Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 754 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
28 [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15‐minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15‐minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Per Chapter 4 of the HCM 6th Edition, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (3)
3.7.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Indio and County of Riverside requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in Chapter 19, Chapter 20, and Chapter 32 of the HCM 6th Edition. (3) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 3‐2).
At two‐way or side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For all‐way stop and roundabout intersections, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.
TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS Description Average Control Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
Level of Service, V/C ≤
1.0 Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F
Source: HCM 6th Edition
3.8 REQUIRED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
City of Indio and County of Riverside (2) (1)
For the purposes of this study, it was considered that a significant impact would occur (a) if the proposed Project causes the level of service (LOS) to degrade to below LOS D, or (b) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to change from LOS E to LOS F. Additionally, significant impact would occur at the intersection level if the proposed Project causes an increase in delay of 2 seconds or more to an intersection already operating at LOS E; or 1 second or more to an intersection operating at LOS F, as indicated in Table 3‐3. 28
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 755 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
29 TABLE 3‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS “E” OR LOS “F” Significant Changes in LOS
LOS “E” An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more
LOS “F” An increase in delay of 1 second or more
For the purposes of this study, it was considered that a significant impact would occur (a) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to degrade to below LOS D, or (b) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to change from LOS E to LOS F.
Additionally, a potential significant impact would occur at the intersection level if the proposed Project causes an increase in delay of 2 seconds or more to an intersection already operating at LOS E; or 1 second or more to an intersection operating at LOS F, as indicated in Table 3‐3.
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 3‐3 for future traffic conditions.
A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when, with Project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement.
3.9 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to cumulative traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total future traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (GPBO 2040 Total Traffic – Existing Traffic) The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented previously in Table 1‐2.
3.10 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 3.7 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3‐4 which indicates that study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the exception of Jackson Street/Avenue 50 (#4). The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TIA.
29
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 756 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 19.0 19.8 B B 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 31.8 34.1 C C 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. ‐ Ave. 49 CSS 1* 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 16.5 19.8 C C 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 60.7 93.8 F F 5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr.
6 Heron Pl. / Avenue 49
7 Camito Rosarito / Avenue 49
8 Song Sparrow Pl. / Avenue 49 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]3‐4 Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Eastbound Westbound
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median TABLE 3‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS #Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2 Northbound Southbound
30
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 757 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
31 3.11 REQUIRED ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City of Indio and County of Riverside have established LOS D as the minimum level of service for their roadway segments. Consistent with City and County guidelines, the level of service E capacity has been established as the limit of acceptable capacity threshold for roadway segments. The capacities utilized for this analysis are consistent with the maximum daily capacity thresholds provided in the City of Indio General Plan and are summarized in Table 3‐5.
TABLE 3‐5: ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY THRESHOLDS
City Roadway Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (Vehicles per Day) Local 2‐Lane Undivided 9,000
Collector 2‐Lane Undivided 14,000
Modified Secondary 2‐Lane Divided 19,000
Secondary 4‐Lane Undivided 28,000
Primary 4‐Lane Divided 42,600
Major 6‐Lane Divided 61,100
Augmented Major 8‐Lane Divided 76,000
These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. As such, where the ADT volume based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, roadway widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes.
3.12 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 3‐6 provides a summary of the Existing conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the roadway segment capacity thresholds identified on Table 3‐5. As shown on Table 3‐6, the study area roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at acceptable LOS.
31
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 758 of 1319 Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
north of Dr. Carreon Boulevard Boulevard 4 42,600 20,300 0.48 between Dr. Carreon Boulevard and Avenue 48 Boulevard 4 42,600 16,700 0.39 between Avenue 48 and Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 Boulevard 4 42,600 17,100 0.40 between Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 and Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 15,600 0.49 south of Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 11,600 0.36 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 4 42,600 9,400 0.22 east of Jackson Street Collector 4 28,000 7,200 0.26 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 5 50,835 17,200 0.34 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 6 61,000 19,400 0.32 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 3 31,950 12,200 0.38 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 2 21,300 12,400 0.58 F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]3‐6 Avenue 50
Avenue 48
Jackson Street
1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of Indio General Plan Mobility Technical Report 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
TABLE 3‐6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS LOS E
Capacity2
Dr. Carreon Boulevard
32
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 759 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
33 3.13 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. The unsignalized study area intersections of Jackson Street/Odlum Drive (#3) and Jackson Street/Avenue 50 (#4) currently warrants a traffic signal for Existing (2021) traffic conditions. Existing and future conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.3. It should be noted that the unsignalized Project Driveway intersections and the future intersection of Camino Rosarito/Avenue 49 (#7) are not anticipated to meet warrants for future conditions. 33
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 760 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
34 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
34
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 761 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
35 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network.
