9 7 6- 5 8 0 1407 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 459 - - 260 - - 78 35 333 119 34 486 Stage 1 - ----- 1 0 6 2 0 8- 2 0 7 3 2 7-
Stage 2 - ----- 4 9 7 3 2 7- 4 2 6 2 0 4-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 457 - - 259 - - 48 25 330 74 25 481
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- 4 8 2 5- 7 4 2 5-
Stage 1 - ----- 1 0 0 1 9 7- 1 9 6 2 5 0-
Stage 2 - ----- 3 6 8 2 5 0- 3 3 4 1 9 3-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 1.5 67.1 134.8
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 125 457 - - 259 - - 44
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.576 0.048 - - 0.232 - - 0.409
HCM Control Delay (s) 67.1 13.3 - - 23 - - 134.8
HCM Lane LOS F B - - C - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.9 0.2 - - 0.9 - - 1.4
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 15.1
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 055055
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 - - 200 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222
Mvmt Flow 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 571 0 0 1198 0 1600 607
Stage 1 - ---- 1191 -
Stage 2 - ---- 4 0 9-
Critical Hdwy 6.44 - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ---- 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---- 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 624 - - 578 - 97 439
Stage 1 - ---- 2 5 1-
Stage 2 - ---- 6 3 9-
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 624 - - 575 - 86 435
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ---- 8 6-
Stage 1 - ---- 2 5 0-
Stage 2 - ---- 5 7 1-
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 119.6
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 241 624 - - 575 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.062 - - - 0.103 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 119.6 0 - - 12 -
HCM Lane LOS F A - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 10.8 0 - - 0.3 -
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 TWSC
6: Albrae St & Project Driveway/Walmart Driveway 11/16/2021 Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 664.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 Future Vol, veh/h 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 05505505505
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 1 0 0-- 2 0 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1908 1800 392 1797 1857 815 447 0 0 813 0 0 Stage 1 987 987 - 810 810 -------
Stage 2 921 813 - 987 1047 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 52 80 657 62 74 377 1113 - - 814 - - Stage 1 298 325 - 374 393 -------
Stage 2 324 392 - 298 305 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 15 50 651 44 46 373 1108 - - 810 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 15 50 - 44 46 -------
Stage 1 297 204 - 372 391 -------
Stage 2 ~ 131 390 - 187 191 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s $ 6283 34.3 0 4.9
HCM LOS F D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1108 - - 15 339 810 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 13.867 0.664 0.37 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - $ 6283 34.3 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 27 4.5 1.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11:59 pm 11/16/2020 Existing AM PP Mitigated Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
Future Volume (vph) 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 3431 1770 3539 1636
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (perm) 3431 1770 3539 1636
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 426 87 275 1162 10 27
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 495 0 275 1162 12 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 7 6 8
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 54.6 74.3 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 54.6 74.3 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.54 0.73 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 682 952 2590 140
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.16 c0.33 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.29 0.45 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 38.1 12.8 5.4 42.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.2 0.6 0.3
Delay (s) 44.7 13.0 6.0 43.0
Level of Service D B A D
Approach Delay (s) 44.7 7.3 43.0
Approach LOS D A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Albrae St & Project Driveway/Walmart Driveway 11/16/2021 Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11:59 pm 11/16/2020 Existing AM PP Mitigated Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 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 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 0010 3 40 8 52 2 3 8 6 6 0 2 2 2 Adj No. of Lanes 010010110110
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 483 0 0 51 10 428 2 688 16 285 800 269
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1381 0 0 7 37 1529 1774 1812 43 1774 1333 448 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 0 0 35 0000 8 7 2 3 80 8 8 2
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1381 0 0 1574 0 0 1774 0 1855 1774 0 1781 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.8 0.0 29.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.8 0.0 29.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 483 0 0 490 0020 7 0 4 2 8 50 1069 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.84 0.00 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 0 0 490 0 0 118 0 704 438 0 1069 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.63 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 30.5 0.0 11.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.0 4.8 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 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 5.2 0.0 15.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.5 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 35.9 0.0 16.6 LnGrp LOS C C B D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 51 35 87 1120
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.5 20.2 15.5 20.7
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.5 0.0 49.5 25.5 16.5 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 5.0 35.5 21.0 18.5 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 0.0 31.4 3.2 11.8 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.4 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 2010 LOS C
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Encyclopedia Cir & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Mitigated Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
Future Volume (vph) 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 3532 1770 3539 1624
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (perm) 3532 1770 3539 1624
Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1179 14 59 571 51 205
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01000 1 7 40
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1192 0 59 571 82 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 25.5 58.9 12.1
Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 25.5 58.9 12.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.32 0.74 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1275 564 2605 245
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.03 c0.16 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.10 0.22 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 19.2 3.3 30.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 13.8 0.4 0.2 0.8
Delay (s) 38.4 19.6 3.5 31.2
Level of Service D B A C
Approach Delay (s) 38.4 5.0 31.2
Approach LOS D A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Albrae St & Project Driveway/Walmart Driveway 11/16/2021 Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Mitigated Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 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 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 208 0030 2 2 20 8 0 17 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 1 Adj No. of Lanes 010010110110
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 198 0 0 35 3 316 2 802 7 435 931 351
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.25 0.72 0.72 Sat Flow, veh/h 674 0 0 7 15 1623 1774 1844 16 1774 1289 486 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 208 0 0 225 0000 8 0 8 3 0 00 4 4 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 674 0 0 1645 0 0 1774 0 1860 1774 0 1775 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 16.6 0.0 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 16.6 0.0 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.99 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 0 0 354 0020 8 0 9 4 3 50 1282 V/C Ratio(X) 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.69 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 198 0 0 354 0 0 107 0 809 435 0 1282 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 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 0.0 0.0 40.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 37.0 0.0 5.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 78.4 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 3.8 0.0 0.3 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 10.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 8.5 0.0 4.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 127.0 0.0 0.0 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.7 40.8 0.0 5.9 LnGrp LOS F D E D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 208 225 808 742
Approach Delay, s/veh 127.0 49.4 61.7 20.0
Approach LOS F D E B
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.5 0.0 82.5 25.5 31.0 51.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 6.5 55.5 21.0 26.5 47.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.0 0.0 11.9 16.6 18.6 48.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.5 0.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.5
HCM 2010 LOS D
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Appendix D
Intersection Queuing
Worksheets
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 582 1304 513 366
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.41 0.48 0.33
Control Delay 6.8 7.6 14.4 2.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.8 7.6 14.4 2.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 48 47 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 95 108 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 196 223 796
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 4434 5588 2766 2275
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.19 0.16
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 470 1562 203 415
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.25 0.64
Control Delay 5.5 7.6 19.4 24.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.5 7.6 19.4 24.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 96 31 73
Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 165 54 117
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 116 521
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 3142 3142 1894 1518
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.11 0.27
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd Existing AM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 565 123 508 1135 334 25 62 164 106 20 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.23 0.15 0.76 0.32 0.21 0.25 0.09 0.35 0.44 0.06 Control Delay 52.1 20.1 4.3 49.5 9.2 0.3 55.8 7.1 42.3 45.8 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.1 20.1 4.3 49.5 9.4 0.3 55.8 7.1 42.3 45.8 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 82 0 176 93 0 17 0 60 79 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 161 36 221 248 0 46 16 73 107 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 163 745 854
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 250 310 280 280
Base Capacity (vph) 90 2488 831 827 3597 1562 102 807 1024 535 590 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 1309 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.23 0.15 0.61 0.50 0.21 0.25 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.03 Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2256 1265 326 795
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.38 0.26 0.79
Control Delay 20.2 11.5 16.3 27.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.2 11.5 16.3 27.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 302 93 51 176
Queue Length 95th (ft) #500 141 78 246
Internal Link Dist (ft) 196 223 796
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 2663 3356 1609 1282
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.38 0.20 0.62
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1618 1332 934 405
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.51 0.76 0.40
Control Delay 14.6 13.2 24.8 16.6
Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.8 13.2 24.8 16.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 180 136 186 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) 271 209 248 104
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 116 521
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 2626 2626 1584 1283
Starvation Cap Reductn 249 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.51 0.59 0.32
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues Fremont Industrial Project
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd Existing PM NP
Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 47 1127 135 411 797 529 313 692 352 177 17 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.85 0.26 0.85 0.45 0.34 0.71 0.60 0.56 0.55 0.04 Control Delay 52.0 43.2 5.5 60.9 28.0 0.6 48.5 20.6 39.9 42.3 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.0 43.2 5.5 60.9 28.0 0.6 48.5 20.6 39.9 42.3 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 257 0 138 153 0 183 127 119 120 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 313 38 #216 196 0 #480 #285 134 156 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 163 758 854
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 250 310 280 280
Base Capacity (vph) 159 1332 516 483 1761 1562 440 1162 1094 562 626 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.85 0.26 0.85 0.45 0.34 0.71 0.60 0.32 0.31 0.03 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 1336 623 366
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.43 0.54 0.32
Control Delay 7.6 8.5 15.3 2.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.6 8.5 15.3 2.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 59 65 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 111 140 26
Internal Link Dist (ft) 196 223 796
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 4197 5289 2607 2165
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.25 0.24 0.17
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 510 1704 203 558
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.58 0.21 0.71
Control Delay 7.4 10.5 17.8 25.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.4 10.5 17.8 25.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 141 31 109
Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 236 53 161
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 116 521
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 2935 2935 1770 1416
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.58 0.11 0.39
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 11/17/2020 Existing AM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 581 123 722 1206 334 27 111 164 114 28 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.84 0.34 0.21 0.26 0.13 0.35 0.46 0.08 Control Delay 52.5 23.7 4.6 49.5 9.5 0.3 56.1 5.1 41.9 46.3 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.5 23.7 4.6 49.5 9.7 0.3 56.1 5.1 41.9 46.3 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 99 0 244 104 0 18 0 60 84 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 166 36 #352 267 0 49 21 73 114 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 163 753 854
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 250 310 280 280
Base Capacity (vph) 92 2194 741 879 3580 1562 104 884 1024 535 590 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 1271 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.82 0.52 0.21 0.26 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.05 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
1: I-880 NB & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2286 1283 386 795
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.38 0.31 0.79
Control Delay 20.9 11.6 16.8 26.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.9 11.6 16.8 26.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 310 95 62 176
Queue Length 95th (ft) #512 143 92 246
Internal Link Dist (ft) 196 223 796
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 2655 3346 1604 1279
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.38 0.24 0.62
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
2: Stevenson Blvd & I-880 SB 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1782 1410 934 482
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.54 0.75 0.47
Control Delay 16.1 13.9 24.3 18.0
Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 13.9 24.3 18.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 215 153 186 86
Queue Length 95th (ft) 312 225 248 129
Internal Link Dist (ft) 137 116 521
Turn Bay Length (ft) 350
Base Capacity (vph) 2605 2605 1571 1268
Starvation Cap Reductn 234 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.54 0.59 0.38
Intersection Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Queues
3: Albrae St & Stevenson Blvd 11/11/2021
Scenario 1 Fremont Industrial Project 5:00 pm 11/17/2020 Existing PM PP Synchro 11 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 1194 135 527 836 529 321 892 352 182 22 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.90 0.26 1.09 0.48 0.34 0.73 0.77 0.56 0.56 0.05 Control Delay 53.6 46.8 5.5 110.2 28.4 0.6 49.7 26.9 39.7 42.7 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.6 46.8 5.5 110.2 28.4 0.6 49.7 26.9 39.7 42.7 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 278 0 ~202 163 0 189 200 119 124 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 #357 38 #307 206 0 #492 #469 134 160 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 163 763 854
Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 250 310 280 280
Base Capacity (vph) 159 1332 512 483 1752 1562 438 1159 1094 562 626 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.90 0.26 1.09 0.48 0.34 0.73 0.77 0.32 0.32 0.04 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Appendix E
Signal Warrant
Worksheets
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant Summary
Warrant 1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
OR
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
OR
Warrant 1C: 80% of Warrant 1A and 1B
Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3: Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
OR
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 4A: 4 Hours Pedestrian Volume
OR
Warrant 4B: Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
AND
Warrant 4C: Gap Analysis
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A: Five or more reported crashes
AND ONE OF
Warrant 7B: 80% of Warrant 1A Met?
