Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
Kittelson & Associates (Kittelson) recently prepared a local transportation analysis (LTA) for the Parcel Group 5 (PG 5) project which consists of analysis and recommendations focused on multimodal access and safety, traffic controls, traffic calming, and strategies to reduce project-generated vehicle trips. Due to resident concerns, Kittelson has also prepared this separate memo to analyze the proposed project access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard (the project includes extending Bunker Hill Boulevard from its current terminus). The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations on the appropriate access control for the proposed intersection.
This memorandum is organized into the following sections:
▪ Project Description
▪ Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) Traffic Operations Analysis ▪ LTA Sight Distance Analysis
▪ Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
▪ Traffic Control Recommendation and Conceptual Driveway Design ▪ Traffic Operations Analysis w/ Bunker Hill/Carlos Bee Access Control ▪ Summary of Findings
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Parcel Group 5 Project will consist of up to 74 single-family dwelling units and 8 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The single-family homes will each have four bedrooms, and the ADUs will be a mix of studios and one-bedroom units. A total of 406 parking spaces will be provided, consisting of 100 on-street spaces, 148 driveway spaces, and 158 garage spaces.
Additional project elements include approximately 10.50 acres of open space to preserve riparian areas, a new segment of the Hayward Foothill Trail, and additional street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking bulb-outs, utilities, and lighting.
The project site is shown in Figure 1. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.
The proposed project includes extending Bunker Hill Boulevard to Carlos Bee Boulevard to form a new intersection that would provide access to the northern portion of the project site. The PG 5 LTA analyzed this proposed access point as a side-street stop-controlled intersection, with vehicles exiting Bunker Hill Boulevard onto Carlos Bee Boulevard needing to stop.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
February 22, 2022 Project# 26855
To: Steven Chang and Leigha Schmidt – City of Hayward
From: Michael Sahimi and Damian Stefanakis – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Attachment XIV
February 22, 2022 Page 2
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1: Project Site
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 3
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 2: Project Site Plan
SOURCE: MACKAY & SOMPS
DATED MAY 12, 2021; RECEIVED MAY 18, 2021
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 4
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
PG 5 LTA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
In the PG 5 LTA, Kittelson analyzed the proposed access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard as a full access side-street stop-controlled intersection. The traffic operations analysis included a determination of the proportion of project traffic that will use the new access point plus assessments of level of service (LOS) and queuing with project trips added on top of existing weekday morning and evening peak hours. Figure 3 shows the Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the intersection.
Based on project trip distribution developed using the City of Hayward General Plan Update travel demand model, the project traffic anticipated to use the new access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard is lower than the amount anticipated to use the other two access points at Harder Road and Mission Boulevard. It was assumed that 20 outbound and 8 inbound vehicles would use the access point during the AM peak hour and 13 outbound and 23 inbound vehicles would use it during the PM peak hour.
Figure 3: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.)
LOS is used to describe the quality of intersection operations. LOS grades range from A to F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating high levels of congestion. According to City guidelines, the acceptable level of service at an intersection is LOS E. Additional information regarding City methodologies and standards are provided in the PG 5 LTA.
As shown in Table 1, based on the assessment conducted in the PG 5 LTA, it is anticipated that the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point would operate with acceptable LOS during both peak hours as a side-street stop-controlled intersection.
Table 1: Automobile Level of Service, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.) Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Acceptable LOS?
AM 16.1 C Yes
PM 14.9 B Yes
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.
Table 2 shows the anticipated 95th percentile queues at the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point. As shown in the table, none of the queues are expected to exceed the available storage.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 5
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 2: Queues, Existing Plus Project Conditions (Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd.) Peak Hour Movement Storage Length
(ft)
Queue (ft) Exceed
Storage?
AM NB Left 300 < 25 No
Right 70 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
PM NB Left 300 < 25 No
Right 70 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.