The Project consist of 173 single family residential units. The land area for the Project site is shown as Residential ‐ Medium in the City of Indio General Plan land use map.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be fully occupied by 2023.
Access to Jackson Street from the Project will be provided via Plume Feather Drive and Avenue 49 via the following driveways:
Plume Feather Drive (at Jackson Street, Intersection #5) Heron Place (at Avenue 49, Intersection #6)
Song Sparrow Place (at Avenue 49, Intersection #8)
4.1 PROJECT TRIPGENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development and is based upon the specific land uses planned for a given project. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip‐generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition, 2017) manual for the proposed land use (ITE Land Use Code: 210 – Single Family Detached) is utilized. (4) Table 4‐1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 4‐1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,633 trip‐ends per day with 128 AM peak hour trips and 171 PM peak hour trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIPDISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the access to adjacent roadways. Exhibit 4‐1 presents the trip distribution patterns for the Project site.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project‐related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study in order to provide a conservative analysis of the Project’s potential to contribute to circulation system deficiencies.
35
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 762 of 1319 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 173 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 173 DU 33 95 128 107 64 171 1,633 F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]4‐1 Land Use
ITE LU
Code
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Results
36
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 763 of 1319 37
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 764 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
38 4.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, the resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes associated with the Project are shown on Exhibit 4‐2.
4.5 CUMULATIVEGROWTH TRAFFIC
4.5.1 AMBIENTGROWTH RATE
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 4.04 percent (2 percent per year over 2 years) for EAP and EAPC traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies, for EAPC traffic conditions.
4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area are included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario.
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Indio.
Exhibit 4‐3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4‐2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4‐2 are reflected as part of the background traffic. The resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes associated with cumulative projects are shown on Exhibit 4‐4.
4.5.3 NEAR‐TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 2% per year accounts for background (area‐wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2023 from the year 2021 (compounded 2% per year growth over a 2‐year period).
Project traffic is added to assess both forecast EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions.
Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are not included in the EAP (2023) traffic conditions.
38
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 765 of 1319 39
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 766 of 1319 13 SITE
11 7
10 12
1 3
2 4 6
5 9
8 JEFFERSON ST
MONROE ST
AVENUE 48
INDIO BLVD
JACKSON ST
50TH AVE
AVENUE 46
AVENUE 50
52ND AVE
HIGHWAY 111
MADISON ST
FRED WARING DR
AVENUE 52
GOLF CENTER
PKY
AVENUE 42
JEFFERSON
ST
INDIO BLVD
%&'(10
MILES AVE
CALHOUN ST
MADISON ST
CLINTON ST
AVENUE 44
51ST AVE
REQUA AVE
BURR ST
HJORTH ST
ODLUM DR
DOCTOR CARREON BLVD
AVENUE 45
KENNER AVE
49TH AVE
HEIFITZ DR
AVENUE 49
SIERRA AVE
CREST AVE
SIROCCO AVE DILLON AVE
EL DORADO DR
YOUNGS LN
WAYNE
ST
ALBI O N DR
DATE AVE
CALICO AVE
VALENCIA AVE
ELM ST
GRANT DR
SHIELDS RD
POMELO ST
JASPER PARK AVE
SHOWCASE PKY
AVENUE 43
TIGRIS AVE
3RD AVE
DIS N EY DR
JOHN NOBLES AVE JAS MIN E LN
PACINO
ST
MUIRFIELD DR
PLUM LN
ROCK ROSE DR
POE CT
VIA SO
RREN
TO
RECLINATA WAY
SAGE ST
SHASTA PL
PECOS PL
INDUSTRIAL PL
M
ARBELLA
CT
CALLE DIAMANTE
FAYE ST
MAJESTIQUE DR
WHEATLY CT
WAGON RD
GRANADA DR
FIG PL
ZENDA DR
LOREN CT
INDIO
LA QUINTA
COACHELLA
LA QUINTA
LA QUINTA
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
User Community
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP
N_
14156 - CD.mxd
40
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 767 of 1319 ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
Retail 350 TSF
Office 200 TSF
Hotel 370 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 516 DU
Hotel 117 Rooms
High Turnover (Sit‐Down) Restaurant 3.5 TSF
Restaurant (Fast Food w/ Drive Thru) 3 TSF
3 Mathis Outlet
(North of Hwy. 111 & west of Clinton St.) Discount home furnishing Superstore 50.0 TSF 4 Coachella Medical Center
(North of Dr. Carreon Bl., between Monroe & Arabia) Skilled Nursing Facility 288 Beds 5 College of the Desert Expansion
(South of Bliss, between Oasis and Towne) Junior Community College 45 TSF Fire Station Expansion 4.1 TSF
Police Headquarters Expansion 44 EMP
Government Office Complex 30.1 TSF
Polo Community
‐ Tract 37100‐1 (estimated unbuilt) Senior Adult Housing 58 DU ‐ Tract 37160 (estimated unbuilt) Senior Adult Housing 226 DU 8 Arroyo Crossing Multifamily Residential 220.0 DU
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 180 DU
General Office Building 10 DU
Industrial Park 107.22 TSF
Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 16 VFP