OR
Warrant 7C: 80% of Warrant 1B Met?
OR
Warrant 7D: 80% of Warrant 4 Met? Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
N/A
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Warrant Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
600 150
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
2:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM NOT MET
4:00 PM NOT MET
5:00 PM NOT MET
6:00 PM NOT MET
7:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 0
Percentage by which warrant met 0.0%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
480 120
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
2:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM NOT MET
4:00 PM NOT MET
5:00 PM NOT MET
6:00 PM NOT MET
7:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 0
Percentage by which warrant met 0.0%
Warrant
1,872 30
2,208 37
Not Met
1,893 37
1,472 33
1,801 40
Not Met
80% Warrant
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Warrants
MET/NOT
Volume on
major street
(total of both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
1,732 31
1,543 49
1,698 31
1,472 33
1,732 31
1,543 49
1,698 31
1,801 40
1,872 30
2,208 37
1,893 37
Warrants
MET/NOTTime
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major street
(total of both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
(one direction
only)
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher-volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 500 150 2 or more 1 600 150 2 or more 2 or more 600 200 1 2 or more 500 200 When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
900 75
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
2:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM NOT MET
4:00 PM NOT MET
5:00 PM NOT MET
6:00 PM NOT MET
7:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 0
Percentage by which warrant met 0.0%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
720 60
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
2:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM NOT MET
4:00 PM NOT MET
5:00 PM NOT MET
6:00 PM NOT MET
7:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 0
Percentage by which warrant met 0.0%
Warrant
1,472
Not Met
1,732
1,543 49
1,801 40
1,698 31
31 1,872 30
2,208 37
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
direction only)
1,893
Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
33 80% Warrant
Time
Not Met
1,893 37
1,472 33
Warrants
MET/NOT
Warrants
MET/NOT
1,698 31
1,801 40
1,732 31
1,543
1,872 30
2,208 37
49 Major Street
37 The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection, and signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher -volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 750 75 2 or more 1 900 75 2 or more 2 or more 900 100 1 2 or more 750 100 The major-street and minor -street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours.
When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants
Analysis
80% of Warrant 1A Met NO
80% of Warrant 1B Met NO
Warrant Not Met
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
Warrant 1C
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
1:00 PM 1,543 49
3:00 PM 1,801 40
5:00 PM 2,208 37
6:00 PM 1,893 37
Warrant
Peak Four Hours
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Not Met
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when each of any four hours of an average day the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-1. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Four Hours
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*115
*80
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 2 (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
Analysis
Minor Street Lanes 1
Total Approaches 4
Time 5:00 PM
Peak Hour Delay
on Minor
Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour
Volume on Minor
Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour
Entering Volume
Serviced for the
Intersection (vph)
Existing 0.7 38 2,263
Limiting Value 4 100 800
Met/ Not Met Not Met Not Met Met
Warrant Not Met
The peak hour delay warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the conditions given below exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods) of an average weekday.
The peak hour delay warrant is met when:
1. The total delay experienced by the traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes, and
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
Warrant 3A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
5:00 PM 2,208 37
Warrant
Peak Hour
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Not Met
The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH
(VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-3. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*150
*100
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 3B (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Main.xlsx
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A - Five or more reported crashes
Number 5 or more?
Number of crashes within a 12-month period, of
types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,
each involving personal injury or property damage
(reportable)
0 N
Plus at least one of the following: Yes No
Warrant 7B - 80% Warrant 1A
Warrant 1A: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7C - 80% Warrant 1B
Warrant 1B: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7D - 80% Warrant 4
Warrant 4: 80% threshold met (152 or more peds
for any hour, and 80 or more peds for any 4 hours)?
X
Warrant Not Met
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
A. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occured within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and B. Warrant 1A or Warrant 1B or 80% of the pedestrian volume warrant is met Warrant 7 - Crash Experience
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant Summary
Warrant 1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
OR
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
OR
Warrant 1C: 80% of Warrant 1A and 1B
Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3: Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
OR
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 4A: 4 Hours Pedestrian Volume
OR
Warrant 4B: Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
AND
Warrant 4C: Gap Analysis
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A: Five or more reported crashes
AND ONE OF
Warrant 7B: 80% of Warrant 1A Met?
OR
Warrant 7C: 80% of Warrant 1B Met?
OR
Warrant 7D: 80% of Warrant 4 Met?
Not Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
N/A
Warrant Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
600 150
10:00 AM NOT MET
11:00 AM NOT MET
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM NOT MET
4:00 PM NOT MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 1
Percentage by which warrant met 12.5%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
480 120
10:00 AM NOT MET
11:00 AM NOT MET
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 4
Percentage by which warrant met 50.0%
Warrant
1,525 138
1,554 146
Not Met
1,787 195
1,562 126
1,411 50
Not Met
80% Warrant
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Warrants
MET/NOT
Volume on
major street
(total of both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
1,110 57
1,274 87
1,575 61
1,562 126
1,110 57
1,274 87
1,575 61
1,411 50
1,525 138
1,554 146
1,787 195
Warrants
MET/NOTTime
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major street
(total of both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
(one direction
only)
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher-volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 500 150 2 or more 1 600 150 2 or more 2 or more 600 200 1 2 or more 500 200 When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
900 75
10:00 AM NOT MET
11:00 AM MET
12:00 PM NOT MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 5
Percentage by which warrant met 62.5%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
720 60
10:00 AM NOT MET
11:00 AM MET
12:00 PM MET
1:00 PM NOT MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 6
Percentage by which warrant met 75.0%
Warrant
1,562
Not Met
1,110
1,274 87
1,411 50
1,575 61
57 1,525 138
1,554 146
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
direction only)
1,787
Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
126
80% Warrant
Time
Not Met
1,787 195
1,562 126
Warrants
MET/NOT
Warrants
MET/NOT
1,575 61
1,411 50
1,110 57
1,274
1,525 138
1,554 146
87 Major Street
195
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection, and signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher -volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 750 75 2 or more 1 900 75 2 or more 2 or more 900 100 1 2 or more 750 100 The major-street and minor -street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours.
When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants
Analysis
80% of Warrant 1A Met NO
80% of Warrant 1B Met NO
Warrant Not Met
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
Warrant 1C
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
3:00 PM 1,525 138
4:00 PM 1,554 146
5:00 PM 1,787 195
6:00 PM 1,562 126
Warrant
Peak Four Hours
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Met
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when each of any four hours of an average day the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-1. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Four Hours
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*115
*80
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 2 (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
Analysis
Minor Street Lanes 1
Total Approaches 3
Time 5:00 PM
Peak Hour Delay
on Minor
Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour
Volume on Minor
Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour
Entering Volume
Serviced for the
Intersection (vph)
Existing 2.8 195 1,982
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Met/ Not Met Not Met Met Met
Warrant Not Met
The peak hour delay warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the conditions given below exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods) of an average weekday.
The peak hour delay warrant is met when:
1. The total delay experienced by the traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes, and
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
Warrant 3A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
5:00 PM 1,787 195
Warrant
Peak Hour
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Met
The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH
(VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-3. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*150
*100
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 3B (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Stevenson-Encyclopedia.xlsx
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A - Five or more reported crashes
Number 5 or more?
Number of crashes within a 12-month period, of
types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,
each involving personal injury or property damage
(reportable)
1 N
Plus at least one of the following: Yes No
Warrant 7B - 80% Warrant 1A
Warrant 1A: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7C - 80% Warrant 1B
Warrant 1B: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7D - 80% Warrant 4
Warrant 4: 80% threshold met (152 or more peds
for any hour, and 80 or more peds for any 4 hours)?
X
Warrant Not Met
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
A. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occured within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and B. Warrant 1A or Warrant 1B or 80% of the pedestrian volume warrant is met Warrant 7 - Crash Experience
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant Summary
Warrant 1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
OR
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
OR
Warrant 1C: 80% of Warrant 1A and 1B
Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3: Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
OR
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 4A: 4 Hours Pedestrian Volume
OR
Warrant 4B: Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume
AND
Warrant 4C: Gap Analysis
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A: Five or more reported crashes
AND ONE OF
Warrant 7B: 80% of Warrant 1A Met?
OR
Warrant 7C: 80% of Warrant 1B Met?
OR
Warrant 7D: 80% of Warrant 4 Met?
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Not Met
N/A
Warrant Summary
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
600 150
1:00 PM MET
2:00 PM MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
7:00 PM MET
8:00 PM MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 8
Percentage by which warrant met 100.0%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
480 120
1:00 PM MET
2:00 PM MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
7:00 PM MET
8:00 PM MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 8
Percentage by which warrant met 100.0%
Warrant
Warrants
MET/NOTTime
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major street
(total of both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
(one direction
only)
626 207
971 175
1,049 166
1,078 170
1,183 200
1,434 227
1,215 275
888 211
1,183 200
Met
80% Warrant
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Warrants
MET/NOT
Volume on
major street
(total of both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor street
971 175
1,049 166
1,078 170
1,434 227
1,215 275
Met
888 211
626 207
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher-volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 500 150 2 or more 1 600 150 2 or more 2 or more 600 200 1 2 or more 500 200 When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
900 75
1:00 PM MET
2:00 PM MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
7:00 PM NOT MET
8:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 6
Percentage by which warrant met 75.0%
Warrant
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Threshhold Threshhold
URBAN URBAN
720 60
1:00 PM MET
2:00 PM MET
3:00 PM MET
4:00 PM MET
5:00 PM MET
6:00 PM MET
7:00 PM MET
8:00 PM NOT MET
Number of hours for which warrant met 7
Percentage by which warrant met 87.5%
Warrant
Warrants
MET/NOT
Warrants
MET/NOT
1,078 170
1,183 200
971 175
1,049
1,434 227
1,215 275
166
Major Street
211
Not Met
888 211
626 207
1,434 227
1,215 275
Time
Major Street Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
approaches)
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
direction only)
888
Minor Street
Volume on
major (total of
both
Veh/hour on
higher volume
minor (one
207
80% Warrant
Time
1,183 200
1,078 170
175
626
Not Met
971
1,049 166
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection, and signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on Vehicles per hour on on each approach major street higher -volume minor- (total ofboth approaches) street approach Major Street Minor Street (one direction only) 1 1 750 75 2 or more 1 900 75 2 or more 2 or more 900 100 1 2 or more 750 100 The major-street and minor -street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours.
When the 85-percentile speed of major-street exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above.
WARRANT1B
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants
Analysis
80% of Warrant 1A Met YES
80% of Warrant 1B Met NO
Warrant Not Met
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1A and 1B are satisfied to the extent of 80% or more of the stated values.
Warrant 1C
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
3:00 PM 1,078 170
4:00 PM 1,183 200
5:00 PM 1,434 227
6:00 PM 1,215 275
Warrant
Peak Four Hours
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Met
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied when each of any four hours of an average day the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-1. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Four Hours
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*115
*80
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 2 (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 3A: Peak Hour Delay
Analysis
Minor Street Lanes 1
Total Approaches 3
Time 5:00 PM
Peak Hour Delay
on Minor
Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour
Volume on Minor
Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour
Entering Volume
Serviced for the
Intersection (vph)
Existing 2.0 227 1,661
Limiting Value 4 100 650
Met/ Not Met Not Met Met Met
Warrant Not Met
The peak hour delay warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the conditions given below exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods) of an average weekday.
The peak hour delay warrant is met when:
1. The total delay experienced by the traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes, and
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
Warrant 3A
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume
Analysis
No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
5:00 PM 1,434 227
Warrant
Peak Hour
Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Met
The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH
(VPH)
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-3. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*150
*100
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.
WARRANT 3B (URBAN)
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Albrae-Walmart.xlsx
Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Warrant 7A - Five or more reported crashes
Number 5 or more?