PG 5 LTA SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
The PG 5 LTA included an assessment of sight distance at the proposed access point at the new Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection. The line of sight for the exiting stop-controlled movements at this location was analyzed to ensure that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles to see pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles approaching the driveway. Line of sight was analyzed using standards and methodologies described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO standards were used to develop departure sight triangles at the intersection that should be unobstructed for vehicles to provide sufficient view of approaching vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Assuming a passenger car time gap of 8.5 seconds (based on AASHTO) and the posted speed limit of 30 mph along Carlos Bee Boulevard, the intersection sight distances were calculated, and recommended departure sight triangles are shown in Figure 4. As shown in the figure, 375 feet of sight distance is needed to the left (for exiting right-turning vehicles) and to the right (for exiting left-turning vehicles). Obstructions currently consist of trees. Therefore, the PG 5 LTA included a recommendation that when the Bunker Hill Boulevard intersection is being constructed, visual obstructions such as brush and landscaping should be cleared from the sight triangle area as shown in Figure 4 to provide adequate visibility.
Figure 4: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Departure Sight Triangles
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 6
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
In response to local resident concerns about the proposed traffic controls, Kittelson evaluated the proposed intersection against traffic signal warrants from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Traffic signal warrants are standards that provide guidelines in the determination of the need for a traffic signal (warrants studied are highlighted in bold).
The CA-MUTCD states: “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location…The investigation for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
▪ Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
▪ Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
▪ Warrant 3, Peak Hour
▪ Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
▪ Warrant 5, School Crossing
▪ Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
▪ Warrant 7, Crash Experience
▪ Warrant 8, Roadway Network
▪ Warrant 9, Intersection near a Grade Crossing
…The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.”1
This evaluation used available data (peak hour turning movement volumes and crash history) to conduct an analysis with respect to Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) and Warrant 7 (Crash Experience). Additionally, typical assumptions about the distribution of traffic throughout the day, based on peak hour counts, allowed for Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) to be studied.
Warrants 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were not applicable to this location and were not studied.2 Warrants 1 and 2, the eight-hour and four-hour volume warrants, are computed based on approach geometry (number of lanes) and vehicle volumes. Warrant 3, the peak hour signal warrant, is a function of approach geometry, volume, and vehicle delay. The CA-MUTCD advises that Warrant 3 “shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high- occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.”3 Based on the available data, the intersection does not meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3 in the AM peak hour or the PM peak hour. Warrant sheets are provided in Attachment 1.
For an intersection to meet Warrant 7 (crash experience), the intersection needs to have observed at least five crashes “of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal” within a 12-month period.4 Kittelson obtained the ten most recent years of crash data (January 2011 through December 2020) for the proposed access point location as well as the existing Tanglewood/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection, which is located approximately 100 feet away from the proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point; reported crashes were obtained from the University of California, Berkeley,
1 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.01
2 Warrants 4 and 5 are applicable for crossings without existing traffic control (i.e., STOP sign or traffic signal) to assist pedestrian crossings. Warrant 6 pertains to intersections that are part of a coordinated signal system, which this location is not. Warrants 8 and 9 are applicable to contexts not matching this site’s context. 3 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.04, 02
4 CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.08, 02B
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 7
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database and the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. This data is shown in Table 3; based on the reported crash history, the proposed access point location does not meet Warrant 7.
Note that while the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection currently does not exist, this crash analysis still includes crashes along the adjacent roadway segment which involve factors and traits that would be faced by vehicles using the proposed access point. In addition, it conservatively includes crashes at the adjacent Tanglewood intersection, since the two locations are linked and may need to be signalized as a single location.
Table 3: Reported Crash History, 2011-2020
Crash
Year
Road Users Involved Fatal Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only
Total
2011-
2020
Pedestrian Involved 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle Involved 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed Object
0 0 0 5 2 7
All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 5 2 7
2011 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 2 0 2
2016 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 1 1 2
2017 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 2 1 3
2020 All Reported Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: SWITRS, TIMS, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.
In conclusion, the proposed access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard does not meet the analyzed traffic signal warrants. As such, a traffic signal is not recommended at this location.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 8
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TRAFFIC CONTROL RECOMMENDATION AND CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY
DESIGN
While the proposed project access point location does not trigger a traffic signal warrant, triggering a warrant is not the sole determinant for an intersection improvement. The City can at its discretion require or not require a signal be installed, based on other factors. Relevant conditions around the access point location are discussed below.