11 Majestic Indio Delivery Station 165.714 TSF
12 Jefferson Snellenberger Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 40.0 DU Hotel 150 Rooms
Shopping Center 30.5 TSF
Fastfood w/ Drive Thru 4.5 TSF
Gasoline/Service Station 18 VFP
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; EMP = Employees; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]4‐2 13 Citrus Plaza Expansion
TPC Indio
10 Indio‐Jefferson Business Park
TABLE 4‐2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Indio Public Safety Campus
(NEC Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.) 6
9 7
Polo Square
Home 2 Suites
1 2
41
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 768 of 1319 42
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 769 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
43 The near‐term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
EAP (2023)
o Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Project Traffic
EAPC (2023)
o Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Traffic
4.6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) VOLUMEDEVELOPMENT
Future horizon year 2040 traffic projections were derived from the City of Indio Mobility Technical Report, May 2016. (5) General plan buildout traffic volumes from the City of Indio were reviewed and necessary adjustments were made by applying a minimum growth of 10% over existing conditions to ensure that the volume projections exceed the estimated 2021 “typical/non‐COVID‐19” traffic volumes. Projections from the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) have also been considered.
43
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 770 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
44
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 771 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
45 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2023) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection and roadway segment operations.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
For the purpose of evaluating Avenue 49 with Project conditions, Tierra Del Sol residential traffic has been estimated based on the assumption that approximately 50 residential units in Tierra Del Sol would utilize the new connection to Avenue 49 to access Jackson Street. Table 1 shows the trip generation for Tierra Del Sol. The estimated Tierra Del Sol traffic volumes oriented to Avenue 49 are shown on Exhibit 5‐1.
It should be noted that the extension of Camino Rosarito to directly connect to Avenue 49 is anticipated to be constructed by others as an additional access for the Tierra Del Sol neighborhood (located on the north side of the future extension of Avenue 49) to connect to Jackson Street.
To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is included for EAP traffic conditions.
Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. EAP weekday ADT, AM, and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 5‐2.
5.3 EAP (2023) INTERSECTIONOPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5‐2, which indicate that the study intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS with the addition of ambient growth and Project traffic, consistent with Existing (2021). The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions is included in Appendix 5.1 of this TIA. Recommended intersection improvements for EAP conditions are shown on Exhibit 5‐3.
45
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 772 of 1319 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 50 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 50 DU 10 28 38 31 19 50 472
F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]5‐1 TABLE 5‐1: TIERRA DEL SOL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
(ESTIMATED TO BE ROUTED TO USE AVENUE 49 CONNECTION)
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Results
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
46
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 773 of 1319 47
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 774 of 1319 48
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 775 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 19.9 21.0 B C 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 32.7 35.8 C D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. ‐ Ave. 49
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop CSS 1* 1 0 1* 2 1 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 68.3 >80 F F ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 10 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 10.1 6.1 B A 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 73.8 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 37.1 36.9 D D 5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.1 14.1 B B 6 Heron Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 9.1 9.3 A A 7 Camito Rosarito / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 8.6 8.6 A A 8 Song Sparrow Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0000 1! 00 1 00 1 0 8.7 8.7 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]5‐2 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median;
0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
TABLE 5‐2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS 49
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 776 of 1319 50
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 777 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
51 5.4 EAP (2023) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Table 5‐3 provides a summary of the EAP (2023) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the County of Riverside Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 5‐ 3, all study area roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS based on the planning level daily roadway capacity thresholds.