Number of crashes within a 12-month period, of
types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,
each involving personal injury or property damage
(reportable)
0 N
Plus at least one of the following: Yes No
Warrant 7B - 80% Warrant 1A
Warrant 1A: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7C - 80% Warrant 1B
Warrant 1B: 80% threshold met? X
Warrant 7D - 80% Warrant 4
Warrant 4: 80% threshold met (152 or more peds
for any hour, and 80 or more peds for any 4 hours)?
X
Warrant Not Met
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
A. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occured within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and B. Warrant 1A or Warrant 1B or 80% of the pedestrian volume warrant is met Warrant 7 - Crash Experience
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
Appendix F
Collision Summaries
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -
Table F-1: Summary of Collisions by Type (2015-2020)
Note:
Based on five-year collision data reported from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
Location Head-on Sideswipe Rear-end Broadside Hit Object Pedestrian- Involved Other Total
I-880/Stevenson Boulevard Interchange 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 4
Albrae Street/Stevenson Boulevard Intersection 0 0 6 2 4 0 0 12 Main Street/Stevenson Boulevard Intersection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encyclopedia Circle/Stevenson Boulevard
Intersection 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 0 0 7 5 4 0 1 17
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA &
Appendix G
Project Site Plan
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - November 18, 2021 / Job #20268(949) 863-1770Irvine, CA 9261218831 Bardeen Ave. - Ste. #100www.hparchs.com Aerial Map
Scheme 8 Fremont, CAConceptual Site Plan
Tabulation
Legend
ENCYCLOPEDIANIMITZ FWYCIRSTEVENSON BLVDALBRAE ST
STEVART AVE
MOWRY SCHOOL RD
SITE
north
5.A.j
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Informational 4 - Transportation Impact Analysis (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-00160) 1 Mark Hungerford
To: Judy Tsai; Kristine Rizzo
Cc: Astrid Lee; Mei O; Mac Carlsen
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
From: Judy Tsai <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 8:36 AM
To: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>; Mark Hungerford <[email protected]> Cc: Astrid Lee <[email protected]>; Mei O <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mac Carlsen <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting ‐ February 10, 2022
Good morning Mark. I am the attorney for the retail center association. Thank you for working with Kristine Rizzo from my office. Just for clarification, the objection/concern lodged with the City regarding negative impact on parking issues has been resolved and my clients are in favor of the development. However, it is not a blanket waiver of the right to raise any future objections that may arise. Thank you.
Judy Tsai
Law Office of Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
(408) 775-8848
F: (408) 775-8838
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 1 Mark Hungerford
To: Kristine Rizzo
Cc: 'Astrid Lee'; 'Mei O'; [email protected]; 'Mac Carlsen' Subject: RE: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
From: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:55 AM
To: Mark Hungerford <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Astrid Lee' <[email protected]>; 'Mei O' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Mac Carlsen' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Meeting ‐ February 10, 2022
Good morning, Mark.
Thank you again for the additional time to communicate with the representative for the applicant, Mac Carlsen. After discussions regarding the reciprocal parking easement, our clients remove the objections to the development. A copy of the easement agreement is attached for the City’s records.
Regards,
Kristine
Kristine Rizzo
Law Office of Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
O: 408‐775‐8848
F: 408‐775‐8838
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 1 Mark Hungerford
From: Dan Kalauokalani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Mark Hungerford
Subject: 40517 Albrae Street - PLN2021-00160
Mark Hungerford,
Thank you for speaking with me on 2/9/2022 regarding the proposed development at 40517 Albrae Street. As discussed, I have concerns, the most pressing of which is the development’s planned ingress and egress of large trucks using Encyclopedia Circle. Your statement that it is the City’s preference to route large trucks through Encyclopedia Circle, rather than Albrae Street is concerning for the following reasons:
1) Page 45 of Exhibit D clearly shows that large trucks exiting onto Encyclopedia Circle will cross into oncoming traffic, beyond the street corner radius and out of sight of oncoming motorists. Albrae Street, being straight at the development’s proposed driveway location, does not pose this risk. It is the more efficient access point, closer to freeways, providing for lower emissions, and (as the development’s identifying street address) likely to be navigated through.
2)
Offices close to the street on Encyclopedia Circle, especially those of 40950 Encyclopedia Circle, will be adversely affected by the increase of truck traffic noise related to acceleration and braking at the proposed driveway. Property quality, use, safety, and value will be impacted.
3)
Encyclopedia Circle is walked by many pedestrians, including neighboring residents, office staff on break, church attendees, and others who will be placed at greater risk.
4)
The City of Fremont initially designated no parking allowed anywhere on Encyclopedia Circle, which is not being enforced. The current challenge of trucks and other vehicles parked illegally on Encyclopedia Circle will grow with increased routed traffic.
Additional truck traffic should not be routed through Encyclopedia Circle. Thank you, in advance, for resolving concerns prior to approving this development.
Sincerely,
Dan Kalauokalani
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 1 Mark Hungerford
From: Kristine Rizzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Mark Hungerford
Cc: 'Astrid Lee'; 'Mei O'; [email protected]
Subject: Planning Meeting - February 10, 2022
Good evening Mark,
Thank you for returning my call earlier. As we discussed, this office represents the retail condo owners in the adjoining property to the “Globe” project. There will be a significant reduction in the number of parking spaces as a result of this development. Our clients believe that there are reciprocal parking easements but need time to review the proposed improvements, rezoning plans and easements. We are requesting a continuation of the February 10, 2022 meeting on this agenda item to perform further investigation.
As requested, we will provide you with the affected property addresses shortly.
Regards,
Kristine
Kristine Rizzo
Law Office of Judy Tsai
Assistant to Judy Tsai
710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 180
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
O: 408‐775‐8848
F: 408‐775‐8838
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- American Pacific International Capital, Inc.
5 Thomas Mellon Cir., Ste. 305
San Francisco, CA 94134
Tel: 415-881-4481 ● Fax: 415-814-0849
12/14/2021
Honorable Mayor Lily Mei
& Fremont City Council Members
City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Ave,
Fremont, CA 94538
Dear Mayor Mei and Council Members:
We are writing to you in support of the Scannell Properties industrial development proposal for the property located at Albrae Street and Stevenson Blvd in Fremont. We have owned the property at this location for some time and we are currently in contract to transfer ownership to Scannell Properties. In the course of our deliberations we have learned more about Scannell’s plans for this property. We believe that the project as proposed will significantly improve the site and contribute to the economic vitality of Fremont’s western industrial area.
Please reach out if you have any questions. We support this project wholeheartedly.
Sincerely,
APIC The Globe, LLC
Wilson Chen, Its Manager
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 371
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 375
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- From: Daniel Gregg
To: Mark Hungerford
Subject: Albrae Industrial Complex
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:24:55 PM
Mark,
Good afternoon. I just left you a short VM. I am the Senior Field Representative for the Nor Cal Carpenters Union in Alameda County. I spoke a couple weeks ago at the Planning Commission hearing regarding Scannell Properties proposed development on Albrae St. I want to let you know that we are working with the developer and are not currently opposed to the project.
If you find time before the hearing tonight, please give me a call at 510-703-9018.
All the best,
Daniel Gregg
Senior Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through the information provided above and permanently delete this message.
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 376
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties
PO Box 2663, Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel. (510) 848-0800 Email: [email protected]
Thursday February 24, 2022
Via E-Mail
Mark Hungerford
Project Planner
City of Fremont
Community Development Department
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont CA 94538
[email protected]
Re: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
Dear Mark Hungerford:
On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club Southern Alameda County Group, we have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared in connection with the Albrae Industrial GPA and Rezoning SCH#2005042146, and Sierra Club has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the Project as currently proposed and the adequacy of the MND. In particular, the MND substantially understates and fails to analyze the severity and extent of a range of environmental impacts, including potentially significant effects, related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic if the planned project becomes a “Last Mile Delivery Station” (LMDS). As a result, the MND for the Project violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA “Guidelines,” California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. All of these impacts should be more fully addressed before Fremont considers approving the projected General Plan Amendment or this project.
Sierra Club commends and supports Fremont’s stated vision to serve as a national model of how an auto-oriented city can evolve into a sustainable, strategically urban environment. In early 2019, the Fremont City Council deepened its commitment to robust climate action by adopting a Post-Carbon Framework with ambitious goals of 55% GHG emissions reductions by 2040 and 100% emissions reductions by 2050 (carbon neutral). We commend Fremont for setting targets to address climate change and achieve carbon neutrality. Achieving the targeted goal requires strong leadership to achieve those goals for all of Fremont including neighborhoods that are disproportionately impacted by climate change, vehicle emissions along highways, or are home to sensitive receptors (those most susceptible to negative environmental impacts).
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
Fremont is being asked to consider a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for a potential project on Albrae Street that is likely to include a Last Mile Delivery Station (LMDS) with all associated impacts. We offer these comments on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and ask if this project and potential GPA will help Fremont achieve its climate action plan goal to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030.
I.The MND Fails to Adequately Describe the Project.
In order for the MND to adequately evaluate the environmental ramifications of a project, it must first provide a comprehensive description of the project itself. See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 730; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193). Furthermore, “[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.” Id. at 730 (citation omitted). Here, the MND provides only the most general description of the proposed project. Because the Project is so ill-defined, the MND’s analysis of significant environmental impacts is inherently unreliable.
Notwithstanding the MND’s lack of detail, this project is currently planned to include 70 bays around two warehouses. If a Last Mile Delivery Station (LMDS) is approved at this site, those bays will be available to lead and offload goods for local parcel delivery and freight deliveries between sites and local transportation hubs, 24 hours per day, seven days a week at one of the busier intersections on the edge of the City of Fremont and a couple blocks from a major retail / residential areas within the City of Newark. If the LMDS is approved, the change in traffic patterns could include 50-70 parcel delivery vehicles every 30 minutes throughout the day per each 8 - 10 hour shift (similar project proposal for LMDS within East Bay), which could add 1200 - 2500 vehicle trips daily with associated traffic, environmental and air quality impacts.
Within a mile of the proposed development and subject to any associated environmental impacts including vehicle emissions (NOX, CO2), increased vehicular traffic within local neighborhoods and lengthier commute times are sensitive receptors, including senior housing and assisted living, Newark High School, and thousands of local residents within Fremont and Newark. These impacts are likely to stress surrounding communities and any impacts will be added to already existing highway emission levels, add additional minutes to lengthen commute times as pandemic impacts ease, and add higher numbers of vehicles coming and going onto these intersections surrounding the proposed site.
Typically, “Last Mile Delivery Station” freight deliveries would be delivered to the site from fulfillment centers in long haul trucks, packages would be sorted in several shifts, and then delivery vans would leave the site in staggered waves to deliver parcels directly to customers and return to the site eight to ten hours later. These delivery routes are typically on city streets, in local neighborhoods and are 6-20 miles in total length. Truck trips and package
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 378
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
delivery trips would increase seasonally around the holidays. Parcel Deliveries are often made with secondary companies and are not considered “employees” None of this detail appears in the MND or the supporting traffic analysis. Regardless, because an accurate description of the proposed project’s environmental impacts is essential to evaluating its environmental impacts, the MND must be revised to more accurately describe the project. The type of use that will occur on the project site is particularly important to evaluating the air quality and transportation impacts of the project, especially when viewed within the context of Fremont’s Climate Plan Goals. These impacts require preparation of an environmental impact report.
II. The Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts Require Preparation of an EIR.
It is well settled that CEQA establishes a “low threshold” for initial preparation of an EIR, especially in the face of conflicting assertions concerning the possible effects of a proposed project. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. CEQA provides that a lead agency may issue a negative declaration and avoid preparing an EIR only if “[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c)(1) (emphasis added). A lead agency may adopt a mitigated negative declaration only when all potentially significant impacts of a project will be avoided or reduced to insignificance. Id. § 21080(c)(2); Guidelines § 15070(b). A mitigated negative declaration will also be set aside if the proponent’s conclusions are not based on substantial evidence in the record. See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
An initial study must provide the factual basis, with analysis included, for making the determination that no significant impact will result from the project. Guidelines § 15063(d)(3). In making this determination, the agency must consider the direct and indirect impacts of the project as a whole (Guidelines § 15064(d)), as well as the project’s cumulative impacts. See City of Antioch v. City Council of Pittsburg (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332-
33. An agency must prepare an EIR whenever it is presented with a “fair argument” that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if there is also substantial evidence to indicate that the impact is not significant. See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; see also Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988; Guidelines § 15064(f)(1). Where there are conflicting opinions regarding the significance of an impact, the agency must treat the impact as significant and prepare an EIR. Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).