▪ Visibility: It could be difficult for exiting left-turning drivers waiting at a stop sign to see and anticipate westbound vehicles along Carlos Bee Boulevard due to the curve in the road to the east; this can present additional safety concerns when combined with the grade and downhill speeds (discussed below).
▪ Grade and downhill speeds: There is a significant grade along Carlos Bee Boulevard, which could result in higher downhill speeds for westbound vehicles. This could cause conflicts for exiting left- turning vehicles at a stop sign that are waiting for a gap in eastbound and westbound vehicles to exit the project site.
▪ Proximity of Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection: The proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection would be approximately 700 feet away from the signalized Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection, and approximately 500 feet away from that intersection’s channelized eastbound right-turn. It is not recommended to install a traffic signal in such close proximity.
▪ Proximity of future Parcel Group 6 intersection: The proposed Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection would be approximately 950 feet away from the proposed signalized PG 6 access point. It is not recommended to install another traffic signal in such close proximity. ▪ Proximity of Tanglewood/Carlos Bee Boulevard intersection: Tanglewood is located approximately 100 feet west of the proposed project access point and consists of a full-access side-street stop- controlled intersection.
o It is not recommended to signalize the Bunker Hill Boulevard intersection with the unsignalized full-access Tanglewood intersection in such close proximity. o It may be infeasible to align Bunker Hill Boulevard with Tanglewood in order to construct a standard four-legged signalized intersection.
o Installing a traffic signal would require an offset signalized intersection that would control Bunker Hill Boulevard and Tanglewood with a single traffic signal. However, signalizing access to and from the City View Apartments via Tanglewood may face hurdles related to public/resident support, cost, and fair share contributions. o Implementing the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point as full-access side-street stop- controlled could result in conflicts in the two-way left-turn lane for vehicles entering and leaving both sites due to the close proximity.
o Implementing the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point as right-in-right-out with a median would conflict with exiting vehicles from Tanglewood.
Based on these conditions, the recommendation for the City is to implement limited access at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point, allowing inbound left‐turns and right‐turns but restricting exiting vehicles to right‐turn only. With this approach, the City can address potential safety concerns for exiting left-turning vehicles while still allowing full access for vehicles entering from the east or from the west.
Drivers that want to exit the project site and travel west along Carlos Bee Boulevard towards Mission Boulevard would need to make a right turn from Bunker Hill Boulevard followed by a U-turn at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection or another location upstream to continue westbound along Carlos Bee Boulevard. This would add approximately a quarter mile of additional travel for project traffic making the U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 9
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Potential conflicts between eastbound left-turning vehicles exiting Tanglewood onto Carlos Bee Boulevard and PG 5 trips turning westbound from Carlos Bee Boulevard onto Bunker Hill Boulevard, both using the two- way left-turn lane, are not anticipated. This is because there would be approximately 140 feet of storage available between Tanglewood and the new intersection, which is anticipated to be sufficient for vehicles exiting Tanglewood eastbound onto Carlos Bee Boulevard.
A conceptual layout is shown in Figure 5. As shown in the figure, exiting vehicles should be stop-controlled and restricted to right-turns only with a channelized right-turn lane that is physically separated by the inbound lane with a raised median. The channelization would orient vehicles to exit with a right turn into the eastbound direction and prevent a left-turn. The raised median should be mountable to ensure emergency vehicles can freely enter and exit Bunker Hill Boulevard. The inclusion of a channelized right-turn exit lane would require widening Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. In addition, since there is a striped shoulder lane on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard, a merge lane should be included so that vehicles can merge onto the thru-lanes in advance of the eastbound right-turn lane at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection. There is also sufficient space to include an inbound eastbound right-turn lane at the access point, to further aid visibility and safety.