51
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 778 of 1319 Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
north of Dr. Carreon Boulevard Boulevard 4 42,600 21,400 0.50 between Dr. Carreon Boulevard and Avenue 48 Boulevard 4 42,600 17,900 0.42 between Avenue 48 and Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 Boulevard 4 42,600 19,100 0.45 between Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 and Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 16,800 0.53 south of Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 12,200 0.38 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 4 42,600 10,000 0.23 east of Jackson Street Collector 4 28,000 7,600 0.27 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 5 50,835 18,400 0.36 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 6 61,000 20,500 0.34 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 3 31,950 12,800 0.40 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 2 21,300 12,900 0.61 F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]5‐3 Dr. Carreon Boulevard
Avenue 48
Avenue 50
1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of Indio General Plan Mobility Technical Report 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
TABLE 5‐3: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS LOS E
Capacity2
Jackson Street
52
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 779 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
53 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (EAPC) (2023) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection and roadway segment operations analyses.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of the following:
Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways).
6.2 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
To account for background traffic growth, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to an ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) for EAPC traffic conditions. EAPC weekday ADT, AM, and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 6‐1.
6.3 EAPC (2023) INTERSECTIONOPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAPC peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐1, which indicate that there are no intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of ambient growth, cumulative projects, and Project traffic, consistent with Existing (2021) and EAP (2023) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions is included in Appendix 6.1 of this TIA. Recommended intersection improvements for EAPC conditions are shown on Exhibit 6‐2. An initial draft concept striping plan shown on Exhibit 6‐3 demonstrates a potential roadway segment / intersection configuration in the vicinity of Jackson Street / Avenue 49 for access between Heron Place and Jackson Street on Avenue 49.
6.4 EAPC (2023) ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Table 6‐2 provides a summary of the EAP (2023) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the County of Riverside Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 6‐ 2, all study area roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS based on the planning level daily roadway capacity thresholds.
53
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 780 of 1319 54
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 781 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 25.4 26.6 C C 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 32.9 36.0 C D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. ‐ Ave. 49
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop CSS 1* 1 0 1* 2 1 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 10 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 10.2 8.5 B A 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 37.3 37.2 D D 5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 14.0 15.2 B C 6 Heron Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 9.1 9.3 A A 7 Camito Rosarito / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 8.6 8.6 A A 8 Song Sparrow Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0000 1! 00 1 00 1 0 8.7 8.7 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]6‐1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median;
0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS 55
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 782 of 1319 56
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 783 of 1319 57
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 784 of 1319 Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
north of Dr. Carreon Boulevard Boulevard 4 42,600 22,200 0.52 between Dr. Carreon Boulevard and Avenue 48 Boulevard 4 42,600 19,900 0.47 between Avenue 48 and Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 Boulevard 4 42,600 21,100 0.50 between Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 and Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 18,800 0.59 south of Avenue 50 Boulevard 3 31,950 14,200 0.44 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 4 42,600 13,100 0.31 east of Jackson Street Collector 4 28,000 9,500 0.34 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 5 50,835 18,600 0.37 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 6 61,000 20,800 0.34 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 3 31,950 13,200 0.41 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 2 21,300 13,400 0.63 F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]6‐2 Dr. Carreon Boulevard
Avenue 48
Avenue 50
1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of Indio General Plan Mobility Technical Report 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS LOS E
Capacity2
Jackson Street
58
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 785 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
59 7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop General Plan Buildout (2040) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and roadway segment operations analyses.
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (2040) traffic conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3‐1, in conjunction with other long‐range City roadway facilities that would be likely be in place by General Plan Buildout (2040) traffic conditions.