Based on what information is known about the Project, the City must prepare an EIR because, as set forth below, there is a fair argument that the Project will cause significant impacts related to traffic and air quality if a LMDS is installed. A revised environmental
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 379
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
document must include a detailed and thorough analysis of the Project’s likely impacts to permit informed decisions about the Project, and identify effective mitigation measures and alternatives that could reduce these impacts. We strongly recommend that the HIGHEST level of due diligence on the potential HIGHEST IMPACT project that may be placed at this site.
III. The MND’s Air Quality Analysis Is Inadequate, and There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Air Quality Impacts.
1. The MND Fails to Accurately Describe the Project’s Setting in Relation to Sensitive Receptors.
The MND fails to present important contextual information related to air quality conditions on the Project site and in the vicinity as it fails to name, identify and accurately describe the potential project. Accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the Project and surrounding uses is critical to an evaluation of a Project’s impact on the environment.
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. Stanislaus County (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 728; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 875 (incomplete description of the Project’s environmental setting fails to set the stage for a discussion of significant effects). Here, the MND’s deficiencies in describing the Project’s setting undermine its adequacy as an informational document.
The MND fails to note schools, retirement and assisted living group living quarters, and residential neighborhoods within a mile from the Project site. Thus, it is particularly important that the MND evaluate the air quality and health impacts of the proposed project on these sensitive receptors. In fact, CEQA requires an EIR to discuss the specific human health effects that would occur as a result of a project’s significant air pollutant emissions.
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517-522. The MND fails to consider other health impacts from NOx and particulate matter.
Moreover, even though the diesel truck traffic generated by the anticipated warehouse uses would be substantial and poses significant health risks, the MND provides no analysis of the health risks of this increased truck traffic on nearby sensitive uses, nor has the City planned outreach to local communities or considered the impacts to the City of Newark, CA. The MND must assess the health impacts of this additional traffic—including that which can be expected to be diesel trucks—on these sensitive receptors.
The adverse impacts from increased air pollution, including both NOx and particulate matter extend beyond the increased risks assessed in the MND and we question veracity of the resulting mitigations calculations. Residents in this area experience asthma and other respiratory illnesses at higher rates than less burdened communities. Given CEQA’s mandate to consider the health effects of increased air pollutant emissions, the MND must be revised to assess the full range of potentially significant health impacts resulting from the Project.
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 380
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
IV. The MND Underestimates the Project’s Operational NOx Impacts, Which Are Potentially Significant.
In addition to underestimating operational impacts to sensitive receptors, the MND underestimates the Project’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. NOx is a common criteria air pollutant of concern for warehouse projects due to the high volume of diesel truck trips generated by facility operations. Accurate modeling of NOx emissions is critical to understanding environmental and health impacts because NOx is a “a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation.” To properly model the Proposed Project’s NOx emissions and see if those potential emissions will significantly exceed the criteria established by BAAQMD is particularly important during the current Climate Crisis, particularly with recent requirements under review by the State of CA.
V. The MND Fails to adequately disclose or mitigate GHG Emissions from the Project.
Reducing GHG emissions to minimize the harms from climate change is one of the most urgent challenges of our time. Scientific evidence continues to mount that we are not only facing a true climate crisis, but also rapidly running out of time to confront it. The law is clear that lead agencies must thoroughly evaluate a project’s impacts on climate change under CEQA, and identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address project-specific or cumulative impacts. See Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89-91; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4. The GHG analysis suffers from several critical flaws as detailed below.
VI. Any GHG emissions over existing conditions should be considered significant.
The MND relies on a GHG significance threshold of 660 MT of CO2e per year. MND at 70.
This threshold represents a 40% reduction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“Air District”) 1,000 MT of CO2e originally adopted in 2010. The Air District’s threshold was designed to apply statewide GHG emission reductions goals to the Bay Area.
However, it is not reasonable to assume that the Air District’s GHG thresholds adopted in 2010 are still relevant or supported by substantial evidence in view of new information about the severity of climate change and the need to reduce GHG emissions immediately and as much as possible. Indeed, the Air District has noted that “since 2010 the urgent risks to public health and air quality posed by global climate change continues to come into focus and prominence.” https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality- act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Therefore, the Air District is in the process of updating its significance thresholds to reflect evolving science and legal decisions.
Moreover, as the Supreme Court found in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (“Newhall Ranch”), it may not make sense to
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 381
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
translate a general standard (in that case AB 32’s requirement to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) to a specific project. In fact, Newhall Ranch noted that new projects—such as this Project—may require a greater level of reduction because “[d]esigning new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and renewable energy use is likely to be easier, and is more likely to occur, than achieving the same savings by retrofitting of older structures and systems.” 62 Cal.4th at 226.
Since 2010, it has become clear from a scientific perspective that any additional GHG emissions will contribute to a serious and growing climate crisis. See e.g. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
Recognizing this reality, in 2018 Governor Brown signed Executive Order 55-18 calling for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18-Executive- Order.pdf. Sierra Club recommends that we reach this threshold even sooner, in 2035.
Given these facts on the ground, the MND should establish a net zero threshold for new emissions. See e.g., CARB 2017 Scoping Plan at 101 (“Achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.”)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf?utm _medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
VII. The MND underestimates vehicle trips generated by the Project and vehicle miles traveled.
A LMDS would result in a substantial increase in vehicle traffic. Therefore, an accurate assessment of trips generated by the Project and vehicle miles travelled is critical to ensuring the Project’s GHG emissions have been identified and fully mitigated. Because the MND fails to accurately calculate the Project’s GHG emissions, it violates CEQA’s requirement to disclose and analyze a project’s potentially significant GHG emissions. Center for Biological Diversity, 62 Cal.4th at 226; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.
VIII. The MND Fails to Adequately Address Transportation Impacts.
The MND fails to conduct any analysis of the vehicle miles that would be generated by the Project should it include LMD. Warehouse delivery projects generate substantial vehicle mileage, far more than would be generated by employee trips alone. An accurate assessment of vehicle mileage from the Project is essential to evaluating air quality and GHG impacts, in addition to transportation impacts. The MND cannot rely on a screening threshold that fails to reflect the actual impacts of the project under consideration. Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1152 (“Thresholds of significance may not be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021-
IX. Conclusion
As set forth above, the MND does not come close to satisfying CEQA’s requirements. At a fundamental level, it fails to describe the Project setting and fails to provide a complete analysis of Project impacts and feasible mitigation measures. At the same time, ample evidence demonstrates that a fair argument exists that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. In light of this, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared that is appropriate for the actual project intended, or if we do not know the specific use for this site, that we proceed with the highest level of due diligence for the greatest potential impact that could be allowed at this site, in order to protect our Fremont community. Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, Southern Alameda County Group strongly opposes the proposed change to Fremont’s General Plan under these circumstances.
We would like to be an active partner in community discussions and mitigations for any proposed warehouse projects in the future, and we encourage you to integrate Fremont’s commitments to its Climate Plan within land use decisions and the permit process in the future. Thank you for your consideration!
Respectfully,
Martha Kreeger
Executive Committee Chair, Southern Alameda County Group Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter
510-673-9447
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 1 Mark Hungerford
Subject: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Kreeger <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: First Addendum to the Globe Planned District EIR and Proposed General Plan Amendment SCH#2005042146
Dear Hon. Members of the Fremont Planning Commission,
Thank you for your work and your service. We look forward to working with you in the future and want to thank you for providing this forum for public comment and a way to voice our concerns regarding this general amendment change and this potential project as described. I apologize for the lateness of the hour, but wanted to get a more useful document before you. And thanks to the amazing Mark Hungerford, for your guidance and support!
On behalf of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club Southern Alameda County Group, we have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared in connection with the Albrae Industrial GPA and Rezoning SCH#2005042146 recommendation. Sierra Club has serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the Project as currently proposed and the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
In particular, it is our opinion that the MND substantially understates and fails to analyze the severity and extent of a range of environmental impacts, including potentially significant effects, related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic if the planned project does in fact become a “Last Mile Delivery Station” (LMDS).
Please accept the attached comments. I have included my cell number below and our organization, including staff, leaders and volunteers would welcome any opportunity to discuss this project, the Last Mile Ecosystem and how CA communities are meeting this challenge and opportunity.
Thank you for your consideration!
Respectfully,
Martha Kreeger
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 2 Martha H Kreeger She/Her/Hers 510.673.9447 Vice Chair, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, & Chair, Sierra Club SAC Group Commissioner, Alameda County Commission on the Status of Women
5.A.k
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Informational 5 - Public Correspondence (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
MEMO
TO: Community Development Department Staff
City of Fremont
39550 Liberty St.
Fremont, CA 94538
FROM: Rebecca Auld, Vice President
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
SUBJECT: Fremont Albrae Industrial Project Addendum – Review and Discussion of Comment Letters
DATE: March 2, 2022
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO
This memo provides a brief discussion of written comments received in response to the Addendum for the Fremont Albrae Industrial Project (“project”). Though the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not require a lead agency to formally respond to comments received on an Addendum, this memorandum is being provided by the Addendum preparer to demonstrate that additional environmental review is not warranted in response to written comments.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Addendum, including technical attachments and reference to the Prior EIR, included substantial evidence1 to support the use of an Addendum as the appropriate environmental document for review of the proposed project.
The comment letters do not present substantial evidence to lead to a conclusion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required.
Responses to the particular points in the letters are detailed below.
1 Under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines section 15184), the term “substantial evidence” includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. “…Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence.”
5.A.l
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Informational 6 - Addendum Response (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 3/2/22 PAGE 2 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690
COMMENTS RECEIVED
There is no official comment period for an Addendum. Two comment letters were received following issuance of the Addendum, as listed below.
• Teamsters Joint Council No. 7 Letter: Doug Bloch, Political Director, dated February 23, 2022 • Sierra Club Letter: Martha Kreeger, Executive Committee Chair, Southern Alameda County Group, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, dated February 24, 2022
DISCUSSION OF COMMENT LETTERS
Teamsters Joint Council No. 7
The comment letter makes specific points under the headings Vehicle Miles Traveled Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and includes a summary in the introductory paragraphs and under the heading Conclusion. These are addressed under similar headings below.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The letter asserts that the calculation of trips was based on the incorrect land use, and that the project could have a larger volume of trips/traffic than reported. The complete Transportation Impact Analysis was included as Attachment D to the Addendum. The Transportation Impact Analysis detailed the choice of land use (pages 5 and 6 including Table 2 of Attachment D to the Addendum). As noted, the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition “High-Cube Fulfillment Center” land use (numbered 155) trip generation rate was further differentiated in the follow up Tenth Edition Supplement. Trip generation rates for all potential uses of the warehouse component were compared, including Warehousing (151), High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (154), High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Non-Sort (155), High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Sort (155), and High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse (156). The daily trip rates for these land uses varied from 1.74 trips per 1,000 square feet to 6.44 trips per 1,000 square feet. While the exact tenant is speculative, for a conservative analysis, the highest trip rate of 6.44 was chosen, which is associated with the ITE land use 155 for “High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse, Sort.” This subcategory of the ITE land use 155 is described as, “a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means.” The last-mile type delivery facilities mentioned as a concern in the letter would be categorized within this ITE land use subcategory. Trip rates for other possible uses and resultant traffic volumes and related emissions would be the same or less than that analyzed. While the letter references the ITE rate used, it does not present an alternative appropriate ITE land use or trip rate that would result in a higher volume of trips or related emissions.
The letter asserts that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis improperly excluded delivery trips but this contention is incorrect. The City’s threshold of significance for employment uses, which is consistent with the State Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, only accounts for the commute trip between home and work for the site employees.
Regardless of the use, the VMT for potential deliveries is not included in the VMT thresholds or analysis.