As shown in the figure, a merge is recommended instead aligning the channelized right-turn with the third eastbound lane along Carlos Bee Boulevard. This is due to three reasons:
▪ To avoid extending an additional obstruction (the curbed channelization) into the road. ▪ To prevent the loss of the taper for eastbound cars to gradually enter the third through/right lane. ▪ To avoid weaving movements as cars enter and exit the third eastbound lane.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 10
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 5: Bunker Hill Blvd./Carlos Bee Blvd. Conceptual Layout
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 11
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS W/ BUNKER HILL/CARLOS BEE ACCESS
CONTROL
LOS and queuing at the project access point were reassessed given the recommended changes. In addition, due to the additional U-turns at the intersection of Carlos Bee Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard, LOS and queuing at that intersection were also reassessed. The updated LOS and queuing information is provided in Tables 4 and 5. As shown in Table 4, both intersections would operate with acceptable LOS.
Additional delay added to the Carlos Bee Boulevard and Hayward Boulevard intersection associated with project U-turns would be minimal.
Table 4: Updated Automobile Level of Service
Intersection Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Acceptable LOS?
Bunker Hill Blvd./
Carlos Bee Blvd
AM 11.9 B Yes
PM 11.4 B Yes
Carlos Bee Blvd./
Hayward Blvd.
AM 32.7 C Yes
PM 29.7 C Yes
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.
Table 5 shows the queues at both intersections, updated to reflect the recommended changes to the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point. As shown in the table, queues at the Bunker Hill Boulevard access point would continue to remain below the available storage. At the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection, the westbound left queue length would exceed the length of the turn pocket during the PM peak hour. However, the queue does not increase as a result of project trips and would exceed the turn pocket lane under no project conditions. In addition, while the left-turn pocket is approximately 185 feet long, vehicles can also use the two-way left-turn lane which runs for the entirety of the block.
Table 5: Updated Queues
Intersection Peak Hour Movement Storage
Length (ft)
Queue (ft) Exceed
Storage?
Bunker Hill Blvd./
Carlos Bee Blvd AM NB Right 300 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
PM NB Right 300 < 25 No
WB Left 600 < 25 No
Carlos Bee Blvd./
Hayward Blvd.
AM
NB Left 530 46 No
Thru/Right 530 33 No
SB Left/Thru/Right 60 29 No
EB
Left 80 31 No
Thru 600 142 No
Right 185 < 25 No
WB Left 285 426 Yes
Thru/Right 1,440 325 No
PM
NB Left 530 253 No
Thru/Right 530 95 No
SB Left/Thru/Right 60 25 No
EB
Left 80 31 No
Thru 625 157 No
Right 185 < 25 No
WB Left 285 174 No
Thru/Right 1,440 117 No
SOURCE: KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, 2022.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 12
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
In addition, an AutoTurn template was prepared to determine if passenger vehicles exiting from Bunker Hill Boulevard can make a U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection to travel westbound towards Mission Boulevard; the AutoTurn template is provided as Attachment 3 to this memo.
As shown in the attachment, it is possible for a full-size passenger vehicle to complete a U-turn movement to continue westbound; a U-turn can be made if the vehicle utilizes the extra width within the intersection, since the existing curb limits a U-turn. Relatively few project trips are expected to conduct this maneuver, based on the project trip distribution (15 in the AM peak hour and 10 in the PM peak hour). It is possible that some vehicles might make their U-turn maneuver elsewhere by utilizing the two-way left-turn lane west of the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection or by circling back at intersections further downstream and to the east.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following summarizes the findings based on the analysis Kittelson conducted related to the proposed PG 5 access point at Bunker Hill Boulevard and Carlos Bee Boulevard. ▪ The proposed access point does not meet eight-hour vehicular volume (Warrant 1), four-hour vehicular volume (Warrant 2), peak hour (Warrant 3), or crash experience (Warrant 7) traffic signal warrants. As such, a traffic signal is not recommended. ▪ Based on a review of conditions at the proposed access point such as visibility, grade and downhill speeds, and the proximity to other intersections, the recommendation for the City is to implement limited access at the Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard access point, allowing inbound left‐turns and right‐turns but restricting exiting vehicles to right‐turn only. With this approach, the City can address potential safety concerns for exiting left-turning vehicles while still allowing full access for vehicles entering from the east or from the west. Potential conflicts between eastbound left- turning vehicles exiting Tanglewood onto Carlos Bee Boulevard and PG 5 trips turning westbound from Carlos Bee Boulevard onto Bunker Hill Boulevard, both using the two-way left-turn lane, are not anticipated due to the 140 feet of available storage. Drivers that want to exit the project site and travel west along Carlos Bee Boulevard towards Mission Boulevard would need to make a right turn from Bunker Hill Boulevard followed by a U-turn at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection to continue westbound along Carlos Bee Boulevard.