7.2 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Future General Plan Buildout 2040 traffic projections were derived from the City of Indio Mobility Technical Report, May 2016. (5) Adjustments have been made to the long‐range traffic forecasts where the volumes are lower than the current (2021) baseline condition.
Projections from the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) have also been considered. Exhibit 7‐1 shows the resulting General Plan Buildout (2040) without Project traffic volumes.
7.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS In order to provide a conservative analysis, the proposed Project has been added to the General Plan Buildout 2040 Without Project conditions. The ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes which can be expected for General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7‐2.
7.4 INTERSECTIONOPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under General Plan Buildout (2040) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7‐1. As shown in Table 7‐1, no additional study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS “E” or worse) during the peak hours under General Plan Buildout (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TA. Recommended intersection improvements for General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 7‐3. General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.2. Recommended intersection improvements for General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 7‐4.
59
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 786 of 1319 60
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 787 of 1319 61
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 788 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 38.3 47.5 D D 42.1 52.5 D D 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 43.7 46.8 D D 44.4 54.1 D D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. ‐ Ave. 49
Without Project
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop CSS 1* 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 49.2 55.9 E F ‐‐‐‐ ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 3.7 3.1 A A ‐‐‐‐ With Project
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop CSS 1* 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 ‐‐‐‐ >80 >80 F F ‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 ‐‐‐‐ 12.7 9.0 B A 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 2 01201 2 01 2 0 47.8 46.6 D D 49.0 47.8 D D 5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 ‐‐‐‐ 32.5 21.8 D C 6 Heron Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 ‐‐‐‐ 9.1 9.3 A A 7 Camito Rosarito / Avenue 49 CSS 0 1! 00000 1 00 1 0 ‐‐‐‐ 8.6 8.6 A A 8 Song Sparrow Pl. / Avenue 49 CSS 0000 1! 00 1 00 1 0 ‐‐‐‐ 8.7 8.7 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]7‐1 #Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
Without Project With Project
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median;
0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
Delay2
(Secs)
TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) CONDITIONS 62
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 789 of 1319 63
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 790 of 1319 64
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 791 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
65 7.5 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only; they are typically used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 7‐2 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Indio and County of Riverside’s roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐5. As shown on Table 7‐2, study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (2040) traffic conditions.
65
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 792 of 1319 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
north of Dr. Carreon Boulevard Boulevard 4 42,600 27,700 0.65 27,900 0.65 between Dr. Carreon Boulevard and Avenue 48 Boulevard 4 42,600 21,400 0.50 22,000 0.52 between Avenue 48 and Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 Boulevard 4 42,600 26,900 0.63 28,200 0.66 3 31,950 0.84 0.86
4 42,600 0.63 0.65
3 31,950 0.72 0.72
4 42,600 0.54 0.54
west of Jackson Street Boulevard 4 42,600 14,300 0.34 14,500 0.34 east of Jackson Street Collector 4 28,000 9,900 0.35 10,000 0.36 west of Jackson Street Boulevard 5 50,835 24,000 0.47 24,400 0.48 east of Jackson Street Boulevard 6 61,000 21,600 0.35 21,900 0.36 3 31,950 0.60 0.61
4 42,600 0.45 0.46
2 21,300 0.79 0.79
4 42,600 0.39 0.40
F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐03 Report.xlsx]7‐2 Boulevard
19,300 19,400
16,800 16,900
27,600
south of Avenue 50 Boulevard 22,900 23,100
Jackson Street
TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) CONDITIONS Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 Capacity2
Without Project
Dr. Carreon Boulevard
Avenue 48
1 1 = Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = Improvement 2 Source: City of Indio General Plan Mobility Technical Report 3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. west of Jackson Street
east of Jackson Street
Avenue 50
Boulevard
With Project
between Odlum Drive ‐ Avenue 49 and Avenue 50 Boulevard 26,900 66
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 793 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
67 8 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay‐ based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (6) Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory, the County of Riverside has prepared their Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (County Guidelines). (1) The City of Indio utilizes the December 2020 County of Riverside Transportation Guidelines for VMT assessments. Figure 3 of the December 2020 County Guidelines for VMT sets forth screening criteria under which Projects are not required to submit detailed VMT analysis. This guidance for determination of non‐significant VMT impact is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:
Small Projects with low trip generation based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables resulting in a 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year screening level threshold. Specific examples include Single Family Housing projects less than or equal to 110 Dwelling Units; Multi Family (low rise) Housing projects less than or equal to 147 Dwelling Units; retail buildings with area less than or equal to 60,000 sf, general office buildings less than or equal to 165,000 sf, and general light industrial buildings less than or equal to 179,000 sf., and warehouse (unrefrigerated) buildings less than or equal to 208,000 sf, Projects Near High Quality Transit within a half mile of an existing major transit stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods, Local Serving Retail with no single store on‐site exceeding 50,00 sf and determined to be local serving by the Engineering Department,
Affordable Housing with a high percentage of affordable units as determined by the Planning and Engineering departments,
Local Essential Service such as day care, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building less than 50,000 sf, government offices, or other uses deemed essential by the Engineering Department,
Map Based Screening within an area of development under threshold as shown on screening map allowed by the Engineering Department, and
Redevelopment Projects which replace an existing VMT‐generating land use and do not result in a net overall increase in VMT.