The VMT analysis included in the Addendum is consistent with State and City methodology.
As detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Attachment D of the Addendum), the accepted methodology relies upon the Alameda CTC Model to estimate the home-work VMT per employee based upon the location of employment. The Alameda CTC Model has determined an average home-work VMT per employee of 15.1 at the project location (see Table 1 and surrounding text in Attachment D of the
5.A.l
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: Informational 6 - Addendum Response (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 3/2/22 PAGE 3 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 Appendix for additional detail). While the letter contends that an estimate of the number of employees is necessary for the analysis, this contention is incorrect. As noted, determination of the number of employees is not necessary to utilize this methodology.
The letter suggests that an analysis cannot be performed without knowing the specifics of the future tenant(s). However, it is often the case that the first (or subsequent) tenants of a development are not known at the time of environmental analysis. As noted above, to address the speculative nature of possible future tenants, the highest trip-generating potential land use was assumed. Trip rates for other possible uses and resultant traffic volumes and related emissions would be the same or less than that analyzed.
The letter suggests that VMT could be considered to be new information that was not known and could not have been known for the Prior EIR. VMT was not expressly addressed in the Prior EIR. However, the concept of VMT was incorporated in the traffic models and emissions models at the time as it is today and was a recognized factor in determining the level of transportation and emissions impacts.
Therefore, VMT would not be considered “new information” per CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) and would not be a potential warrant for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. That being said, even if VMT was considered new information, the project would need to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than in the Prior EIR. The Transportation Impact Analysis (Attachment D of the Addendum) determined that the home-work VMT per employee would be below significance thresholds, so would not result in a significant impact.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the proposed project would result in substantially lower trips than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in this area in the Prior EIR, would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than under the Prior EIR, and therefore that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is warranted under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15163.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
These comments assert that mitigation measures beyond those available at the time of the Prior EIR should be implemented for the project to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As noted in the Addendum, greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would be substantially lower than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in this area in the Prior EIR: year 2030 annual emissions of 5,096 MT CO2e2 compared to 13,507 MT CO2e (Addendum page 45). Because the greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced compared to those from the project analyzed in the Prior EIR, there would not be new or increased significant impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and a subsequent EIR would not be required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162(1), and 15162(2).
The letter also seems to acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered new information per CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) because, as discussed in the Addendum, it was information that was known or could have been known for the Prior EIR. Additionally, electric vehicles and electric building operations were known technologies at the time of the Prior EIR and also would not be considered new information. Because greenhouse gas emissions and potential mitigation measures would not constitute new information, section 15162(3) and its subsections would not be applicable.
While not necessary to reach CEQA conclusions, the project would implement measures to reduce
2 MT CO2e stands for metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the industry standard unit for measuring greenhouse gas emissions.
5.A.l
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: Informational 6 - Addendum Response (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 3/2/22 PAGE 4 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 greenhouse gas emissions beyond those identified in the Prior EIR as discussed in the Addendum and summarized below.
As noted in the letter, Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 from the Prior EIR would be implemented to reduce vehicle trips (and associated emissions) and would primarily be applicable to employee trips. As further discussed in the Addendum (pages 46 and 47), since the Prior EIR, the City has undertaken city-wide planning for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the 2012 City of Fremont Climate Action Plan and subsequent regulatory updates. The project would meet or exceed current code requirements that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those related to facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and carpoolers, requirements for tree planting, and energy and water efficiencies, and inclusion of electric vehicle parking stalls with chargers.
While the letter does not acknowledge the additional measures detailed in the paragraph above and in the Addendum, it does specifically recommend measures that can be summarized as full or additional “electrification of vehicle and building operations.” The City is currently undergoing a process to update the city-wide Climate Action Plan, which includes consideration of the feasibility of various measures, but these are not yet in place or applicable to the current project and involve broader policy issues.
However, to reiterate the point above, because greenhouse gas emissions and referenced mitigation measures would not constitute new information, section 15162(3) and its subsections would not be applicable and there is no evidence of feasible mitigation or alternatives that would reduce impacts below significance levels at this time.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the proposed project would result in substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than those that would have resulted from the uses assumed in the Prior EIR and would implement additional measures to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is warranted under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.
Introduction and Conclusion
The letter asserts that a subsequent or supplemental EIR should have been prepared for the reasons outlined in the letter. The specific points of the letter are disputed in the discussion above.
While the letter uses the argument that the changes to the project and/or circumstances are “substantial”, per the CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, the threshold for determining what is to be considered substantial with respect to the question of whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR needs to be prepared is whether those changes involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” While the difference in proposed use at the site may be considerable from other perspectives, from an environmental perspective, the revised project is similar to what would have been allowed at the site under the Prior EIR baseline and would have impacts that are the same or less than those assessed in the Prior EIR in all respects. This is documented with substantial evidence throughout the Addendum document.
Therefore, the changes in the project and circumstances do not meet the definition of “substantial” under CEQA.
Consistent with conclusions in the Addendum, the project would not satisfy the conditions to warrant preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines and an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this project under CEQA.
5.A.l
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: Informational 6 - Addendum Response (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- 3/2/22 PAGE 5 OF 5
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD RD, STE 20A - #601, OAKLAND, CA 94619 PHONE 510 535-6690 Sierra Club Letter
The Sierra Club letter makes reference to an MND and specific points in it that appear to be referencing a different document and not this Addendum document and the associated Prior EIR.
The legal points appear to be contingent on an MND document, which has a different standard of legal review than an EIR Addendum and do not appear applicable. Most of the points also appear to have been drafted in response to a different CEQA document with different analysis than in the Addendum and do not appear applicable to this Addendum.
While it is unclear if and how the comments actually relate to this Addendum, some points touch upon questions that have already been addressed under the response to the Teamsters letter above, namely:
whether the analysis was performed for the correct type of land use (as it applies to transportation and emissions impacts), whether the VMT analysis was conducted correctly, and whether additional greenhouse gas reduction measures should be required.
The comments in this letter do not present substantial evidence to lead to a conclusion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required and an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for this project under CEQA.
5.A.l
Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: Informational 6 - Addendum Response (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - PLN2021- Planning Commission
February 24, 2022
Proposal: ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING – 40517 Albrae Street - (PLN2021-00160) - To consider a General Plan Amendment
(Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial), Rezoning (from Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2006-10, otherwise known as The Globe, to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160), Tentative Parcel Map, and an Environmental Impact Assessment in conjunction with a three -building industrial development totaling 397,000 square feet on 22.4 acres located at 40517 Albrae Street in the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area, and to consider an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) (SCH No. 2005042146) prepared for a prior redesignation of the site and The Globe Planned District pursuant to the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommendation: Recommend approval to the City Council.
Location: 40517-40525 Albrae Street and 6000 Stevenson Boulevard in the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area;
APNs: 531-240-35, 531-240-34, and 531-240-32
Area: 22.4 acres
People: Scannell Properties, LLC (Mac Carlsen), Applicant HPA, Inc. (Teresa Goodwin), Architect
APIC The Globe, LLC, Property Owner
Mark Hungerford, Staff Planner, 510-494-4541,
[email protected]
General Plan: Existing: Regional Commercial
Proposed: Tech Industrial
Zoning: Existing: Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2006-10 Proposed: Preliminary and Precise Planned District P-2021-160
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The app licant requests approval to construct a three -building industrial development totaling approximately 397,000 square feet on a 22.4 -acre portion of the 31.48 -acre Planned District P-2006-10 (The Globe) that was never implemented. Entitlements required for the project consist of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, a Rezoning from Preliminary and Precise Planned District P - 2006-10 to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2021-160, and Vesting Tent ative Parcel Map No. 11171 to subdivide the site into three parcels (collectively, the “proposed project”).
Staff has reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the General Plan and Fremont Municipal Code (FMC). Staff recommends the Planning Commis sion recommend to the City Council adoption of the Addendum for the project as shown in Exhibit “A,” and approval of:
the General Plan Amendment as shown in Exhibit “B,” the Rezoning as shown in Exhibit “C,” the Preliminary and Precise Planned District and subdivision of land as shown in Exhibit “D,” and the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E,” based on the
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 2
findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit “F.”
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The Globe Planned District
The project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the 31.48 -acre The Globe Planned District. Formerly contemplated as an internationally -themed retail, restaurant, and entertainment center, The Globe was to consist of 557,900 square feet of floor area, including 469,900 square feet of commercial space and 88,000 square feet of mini -storage space.
To allow for development of The Globe, a General Plan Amendment from General Industrial with Commercial -Industrial Overlay to Comm ercial High Volume Retail (PLN2005 -00061) and corresponding Rezoning of the site to Planned District P -2006-0010 (PLN2006-00010) were approved by the City Council in 2007. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in conjunction with approval of the General Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse No. 2005042146), and a supplement to that EIR was approved for The Globe Planned District Rezoning.
To date, approximately 102,000 square feet of The Globe has been developed. These developed portions consi st of three, one -story commercial buildings located on approximately nine acres of Stevenson Boulevard frontage. The restaurant, retail, and personal service uses that occupy the built -out spaces are consistent with what was generally conceptualized for T he Globe. The remainder of The Globe Planned District – areas located off the Stevenson Boulevard frontage, southeast of the three aforementioned buildings – have not been redeveloped since approval of The Globe. These areas are currently improved with t wo structures: 1) a vacant, approximately 80,000 -square-foot single-story commercial building along the Albrae Street frontage that was built in 1987 and previously occupied by a Home Depot store and, subsequent to that, various retail/furniture stores; and 2) an approximately 81,600-square-foot warehouse/manufacturing building that was built in 1960 along the site’s Encyclopedia Circle frontage that was partially demolished in 2018. Both structures would be demolished as part of project activities. Being over 50 years of age, the warehouse/manufacturing building was evaluated for historic significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was determined not to be a potential historic resource (see Environmental Review section of this report for more details of the project’s CEQA analysis).
Site development is currently subject to the land use and development standards of The Globe Planned District and all conditions of approval adopted as part of The Globe Planned District approval.
Surrounding Uses
As mentioned above, portions of The Globe Planned District northwest of the project site have been improved with commercial development and uses in a manner consist with the approved Planned District. North of the project site, across Albrae Street, are commercially- zoned parcels improved with a multi -tenant commercial strip center and a Walmart store, plus an abutting industrially -zoned building containing a variety of light -industrial occupants. Immediately abutting the project sit e to the southeast are industrially -zoned parcels containing freestanding buildings occupied by a variety of manufacturing and light - industrial uses. Across Encyclopedia Circle, south west of the site, are four industrially - zoned parcels all containing wholesale and distribution uses.
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 3
Planning Commission Continuance
At the request of the applicant, the project was continued from the February 10, 2022, Planning Commission hearing. The request was to allow for further coordination between the applicant and t he adjacent commercial condominium owners association regarding access easements. The representative who requested the continuance has since reviewed the relevant documents and withdrawn their objections in writing.
Additional written correspondence recei ved since posting of project documents for the February 10, 2022, Planning Commission hearing have been added to Informational 5 – Public Correspondence.
PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT’S HEARING
At tonight’s hearing, the Planning Commission is charged with maki ng a recommendation to the City Council regarding the following:
1. Adoption of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum and Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to the previously certified EIR and Supplemental EIR (SCH No. SCH No. 20050 42146) prepared for The Globe, in accordance with CEQA guidelines and as drafted in Exhibit “A;”
2. An Amendment to the General Plan land use designation of the property from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, as shown in Exhibit “B,” based on the project’s conformance to the findings prescribed by FMC Section 18.225.050;
3. A Rezoning of the subject property from Preliminary and Precise Planned District P - 2006-10 to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2021-160, as shown in Exhibits “C” and “D,” bas ed on the project’s conformance to the findings prescribed by FMC Section 18.110.070; and
4. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as shown in Exhibit “D,” based on the findings prescribed by FMC Section 17.20.200.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to facilitate construction of a three -building industrial development on portions of The Globe Planned District that feature vacant buildings pre -dating The Globe approvals.