The attached AutoTurn template shows that this U-turn maneuver is achievable by passenger vehicles; it is possible that some vehicles might make their U-turn maneuver by utilizing the two-way left-turn lane west of the intersection or by circling back at intersections further downstream/east. ▪ A conceptual layout of the access point was prepared, which shows that exiting vehicles should be stop-controlled and restricted to right-turns only with a channelized right-turn lane that is physically separated by the inbound lane with a raised median. The channelization would orient vehicles to exit with a right turn into the eastbound direction and prevent a left-turn. The raised median should be mountable to ensure emergency vehicles can freely enter and exit Bunker Hill Boulevard. The inclusion of a channelized right-turn exit lane would require widening Bunker Hill Boulevard at Carlos Bee Boulevard. In addition, since there is a striped shoulder lane on the south side of Carlos Bee Boulevard, a merge lane should be included so that vehicles can merge onto the thru-lanes in advance of the eastbound right-turn lane at the adjacent Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection (aligning the channelized right-turn with the third eastbound lane along Carlos Bee Boulevard is not recommended). There is also sufficient space to include an inbound eastbound right-turn lane at the access point, to further aid visibility and safety. ▪ This recommended change to the Bunker Hill access point traffic control would not negatively affect traffic operations at that intersection nor at the intersection of Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard.
▪ The change would add approximately a quarter mile of additional travel for project traffic making the U-turn at the Carlos Bee Boulevard/Hayward Boulevard intersection.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 13
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Traffic Signal Warrant Sheets
Attachment 2 – Updated Existing Plus Project Level of Service and Queuing Worksheets Attachment 3 – U-Turn at Intersection of Carlos Bee Blvd. and Hayward Blvd.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 14
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Attachment 1 – Traffic Signal Warrant
Sheets
Attachment XII
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB
(503) 228-5230 7:45 AM 8:45 AM 857 904 20 0
2nd Highest Hour 811 856 16 0
3rd Highest Hour 800 844 15 0
Project #: 4th Highest Hour 766 808 13 0
Project Name: 5th Highest Hour 754 796 12 0
Analyst: 6th Highest Hour 754 796 11 0
Date: 7th Highest Hour 720 759 11 0
File: 8th Highest Hour 708 747 10 0
9th Highest Hour 686 723 10 0
Intersection: 10th Highest Hour 640 675 10 0
Scenario: 11th Highest Hour 617 651 9 0
12th Highest Hour 606 639 9 0
13th Highest Hour 583 615 7 0
14th Highest Hour 503 530 7 0
15th Highest Hour 400 422 7 0
Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? 16th Highest Hour 377 398 6 0 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 263 277 4 0 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 217 229 4 0 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 114 121 1 0
#4 Pedestrian Volume No - 20th Highest Hour 80 84 1 0
#5 School Crossing No - 21st Highest Hour 69 72 1 0
#6 Coordinated Signal System No - 22nd Highest Hour 46 48 0 0 #7 Crash Experience Yes No 23rd Highest Hour 23 24 0 0
#8 Roadway Network No - 24th Highest Hour 23 24 0 0
#9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing No -
Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0
North-South Approach = Minor
East-West Approach = Major
Major Street Thru Lanes = 2
Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 A 600 150 0 No
Speed > 40 mph? No B 900 75 0 No
Population < 10,000? No A 480 120 0 No
Warrant Factor 100% B 720 60 0 No
Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 420 105 0 No
B 630 53 0 No
Major Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 89% A 336 84 0 No Major Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 83% B 504 42 0 No Minor Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 66%
Minor Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 52%
26151
Hayward Parcel Group 5
MZS
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Analysis Traffic Volumes
1/20/2022
Warrant #1 - Eight Hour
Warrant
Factor Condition Major Street
Requirement
Minor Street
Requirement
Hours That
Condition Is
Met
Condition for
Warrant Factor
Met?