67
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 794 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
68 PROJECT RESIDENTIAL
The Project has been reviewed for VMT screening based upon its location within a low VMT‐ generating area and no further VMT analysis is needed.
Residential projects located within a low VMT‐generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. 68
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 795 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
69 9 REFERENCES
1. Riverside County Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guideines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.
2. City of Indio. General Plan. City of Indio : s.n., Adopted September 2019.
3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 6th Edition.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 10th Edition. 2017.
5. City of Indio. General Plan Update ‐ Mobility Technical Report. City of Indio : s.n., May 2016.
6. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California : s.n., December 2018.
69
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 796 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
70 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
70
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 797 of 1319 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Indio Coco Palms/TTM 38072
August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 Appendix C
Cultural Resources Monitoring Report (2015)
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 798 of 1319
CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORING REPORT
FOR THE LAS PLUMAS WEST PROJECT,
CITY OF INDIO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Roy Ziegler
Desert Mountain Developers, Inc.
1995 Market Street
Riverside, California 92501
Prepared by:
Tiffany Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
133 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Suite 201
Pasadena, California 91107
March 2015
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 799 of 1319 ii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Background ............................................................................1
1.2 Project Personnel .....................................................................................................1 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ............................................................................................4
2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................................4
2.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................4 3 CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORING ...................................................................5 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................7 5 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................8
APPENDIX
A Daily Work Records and Daily Monitoring Records
List of Figures
1-1 Project vicinity map .............................................................................................................2 1-2 Project location map ............................................................................................................3 3-1 Excavated retention basin in northern portion of the Project area .......................................6
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 800 of 1319 1 1
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Desert Mountain Developers, Inc. (Desert), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) provided archaeological monitoring services for grading and earthwork activities related to the Las Plumas West (Tentative Tract Map 33875) Project (Project), in the City of Indio, Riverside County, California. Desert is constructing a residential development located at the east side of Jackson Street and south of future Avenue 49. Archaeological monitoring for grading and earthwork activities was stipulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Conditions for the Project (City of Indio 2006a), which is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. The details and results of archaeological monitoring for the Project are presented herein.
1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The Project is located within the southeastern portion of the City of Indio (Figure 1-1).
Specifically, it is situated within the southwest quarter of Section 36 in T5S / R7E, San Bernardino Baseline Meridian, as depicted on the Indio 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Figure 1-2). The region experiences Mediterranean climate under the Köppen climate classification, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters (McKnight and Hess 2000:221–223). The Project consists of the development of 176 detailed single-family residences situated on 38.03 acres (ac) at the east side of Jackson Street and south of future Avenue 49. The Project encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 612-260-004, -006, and -012 and 612-280-003 and -004. The Project area is relatively level with a slight downward slope to the southeast; elevation of the property averages 30 feet (ft) below mean sea level.
According to the City of Indio’s General Plan (City of Indio 2006b), the Project site is located within an area of high sensitivity for cultural resources. As a result, several mitigation measures were recommended to reduce the impacts of the Project to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures were subsequently incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Conditions that was adopted by the City as part of the resolution approving Tentative Tract No. 33875 (the Project) (City of Indio 2006a) (see Section 2.2).