The General Plan Amendment to Tech Industrial would revert the 22.4 -acre project site back to an industrial designation similar to what was in place on the site prior to its 2006 conversion to the current Regional Commercial designation. The Rezoning request to Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2021-160 would effectuate development of the proposed project, which pursuant to FMC Section 18.110.020 is designed and would be governed by the land use and development standards of the Tech Industrial (I -T) zoning district, the zone most similar in nature and function to the proposed development. The project would remove existing lot lines and subdivide the site in a manner that would generally place each of the project’s three proposed buildings and their required p arking, stormwater treatment, and other necessary amenities and features on their own parcels.
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 4
The site’s two vacant buildings would be demolished and the site would be cleared to accommodate a development consisting of approximately 397,000 square feet o f new floor area, 713 open vehicle parking stalls, and associated circulation, landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The project’s two largest buildings – Building 1 and Building 2 – would measure 190,503 square feet and 157,783 square feet, respec tively, and be designed as flexible industrial spaces intended for warehouse, distribution, e -commerce fulfillment, or manufacturing uses (including advanced manufacturing), and Building 3, located at the northern end of the site, would measure 46,839 squa re feet and be designed for research and development and advanced manufacturing users.
Project buildings would be located within the site’s interior, with employee parking and landscaped areas located between the buildings and the street and property li nes shared with abutting uses. All project buildings would be oriented towards their respective street frontages, and loading dock areas for each building – Buildings 1 and 2 would feature 38 truck bays and Building 3 would feature six truck bays – would be oriented towards the interior of the site, thereby allowing them to be screened from public right -of-way and neighboring property view. Right -of-way dedications of 3’ and 2’ -6” along the site’s Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages, respectiv ely, would be required to accommodate new 6’-wide sidewalks that would be buffered from right -of-way traffic lanes by landscaped parkway strips with street tree plantings, and on -site parking areas would feature minimum 25’-wide landscape buffers featuring groundcover, tree plantings, and designed bio - retention treatment areas along their street frontages.
The project would take its access via two driveways along Albrae Street, three driveways along Encyclopedia Circle, and an interior drive that connects to Stevenson Boulevard through the abutting 6044 Stevenson Boulevard parcel, which is part of the built -out portion of The Globe. The primary Albrae Street driveway, located adjacent to Building 1, would be aligned with Walmart’s driveway across the stree t and this intersection would be signalized at the applicant’s expense. An additional traffic signal, also to be funded by the applicant, would be installed at the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection. As designed and conditioned, truck traffic generated by the project would be restricted to use of Encyclopedia Circle driveways and access to Stevenson Boulevard from Encyclopedia Circle.
Lastly, as a voluntary commitment, the applicant proposes a community benefit pledge of $500,000, pay able to the City as a lump -sum upon issuance of the first project building permit, to assist in targeted homeless services programs or other City initiative(s) should their project be allowed to proceed forward.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
General Plan Conformance
The subject property is currently designated Regional Commercial . To enable industrial development at the site, the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Tech Industrial, which permits research and developme nt, “clean and green” tech, and semi -conductor, computer hardware, software and related technological, administrative, sales, and engineering facilities, as well as warehouse and distribution, e -commerce fulfillment, and manufacturing facilities . Staff sup ports the proposed General Plan Amendment because the proposal would be consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
Land Use Policy 2 -1.11: Infill Emphasis – Focus new development on underutilized or
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 5
“skipped over” sites that are alread y served by infrastructure and public streets. Strongly discourage, and where appropriate prohibit, the conversion of open space or underdeveloped land on the fringes of Fremont to urban uses.
Land Use Goal 2-2.1: Opportunity Areas for Growth and Change – Guide new growth and development to specific areas [… including] commercially and industrially zoned lands in the city with the potential to create job and housing opportunities while contributing to the city’s evolution into a more sustainable and pedestrian-oriented city.
Land Use Policy 2-3.6: Conversion of Older Shopping Centers and Commercial Uses – Support the adaptive reuse, renovation, or redevelopment of older shopping centers or commercial uses that are no longer viable due to changing market c onditions, demographics, or retail trends.
Land Use Policy 2 -5.1: Land Supply and Job Growth – Maintain an industrial land supply that is adequate and suitable for the continued growth of the City’s core industries, including computer and communications m anufacturing, biotechnology, green technology, logistics/distribution, and emerging technologies. The City should capitalize on its proximity to Silicon Valley, regional transportation facilities, and educated and skilled work force to create opportunities for job growth.
Analysis
The proposed project would redevelope an urban, blighted commercial site with overgrown vegetation and vacant and partially demolished buildings with a new industrial development that would be compatible with existing industrial uses adjacent to and in vicinity of the site, as well as the adjacent commercial uses that make up the developed portion of The Globe Planned District. This would be achieved through quality site design, appropriate building scale, and restrictions on tru ck circulation to, from, and within the site that would minimize conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks associated with project operations. The portion of The Globe Planned District that the project would develop was never built out with commercial uses as envisioned, and as described further in the Economic Development Element analysis below, the viability of the site for future commercial development and long-term commercial use is in question. Conversion to the Tech Industrial designation and implementation of the proposed project would facilitate a significant investment in an underutilized, dilapidated, and vacated site that would result in a more productive and efficient use of the land than current conditions allow, create job growth in the City’s growing industrial sector, and be a new revenue source for the City.
Mobility Goal 3 -1: Complete Streets – City streets that serve multiple modes of transportation while enhancing Fremont’s appearance and character.
Mobility Goal 3 -4.4: Mitigating Development Impacts – Require new development to mitigate its impacts on mobility conditions through traffic impact fees, street and intersection improvements, transportation demand management programs, and other measures.
Mobility Goal 3 -6.6: Trucking and Land Use Compatibility – Generally discourage the location of businesses generating large amounts of truck traffic in areas where residential streets or land uses would be negatively impacted. In mixed use areas where businesses and residences are in c lose proximity, ingress and egress for truck traffic should be designed to minimize the potential for impacts on residences and neighborhood streets. The site plan review process should be used to ensure that businesses are designed to minimize the impact of truck traffic and delivery vehicles on through -traffic. Loading docks and
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 6
delivery/service areas should be sited to the rear of buildings to minimize traffic disruption and maintain the visual quality of public streets.
Analysis
Development of the prop osed project would include the widening of the site’s current curb face to property line areas along the Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages to meet current City parkway and sidewalk standards. These improvements would encourage an increase in pedestrian activity in an around the site by creating linkages to adjacent sites and contribute to an overall enhancement of the streetscape of each frontage. Upon building permit issuance, the project would be subject to development impact fees that include traffic impact fees intended to improve City transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and for use in traffic calming projects. As identified in a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers, traffic signals are warranted at t he project’s primary Albrae Street driveway (directly aligned and across from that of Walmart’s) and at the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection. The signalized Albrae Street intersection would facilitate safe and efficient passenger vehi cle movement from each site and within the Albrae Street right -of-way. The signalized intersection would be designed in a manner that would prohibit large truck use so as to avoid passenger vehicle and truck conflicts. Truck access to and from the site w ould instead come via Encyclopedia Circle, which currently, aside from the project site, is bounded exclusively by industrially - designated land and is therefore more suitable for truck travel. Within the site, the proposed connection to Stevenson Boulevar d via the internal drive aisle through the developed portion of The Globe Planned District would include a median designed to restrict large truck use of this accessway, enhancing compatibility between the project and existing commercial operations. Lastly, project buildings are positioned such that their loading dock areas are screened from public right-of-way view for aesthetic purposes.
Economic Development Policy 6 -1.1: Increasing the Tax Base – Encourage economic development that generates sales tax, property tax, and other revenues that help sustain municipal services.
Economic Development Policy 6 -3.1: Diverse Industrial and Technology Uses – Provide for a variety of industrial uses to minimize the impact of industry -specific downturns on the local economy, to provide a range of job opportunities for local residents, and to provide opportunities for synergy between various industries.
Economic Development Policy 6 -3.2: Attracting Emerging Growth Industries – Recruit and retain emerging growth (indu stries with significant employment and performance potential) industries in order to increase employment opportunities for a wide range of skill levels and salaries to meet current and future employment, with an emphasis on industries such as high tech, biotech and clean tech that seek to locate in Silicon Valley.
Analysis
Since approval of The Globe Planned District in February 2007, the 22.4 -acre portion of the district proposed in this application for industrial redesignation and development has yet to develop with the intended commercial uses. Through coordination with the Economic Development Department it’s understood that a number of factors have contributed to the site remaining undeveloped in the years since The Globe Planned District was approve d.
These include the site’s location away from a high -traffic street frontage (such as Stevenson Boulevard), the rise in e -commerce shopping, and high overhead costs for traditional, brick and mortar retail -commercial spaces. These factors, in addition t o the unknown long -term impacts of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and its variants on the future of traditional retail shopping, have effectively eliminated near -term prospects for retail -commercial
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 7
development and clouded forecasts for long -term viability of re tail-commercial at the site.
Conversely, Economic Development staff highlight the current high demand for industrial land in the City and the greater Bay Area, particularly for uses such as product distribution, last-mile strategic locations, advanced man ufacturing, product development and testing.
This demand is contrasted by a low supply of available land and low vacancy rates for industrial / advanced manufacturing space in the City. The proposed project is seen as the best, most feasible use of the s ite, and the relative stability and strength of the industrial market would result in a high probability that the project remains financially viable for both the City and the developer in both the short- and long-term.
A comprehensive Market Assessment and Economic Benefits Analysis, prepared by Strategic Economics, a local leading economist, was also prepared for the proposed project. The Assessment supports and builds off the feedback received from the Economic Development Department. The Assessment de tails how retail growth in the City has slowed since 2014, and how the project site is already well served by existing regional -serving retail centers and is thus not well positioned to attract a similar type development. Furthermore, the Assessment finds that development of a new retail -commercial shopping center at the site would add supply to a relatively weak retail -commercial market and w ould require competing for demand against existing shopping centers, such as the nearby Pacific Commons, causing th em potential economic harm. The Assessment concludes that trends favor reinvestment in existing shopping centers, not the development of new ones. The site’s retail future is additionally hindered because it is not located abutting Interstate -880, a cond ition that could potentially result in the shopping center and appurtenant signage having relatively low visibility from motorists on the highway.
The Assessment finds that new industrial space at the project site would be well -positioned to attract a diverse array of uses due to the City’s direct access to Silicon Valley businesses and the City’s access to a workforce with a diverse range of education and specialized skills.
Though Fremont competes with neighboring and area jurisdictions for industrial t enants, the Assessment cites Fremont as the most desirable location for R&D and advanced manufacturing, particularly for pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical device manufacturing, electronic equipment, computer technology, and sustainability technologie s and products. Within the area, demand for space for these uses is highest in the area between Stevenson Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road, an area which encompasses the project site.
As detailed in the Assessment, the proposed project, as an industrial development, would be subject to Capital Facilities, Fire Facilities, and Traffic development impact fees, plus affordable housing fees. Below is a summary of estimated development impact fees and affordable housing fees for the project based on a calenda r-year 2022 building permit issuance:
Capital Facilities ($456/KSF for warehouse; $648/KSF for manufacturing): $189,170 Fire Facilities ($377/KSF for warehouse; $385/KSF for manufacturing): $149,336 Traffic ($3,503/KSF for warehouse; $2978/KSF for manufacturing): $1,329,532 Developer Impact Fees: $1,668,038
Affordable Housing ($4.64/SF for warehouse and manufacturing): $1,833,380
In addition to development impact and affordable housing fees, the proposed pr oject would generate annual sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and business tax revenue to the City. Industrial sales tax is less cyclical than retail -commercial sales tax generation, so the project would provide a reliable source of revenue to the City and contribute to the City’s
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 8
diversified tax base, which already benefits from a high industrial tax base. The Assessment estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately $130,000 in annual sales tax revenue, approximately $148,000 in annual secured property tax revenue, and approximately $16,500 in annual business tax revenue. Over a 10 -year period, with inflation and tax and accessed value increases factored in, operating revenues for the project could potentially total over $3 milli on dollars. The proposed project would also function as an employment center, bringing jobs to a site which has failed to generate jobs under its current land use designation and use allowances. The Assessment estimates that the proposed project could ge nerate approximately 650 jobs under the proposed land use allowances that would govern the site should the project be approved.