Signal Warrant
Met?
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation
Analysis\Analysis\Access Point Additional
Analysis\warrants\peak hour\[ExistingPP_AM.xlsm]War
Input Parameters
Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.
Warrant Summary
Existing Plus Project AM
56% No
70% No
100% No
80% No
0 100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #2 - Four-Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #3 - Peak Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
Attachment XII
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB
(503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 799 687 13 0
2nd Highest Hour 756 650 10 0
3rd Highest Hour 746 641 10 0
Project #: 4th Highest Hour 714 614 9 0
Project Name: 5th Highest Hour 703 605 8 0
Analyst: 6th Highest Hour 703 605 7 0
Date: 7th Highest Hour 671 577 7 0
File: 8th Highest Hour 661 568 7 0
9th Highest Hour 639 550 7 0
Intersection: 10th Highest Hour 597 513 7 0
Scenario: 11th Highest Hour 575 495 6 0
12th Highest Hour 565 485 6 0
13th Highest Hour 543 467 5 0
14th Highest Hour 469 403 4 0
15th Highest Hour 373 321 4 0
Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? 16th Highest Hour 352 302 4 0 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 245 211 2 0 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 202 174 2 0 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 107 92 1 0
#4 Pedestrian Volume No - 20th Highest Hour 75 64 1 0
#5 School Crossing No - 21st Highest Hour 64 55 0 0
#6 Coordinated Signal System No - 22nd Highest Hour 43 37 0 0 #7 Crash Experience Yes No 23rd Highest Hour 21 18 0 0
#8 Roadway Network No - 24th Highest Hour 21 18 0 0
#9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing No -
Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0
North-South Approach = Minor
East-West Approach = Major
Major Street Thru Lanes = 2
Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 A 600 150 0 No
Speed > 40 mph? No B 900 75 0 No
Population < 10,000? No A 480 120 0 No
Warrant Factor 100% B 720 60 0 No
Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 420 105 0 No
B 630 53 0 No
Major Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 89% A 336 84 0 No Major Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 83% B 504 42 0 No Minor Street: 4th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 66%
Minor Street: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 52%
56% No
70% No
100% No
80% No
1/20/2022
Warrant #1 - Eight Hour
Warrant
Factor Condition Major Street
Requirement
Minor Street
Requirement
Hours That
Condition Is
Met
Condition for
Warrant Factor
Met?
Signal Warrant
Met?
H:\26\26151 - Parcel 5 Local Transportation
Analysis\Analysis\Access Point Additional
Analysis\warrants\peak hour\[ExistingPP_PM.xlsm]War
Input Parameters
Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.
Warrant Summary
Existing Plus Project PM
26151
Hayward Parcel Group 5
MZS
Hour Major Street Minor Street
Analysis Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #2 - Four-Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Higher Minor Street
Combined Major Street
Warrant #3 - Peak Hour
100% Warrant Factor
2 Major / 2 Minor
2 Major / 1 Minor
1 Major / 2 Minor
1 Major / 1 Minor
Traffic Volumes
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 15
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Attachment 2 – Updated Existing Plus
Project Level of Service and Queuing
Worksheets
Attachment XII
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (AM) + PG5
91: Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 851 6 2 917 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 851 6 2 917 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 100 150 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 2 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 925 7 2 997 0 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 932 0 - 463
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - - 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 730 - 0 546
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 730 - - 546
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.9
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 546 - - 730 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - 0.003 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.9 - - 9.9 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment XII
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (AM) + PG5 6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 473 383 370 860 2 42 1 59 1 13 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 473 383 370 860 2 42 1 59 1 13 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1856 1870 1900 1693 1900 1752 418 1441 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 550 0 430 1000 2 49 1 0 1 15 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 3 2 0 14 0 10 100 31 0
Cap, veh/h 35 777 466 1443 3 530 624 3 47 6
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.26 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5106 1610 1767 3639 7 1612 1900 0 78 1167 156 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 550 0 430 488 514 49 1 0 18 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1702 1610 1767 1777 1869 1612 1900 0 1400 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 8.6 0.0 19.8 19.1 19.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 8.6 0.0 19.8 19.1 19.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 35 777 466 705 741 530 624 56 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.71 0.92 0.69 0.69 0.09 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 108 1098 496 775 815 530 624 301 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 33.7 0.0 30.0 21.0 21.0 19.4 18.9 0.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 1.2 0.0 22.1 2.4 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 3.5 0.0 10.9 8.0 8.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.4 34.9 0.0 52.1 23.4 23.3 19.8 18.9 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C C B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 567 A 1432 50 A 18