Furthermore, the project would feature significant public improvements including sidewalk and parkway improvements, the install ation traffic signals at two separate intersections, and an applicant community benefit pledge of $500,000, payable to the City as a lump -sum upon issuance of the first project building permit, to assist in targeted homeless services programs or other City initiative(s).
Zoning Regulations
The subject property is currently zoned P -2006-10, otherwise known as The Globe Planned District. The applicant is requesting a Rezoning of the site to a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, P -2021-160, to enabl e the construction of an industrial development consisting of approximately 370,000 square feet of floor area spread among three, one - story buildings. Per FMC Section 18.110.020, the standards governing development within a proposed Planned District shall be based upon the standards of the zoning district most similar in nature to the proposed use . In this case, the I -T zoning district, which is the designation governing land use and development on properties adjacent and abutting the site to the south and southwest, provided the basis for design of the proposed project.
The following table provides an overview of the project’s conformance with the development standards of the I-T zone:
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 398
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 9
In establishing a Planned District, the Planning Commission and City Council may approve exceptions to the straight application of base district standards – in this case those of the I - T zoning district – and to other standards of the zoning ordinance when it can be found that such exceptions or modifications encourage a desirable living environment and are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the precise plan, or provided to the community at large. However, a s the table shows, no deviations from the I -T zoning district development standards are sought for the proposed Planned District. The proposed project is fully compliant with current zoning development standards. The proposed Planned District Guidelines for the site would establish the I -T zoning district’s land use and development standards for future changes to the site, thereby ensuring consistency with these adjacent uses from a land use and development scale standpoint. Though specific tenants for each building are n ot known at this stage, contemplated project occupants including advanced manufacturing, research and development, and warehousing and distribution uses are permitted by-right in the I-T zoning district.
The following table provides an overview of the pr oject’s conformance with the on -site parking requirements applicable to each building:
Standard I-T Zone
Requirement
(FMC Table
18.50.030)
Proposed Project Compliant
(Yes/No)
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 SF Bldg 1 Parcel: 442,455 SF
Bldg 2 Parcel: 369,529 SF
Bldg 3 Parcel: 161,873 SF
Yes (All)
Minimum Lot
Width
70 Feet Bldg 1 Parcel: approx. 1,001 Feet
Bldg 2 Parcel: approx. 970 Feet
Bldg 3 Parcel: approx. 431 Feet
Yes (All)
Minimum Front
Setback
25 Feet (across
the street from
non-residential)
Bldg 1: 96’-6”
Bldg 2: 99’-8”
Bldg 3: 97’-4”
Yes (All)
Minimum Rear
Setback
None (adjacent to
non-residential)
Bldg 1: approx. 60 Feet
Bldg 2: approx. 60 Feet
Bldg 3: 92’-7”
Yes (All)
Minimum Side
Setback
(All Interior)
None (adjacent to
non-residential)
Bldg 1: 99 Feet (N)/87 Feet (S)
Bldg 2: 45 Feet (N)/94 Feet (S)
Bldg 3: approx. 45 Feet (N)/68 Feet
(S)
Yes (All)
Maximum Building
Height
75 Feet Bldg 1: 45 Feet
Bldg 2: 45 Feet
Bldg 3: 41 Feet
Yes (All)
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
0.35, except 0.45
for warehousing
and manufacturing
facilities
Bldg 1 :0.43 (warehouse/manuf.
use)
Bldg 2: 0.43 (warehouse/manuf.
use)
Bldg 3: 0.29 (R&D, advanced manuf.
use)
Yes (All)
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 10
As the table shows, all parking requirements for the proposed project would be met.
Parking required for each building would be located on their respective parcel with the exception of 29 stalls required for Building 2 that would be located on the Building 1 (three stalls) and Building 3 (26 stalls) parcels. As conditioned, these Building 2 off -site stalls would be subject to a restrictive covenant and signage tying them and restricting them to use of the Building 2 occupant(s). Of the 713 total automobile parking stalls, 73 would be designed for electric vehicle use and equipped with charging stations in a ccordance with building code regulations.
Rezoning to a Preliminary and Precise Planned District provides certainty about the look and layout of site development, as well as a higher level of oversight regarding future proposals that could change the character of the site. Additionally, approval of a specific development via a Planned District allows for more precise comparison of project impacts to those identified in the previously-prepared environmental analysis for the site.
Design Analysis
Site Planning:
The proposed project’s buildings are sited and oriented in such a way as to provide adequate setbacks from public streets and adjacent uses and conceal truck bays and related loading operations from public right -of-way view and view from neighboring properties.
Project frontages would feature wide, heavily -planted landscape buffers to conceal the surface parking and drive aisle areas that wrap each building and provide a buffer between neighboring developments. Since trucking operations would be req uired to utilize Encyclopedia Circle for site ingress and egress, drive aisles leading directly from the truck bays of each building to Encyclopedia Circle driveways would be 40’ in width, wider than Standard Requirement
(FMC Chapter 18.183)
Proposed Project Compliant
(Yes/No)
Minimum
Automobile
Parking Stall
Count
Bldg 1: 1.6 stalls / KSF
(305 total)
Bldg 2: 1.6 stalls / KSF
(253 total)
Bldg 3: 3.3 stalls / KSF
(155 total)
Bldg 1: 305 stalls
Bldg 2: 253 stalls
Bldg 3: 155 stalls
Yes (All)
Maximum
Compact Parking
Stall Count
35% of total Bldg 1: 23% (71 stalls)
Bldg 2: 0% (no compact
parking)
Bldg 3: 34% (53 stalls)
Yes (All)
Minimum Bicycle
Parking, Short -
Term
Bldg 1: 4 + 5% auto (20
total)
Bldg 2: 4 + 5% auto (17
total)
Bldg 3: 4 + 5% auto (12
total)
Bldg 1: 20 spaces
Bldg 2: 18 spaces
Bldg 3: 12 spaces
Yes (All)
Minimum Bicycle
Parking, Long -
Term
Bldg 1: 1 + 5% auto (17
total)
Bldg 2: 1 + 5% auto (14
total)
Bldg 3: 1 + 5% auto (9
total)
Bldg 1: 18 spaces
Bldg 2: 14 spaces
Bldg 3: 10 spaces
Yes (All)
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 400
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 11
drive aisles elsewhere within the project that are prima rily intended to serve as access to passenger vehicle parking. The buildings would be oriented such that their main entry areas are in prominent, public-facing locations and their truck bays and loading areas, trash enclosures, and above-ground utilities would be screened from view by either the buildings themselves or landscape treatments.
Architecture:
The proposed project’s buildings feature a contemporary industrial aesthetic with a consistent architectural theme. Building designs are fully -developed and well-executed and have been enhanced through the project’s multi -round staff -level review process. The concrete tilt-up paneled buildings feature increased articulation and double -height glazing at building corners to highlight these areas as locati ons of interior lobby and office space and convey a sense of openness and invitation. Building facades feature changes in plane to create relief and shadow lines, and bands of clerestory glass, color accents, and vertical sections of roofline variation ad d additional interest to the buildings. Building architecture has been designed to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Citywide Design Guidelines for non-residential building design.
Access/Circulation:
The project would take its access via two driveways along Albrae Street, three new driveways along Encyclopedia Circle, and via an existing drive aisle that currently serves commercial uses at the 6000 Stevenson Boulevard and 6044 Stevenson Boulevard properties and terminates at the projec t site boundary . Albrae Street access would be provided from one existing driveway that currently serves commercial uses at 6000 Stevenson Boulevard but would dually serve the proposed project, and one new driveway aligned with Walmart’s Albrae Street driv eway that would be subject to installation of a traffic signal for improved circulation and public safety. These driveways are each 26’ wide – too narrow to accommodate large trucks – and thus would be intended for passenger vehicle use only. Proposed Encyclopedia Circle access consist of two, 40’ wide driveways on the edges of the site for truck access and one interior driveway of 26’ width intended for exclusive passenger vehicle use. Direct access to Stevenson Boulevard from the project site would be provided by a connection to the aforementioned interior drive aisle that bisects the developed portions of The Globe Planned District. At its point of connection with the project site, a median would be installed to reduce lane widths such that large truc ks would not be able to use this as an Encyclopedia Circle bypass route. Emergency vehicle and truck turn template overlays applied to the proposed site plan have been reviewed by Fire Department and Transportation Division staff and been deemed consistent with City standards.
An Emergency Vehicle Access Easement would encircle each building, and Fire Department staff have verified that the necessary quantity of access points to the site have been provided. Since proposed driveways, drive aisles, and parking stalls cross proposed lot lines in certain instances, private ingress -egress and joint access easements are necessary and would be required as project conditions of approval.
Tree Removal/Replacement:
There are currently no on -site trees at the proj ect site owing to previous demolition and site-clearing activities at the site. A tree assessment prepared for the project identified the presence of seven street trees along the site’s Albrae Street frontage and 21 off-site, private protected trees in cl ose proximity to the site’s perimeter, with 20 of those trees located along its southeast border. These street trees – six chinese Pistache and one river she -oak – and off -site trees – a mix of callery pear, raywood ash, London plane, nichol’s gum, flaxleaf paperbark, blackwood acacia, and Mexican fan palm – would be preserved in place as part of project activities, and complemented by the additional planting of 207 new trees.
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 12
New tree plantings would be evenly spaced along the project’s street frontages, interior perimeters, and within the parking fields to create a cohesive, unified site appearance. Tree locations, quantities, and species have been deemed suitable and sufficient for the project by the City’s landscape architecture review staff.
Grading/Drainage:
The project site is generally level, with approximately 4’ or less of relief across the site.
Project grading activities would consist of preparing the site to accommodate the building pad and parking lots with a level fine grade. The project engineer estimates total project grading would consist of 35,114 ± cubic yards of cut and 46,903 ± cubic yards of fill, which includes 11,789± cubic yards of imported soils.
The Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) requires all new and redevelopment projects to incorporate measures to prevent pollutants from being conveyed in stormwater runoff and into the public storm drain system. This project would be required to comply with the MRP by incorporating source controls and treatment measures into the project design. Per the project’s stormwater management plan, the project would meet the quantitative storm water treatment requirements by constructing a total of 25 bioretention ponds and flow - through planters throughout the site. In order to conform to the quantitative performance criteria of the Countywide NPDES permit, the applicant may be required to incorporate additional treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to treat stormwater ru noff.
The stormwater treatment design would be integrated into the storm drain design for the project and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit approval.
Geologic Hazards:
The project site is not located within a special flood hazard area, an earthquake fault trace zone, or an earthquake-induced landslide zone. The site is, however, located within an area of potential earthquake -induced liquefaction. In accordance with the California Building Code, the applicant has commissioned and filed a geotechnical report prepared by a State - licensed geotechnical engineer that contains specific recommendations to mitigate the risk of damage to the project from liquefaction, including removal of undocumented fill and replacement with chemically -treated engineered fill, compaction, deep soil mixing below building foundations, and employment of deep foundations. This report will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and peer -reviewed by a City -commissioned geotechnical consultant during the building permit application process.
Public Improvements:
Improvements to the public rights -of-way adjacent to the project site would include a number of dedications and other exactions required by code and conditions of appr oval in order to offset the capital improvements to public infrastructure necessary to support the project. These include 3’ and 2.5’ sidewalk dedications along Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle, respectively, construction of full ADA sidewalk, curb, and intersection improvements, and new 7’ -wide parkways complete with ground cover, street trees, and irrigation systems on both street frontages. Additionally, as warranted by a signal analysis prepared for the project, the project’s primary Albrae Stree t driveway, designed to align with the adjacent Walmart driveway, would be subject to installation of a new traffic signal, as would the Encyclopedia Circle / Stevenson Boulevard intersection in order to efficiently accommodate truck movements to and from the project. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Circle roadway would be widened by approximately 10’ to bring the road into conformity with City standards. Each of these public improvements are required to accommodate the
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 13
use of public facilities and infrastr ucture in the vicinity of the site associated with construction and operation of the project.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In order to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the pr oject must be found consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. Based upon the above analysis, staff finds the proposed project would be in conformance with applicable standards and regulations and recommends approval of the following findings:
General Plan Amendment:
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.225.050, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council approval or approval with modifications of a proposed General Plan Amendment only when the following findings can be made:
(a) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and, where the amendment is to the text of the general plan, it is consistent with the other policies and chapters; and
(b) The proposed amendment furthers the public interest, convenien ce, and general welfare of the city.
Analysis: The proposed General Plan Amendment to designate the project site Tech Industrial will establish industrial land use allowances after a prior land use designation change from industrial to Regional Commercial failed over a period of 15 years to result in the envisioned site development. A land use change to Tech Industrial will facilitate a substantial investment in the site consisting of a three -building industrial employment center that will improve what’s currently a blighted, skipped -over urban site with a development that’s compatible in use and scale with surrounding uses, the majority of which are similarly industrial in nature and governed by the same I -T zoning district land use and development standa rds that the proposed development is designed in accordance to. The project will improve the site’s visual character and will support City innovation goals and enhance its strong industrial base, providing significant jobs and tax revenues. Public improvements such as fully redeveloped sidewalks and parkways along site frontages, the widening of the Encyclopedia Circle roadway to standard width, the installation of two new traffic signals – signals that have been found to be warranted even without the pro posed project – and an applicant pledge of a $500,000 community benefit for use on City initiatives will further the City welfare and interests.
Preliminary and Precise Planned District Rezoning:
Pursuant to FMC Section 18.110.070, the Planning Commissio n may recommend the establishment of a Planned District, and the City Council may by ordinance establish a Planned District, if the following findings can be made in support of the proposal:
(a) The Planned District is consistent with the City’s general plan and any applicable community or specific plan;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will conform to the proposed Tech Industrial designation, which supports and recognizes the essential role in the Silicon Valley economy and the high volume of business -to-business sales tax to the City that flexible industrial developments, such as the proposed project, contribute. The
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 14
proposed Planned District will support City mobility policies through significant improvement to the Albrae Str eet and Encyclopedia Circle rights -of-way, including the installation of traffic signals at two key intersections, and the funneling of project truck traffic to Encyclopedia Circle, away from more high -volume and commercially -oriented routes to minimize po tential conflicts. Additionally, the proposed Planned District will improve a vacant, long-blighted site that is not well positioned to attract new local - or regional-serving retail-commercial development, as evidenced by the lack of site development sinc e adoption of the current retail -commercial Planned District in place for the site and exacerbated by other factors such as the rise of e -commerce and the presence of established regional shopping venues in close proximity to the site, namely Pacific Commo ns and NewPark Mall (in Newark).
The proposed Planned District will be consistent with the site’s Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area location. As a flexible industrial development, the Planned District will further a number of goals of the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area, including supporting the Plan Area as a major employment center and revenue generator, contributing a healthy range of possible industrial uses to an industrially -dominant area of the City, and development of the site in a manner that’s compatible with adjacent uses.
(b) The precise plan and supplementary documents incorporate and conform to the required standards of FMC Section 18.110.020 and, where applicable, FMC Section 18.110.030;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Pre cise Planned District is suitable and sufficiently - sized for the project stie. The project has been designed to strictly comply with the standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, and FAR applicable to the I -T zoning district, a zoning designation consistent with the Tech Industrial land use designation proposed for the site and consistent and compatible with adjacent properties zoned for and developed with industrial uses.
(c) The uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and poten tial surrounding uses;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will consist of new industrial buildings of similar density and relative scale as those which currently occupy properties adjacent to the site. The uses proposed will enhance the industrial output and character of the area and support the goals of the Bayside Industrial Community Plan Area. Though the site is also adjacent to existing retail -commercial uses, the development has been designed to enhance street frontage s and the public realm, and truck loading bays and other industrially-oriented features of the project are located away from public view.
Furthermore, conditions of approval will require large trucks associated with the project to use Encyclopedia Circle for site access, eliminating the potential for traffic conflicts that would otherwise occur on Albrae Street and the proposed internal connection through The Globe to Stevenson Boulevard.
(d) The project provides suitable and adequate connections and capacity for both circulation and infrastructure to surrounding properties;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will provide suitable and adequate connections and capacity to surrounding properties through a variety of public improvements such as new sidewalks and parkways built to City standards along the site’s Albrae Street and Encyclopedia Circle frontages and the installation of traffic signals at the project’s primary Albrae Street intersection and the Stevenson Boulevard / Encycl opedia
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 15
Circle intersection. These improvements have been reviewed and found to be suitable for project needs and designed for compatibility with surrounding uses and properties.
(e) Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the development;
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will feature adequate utility infrastructure to support build -out of the project. Water, sewer, gas, stormwater, and electricity connections will be coordinated with City staff and service pro viders during the permitting phase of the project to ensure sufficient capacity for project implementation.
(f) Any exception or modification from standard ordinance requirements will encourage a desirable living environment and is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the precise plan or provided to the community at large; and
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned District will be designed and developed in strict accordance with the standards of the I -T zoning district. No exceptions or modifications from I -T zoning district standards or other standards of the Fremont Municipal Code are sought.
(g) The project substantially conforms to any applicable design guidelines.
Analysis: The proposed Preliminary and Precise Planned Dis trict will conform to the Citywide Design Guidelines, the design standards that will be applicable to development at the site as part of the new Planned District. In accordance with the Guidelines, site frontages feature wide, attractively-landscaped setback areas, and project buildings will be oriented towards the public streets in such a way as to provide contextual continuity along the frontages. The primary elevations of each building feature large amounts of transparent glazing, increased articulation, and pedestrian -oriented design features at potential lobby and office areas to reduce perceived scale. To maintain their clean aesthetic, service and truck loading areas are located at the rear of each building, hidden from public view and views from ne ighboring properties. All told, site design and project buildings will feature a high -quality design aesthetic that will complement existing uses and development in the project vicinity and enhance the visual quality of the site.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map:
Based on the analysis contained in the staff report, and pursuant to FMC Section 17.20.200 and Government Code Section 66474, proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11171 is in conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivisi on Map Act, and none of the following findings can be made:
(a) The map fails to meet or perform one or more of the requirements or conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map Act or Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions);
(b) The proposed subdivision, toge ther with the provisions for its design and improvements, is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
(c) The site is not physically suitable for the type or proposed density of development;
(d) The design of the subdivision or the proposed imp rovements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 16
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The design of the subdivision or the type or improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; and
(f) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the commission may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a c ourt of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
In addition, the following finding shou ld be made pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5:
(g) The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan or any specific plan in that the proposed subdivision, as designed, and the proposed land use and land use density are consistent and compatible with the objectives, policies, and programs of the proposed General Plan designation, as articulated in this report.
Tree Removal: Pursuant to FMC Section 18.215.070, in order to allow r emove existing private trees that are subject to protection under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the decision-making body must make the following finding:
(a) Development project plans currently filed for the lot indicate that it is necessary to dama ge, remove, or relocate the trees to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property or to achieve a superior project; and the trees cannot be preserved or left undamaged by a reasonably required redesign of the project.
Analysis: There are current ly no private protected trees on the project site, and no street trees within project-adjacent parkways or private protected trees on adjacent parcels will be removed as part of project activities.
CITY FEES
This project would be subject to citywide Dev elopment Impact Fees, including fees for fire protection, capital facilities, and traffic facilities. The project would also be subject to the affordable housing fees applicable to non -residential development. All applicable fees would be calculated and paid at the fee rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant may elect to defer payment of the fees in accordance with the City’s Impact Fee Deferral Program
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 specifies that an Ad dendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 17
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involveme nt 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 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; or
3) New information of substantial importance, whi ch was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR or negative declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A) The project will h ave 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 or negative declaration;
C) Mitigation measures or alternat ives 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 mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
An Environmental Checklist, commissioned by the City and prepared by consulting firm Lamphier-Gregory, was prepared for the project. The checklist summarizes the impact findings of The Globe EIR and analyzes whether impacts of the proposed project would fall within those identified in the prior EIR and whether new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the prior EIR would be introduced. The analysis, which was informed by a number of technical studies prepared t o assess the proposed project, found that the project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that there are no changes in circumstances that would re sult in the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and that there is no new information resulting in new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.
The recommended Addendum and supporting documents (Exhibit “A”) constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a Supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required under Section 15162 for implementation of the proposed Planned District. As detailed in the Environmental Checklist, the project is consistent with the previously - certified EIR fo r The Globe and would involve a change of use that is less in development
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 407
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 18
intensity than the previously analyzed and approved regional shopping center project. The updated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project reflects this decrease in intensity as well as subsequent changes to policies and regulations, including the introduction of universally -applied standard development requirements that address construction-period dust control and equipment emissions and guidelines for th e appropriate handling of contaminated soil (FMC Chapter 18.218) and the elimination of service -based impacts as a CEQA transportation evaluation metric, have resulted in the deletion of certain previously adopted mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures found to still apply to the proposed project have been restated in the Revised MMRP.
In conformance with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, notice of the proposed project was sent by certified mail and email on July 7, 2021 to th e fifteen Native American tribal representatives whose names and contact information were provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. At the time of completion of this report, no requests for consultation have been received.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Public hearing notification is applicable for the entitlements being requested. A total of 126 hearing notices were mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 300 square feet of the site, as well as all interested parties. The hearing noti ces were mailed on January 27, 2022. A Public Hearing Notice was also published by the Tri-City Voice on January 25, 2022.
The project was then continued by action of the Commission from the February 10, 2022 meeting to that certain date of February 24, 2022.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold public hearing.
Recommend that the City Council:
2. Adopt the Addendum and Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as shown in Exhibit “A,” and find on the basis of the whole record before it that the project i s consistent with the previously -certified EIR for site development, project changes reflect a decrease in intensity from the previously analyzed project, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project introduces significant effects on the environment or requires new mitigation, and that this action reflects the independent judgment of the City of Fremont;
3. Find that the General Plan Amendment, as shown in Exhibit “B,”conforms with and contains the requirements provided for in the City’s plan ning processes, constitutes a suitable and logical change in the plan for physical development of the City of Fremont, and is in the public interest.
4. Find the project is in conformance with the relevant provisions contained in the City’s General Plan, including the designated goals and polices set forth in the Land Use, Mobility, and Economic Development Chapters of the General Plan as enumerated in the staff report;
5. Find that the project plans for Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “D” and in the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET - Planning Commission Report (ID # 4553) Meeting of February 24, 2022 ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING PLN2021-00160 Page 19
shown in Exhibit “E” fulfill the applicable requirements set forth in the Fremont Municipal Code;
6. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land u se designation from Regional Commercial to Tech Industrial, as shown in Exhibit “B;”
7. Introduce an ordinance adopting Preliminary and Precise Planned District P -2021-160 as shown in Exhibit “C” (Planned District Rezoning) and Exhibit “D” (Preliminary & Precise Planned District Plans and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) and the accompanying Planned District Guidelines as shown in Exhibit “E,” based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;”
8. Approve the Vesting T entative Parcel Map as shown in Exhibit “D,” based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit “F;” and
9. Direct staff to prepare and the City Clerk to publish a summary of the resolution and ordinance.
ENCLOSURES
• Exhibit A – EIR Addendum & Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program • Exhibit B - General Plan Amendment
• Exhibit C - Planned District Rezoning
• Exhibit D - Preliminary & Precise Planned District Plans and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map • Exhibit E - Planned District Guidelines
• Exhibit F - Findings & Conditions of Approval
• Informational 1 - Planned District Statement
• Informational 2 – Architectural Design Statement
• Informational 3 – Market Assessment and Economic Benefits Analysis • Informational 4 – Transportation Impact Analysis
• Informational 5 - Public Correspondence
5.A.m
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: Informational 7 - Planning Commission Staff Report (4538 : ALBRAE INDUSTRIAL GPA & REZONING - 40517 ALBRAE STREET -