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 32.0 19.8 42.3
Approach LOS D C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.0 26.6 17.2 7.9 6.1 37.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 23.5 18.0 18.0 5.0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 21.8 10.6 3.0 2.8 21.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Attachment XII
Queues Existing (AM) + PG5
6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 550 445 430 1002 44 75 18
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.62 0.28 0.87 0.60 0.09 0.15 0.16
Control Delay 45.1 35.9 0.4 51.5 20.5 23.4 8.4 39.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.1 35.9 0.4 51.5 20.5 23.4 8.4 39.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 91 0 196 156 14 2 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 142 0 #426 325 46 33 29
Internal Link Dist (ft) 851 575 459 181
Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 165 290
Base Capacity (vph) 107 1095 1615 492 1666 494 503 306
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.50 0.28 0.87 0.60 0.09 0.15 0.06 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Attachment XII
HCM 6th TWSC Existing (PM) + PG5
91: Bunker Hill Blvd. & Carlos Bee Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 781 18 5 692 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 781 18 5 692 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 100 150 - - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 2 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 849 20 5 752 0 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 869 0 - 425
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - - 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 771 - 0 578
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 771 - - 578
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 578 - - 771 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Attachment XII
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (PM) + PG5 6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 588 196 182 341 1 337 11 388 0 9 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 17 588 196 182 341 1 337 11 388 0 9 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1885 1885 1841 1870 1900 1870 1900 1885 1900 1248 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 676 0 209 392 1 387 13 0 0 10 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 44 0
Cap, veh/h 41 908 251 1080 3 625 666 0 51 51
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 5147 1598 1753 3636 9 1781 1900 0 0 532 532 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 676 0 209 192 201 387 13 0 0 0 20 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1716 1598 1753 1777 1869 1781 1900 0 0 0 1065 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 9.6 0.0 8.9 6.5 6.5 13.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 9.6 0.0 8.9 6.5 6.5 13.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 41 908 251 528 555 625 666 0 0 102 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.74 0.83 0.36 0.36 0.62 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 1110 351 623 655 625 666 0 0 249 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 30.1 0.0 32.1 21.3 21.3 20.7 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 2.2 0.0 11.3 0.4 0.4 4.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 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 0.5 4.0 0.0 4.5 2.7 2.8 6.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.0 32.3 0.0 43.4 21.7 21.7 25.3 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 LnGrp LOS D C D C C C B A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 696 A 602 400 A 20
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.6 29.2 25.0 33.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.5 15.5 18.1 11.9 6.2 27.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 15.4 16.6 18.0 5.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 10.9 11.6 3.3 2.8 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Attachment XII
Queues Existing (PM) + PG5
6: Carlos Bee Blvd. & Hayward Blvd.
Synchro 10 Report
Kittelson & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 676 225 209 393 348 498 20
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.64 0.14 0.67 0.28 0.56 0.59 0.15
Control Delay 39.7 31.0 0.2 41.3 17.6 24.9 7.0 27.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.7 31.0 0.2 41.3 17.6 24.9 7.0 27.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 96 0 84 48 122 14 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 157 0 #174 117 253 95 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 783 575 459 181
Turn Bay Length (ft) 80 165 290
Base Capacity (vph) 124 1175 1577 368 1436 625 844 354
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.58 0.14 0.57 0.27 0.56 0.59 0.06 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 16
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Attachment 3 – U-Turn at Intersection of
Carlos Bee Blvd. and Hayward Blvd.
Attachment XII
February 22, 2022 Page 17
Parcel Group 5 – Additional Bunker Hill Boulevard/Carlos Bee Boulevard Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Attachment XII