1.2. PROJECT PERSONNEL
For the Project, Dr. Tiffany Clark, RPA, served as Project Archaeologist/Project Manager, and Ms. Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, as Monitoring Coordinator. Construction monitoring was conducted by Ken Moslak. This report was authored by Dr. Clark. Æ also prepared a separate report that details the results of paleontological monitoring that was conducted in support of the Project (Clifford and DeBusk 2015).
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 801 of 1319 505
Miles
505
Kilometers
10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Feet °
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity map.
2 PROJECT AREA
PROJECT
AREA
Service Layer Credits: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEPWCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
SCALE 1:250,000
Date: 3/26/2015 Document Path: C:\Local Cloud\Shared\GIS\RoyZigler-Las Palmas-3067\Projects\Report Figures\Arch Survey Report - Date\Figure 1 Project Vicinity.mxd
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 802 of 1319
0.500.51
Miles
0.5 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Township 5 S. /Range 7 E., Section 36
°
Indio (1956, photorevised 1972), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Figure 1-2 Project location map.
3 PROJECT AREA
SCALE 1:24,000
Date: 3/26/2015 Document Path: C:\Local Cloud\Shared\GIS\RoyZigler-Las Palmas-3067\Projects\Report Figures\Arch Survey Report - Date\Figure 2 Project Location.mxd
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 803 of 1319 4 2
REGULATORY CONTEXT
2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Project is subject to compliance with CEQA. Therefore, cultural resource management work conducted as part of the Project shall comply with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15064.5, subsequently 14 CCR 15064.5), which directs lead agencies to first determine whether cultural resources are “historically significant” resources. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15064.5). Generally, a cultural resource shall be considered “historically significant” if the resource is 45 years old or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meets the requirements for listing on the CRHR under any one of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or,
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history [14 CCR 15064.5].
2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Conditions that were prepared for the Project and approved by the City include two measures that relate to cultural resources (City of Indio 2006a).
These include:
• Condition #92: Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have an archaeologist prepare a monitoring program to be approved by the project planner that outlines how grading and earthwork will be monitored to protect cultural resources. This program will identify when and how often a monitor will be on site to monitor earthwork activities.
Upon completion of the earthwork, such that a monitor is not longer needed, the monitor shall submit a report of monitoring to the project planner. • Condition #94: If any human remains are uncovered, the City, and the County Coroner shall be notified, and all activity at the site shall cease until the City provides clearance to resume grading or construction activities.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 804 of 1319 5 3
CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORING
On February 10, 2015, the crossed-trained archaeological and paleontological monitor (Ken Moslak) conducted a pedestrian survey of the property prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The primary objective of this survey was to identify any cultural remains that may be visible on the ground surface within the Project area. During the pedestrian survey, the monitor walked a series of parallel transects across the Project area spaced at 10-meter (m) (33-ft) intervals. All areas likely to contain or exhibit archaeologically or historically sensitive cultural resources were inspected carefully to ensure that visible, potentially significant cultural resources were discovered and documented.
Monitoring activities within the Project area commenced on February 11, 2014, and continued until March 4, 2015. The cross-trained monitor was present during all Project-related grounddisturbing activities in native sediments including grading and excavation; inspected spoils piles; and observed general grubbing, scraping, and clearing of material that occurred within the Project area. All monitoring activities, soil types, and the presence/absence of cultural materials were recorded using Daily Work Record and Daily Monitoring Record forms, which were submitted to Æ’s Monitoring Coordinator on a weekly basis; copies of these forms are available in Appendix A.
Sediments throughout the Project area were found to generally display a similar stratigraphy composed of eight distinct strata. The uppermost stratum (Stratum I) consists of the agricultural plow zone that is composed of a loosely compacted, dark grayish-brown silt loam. This stratum ranges from 20 to 60 centimeters (cm) in thickness and includes a low density of modern debris including concrete and plastic irrigation pipe fragments, small metal scraps, fragments of bottle glass, and introduced construction gravels. Gastropod shells occur throughout the plow zone at low to moderate densities. Stratum II is composed of a thin layer of dark grayish-brown clayey silt that may represent lacustrine deposits. Located approximately 60 to 65 cm below the ground surface (bgs), mottled patches of decomposed fine organics were noted throughout the strata; other inclusions include a moderate to high density of gastropod shells. The stratum is discontinuous across the Project area due to plow disturbance. Stratum III, located between 65 and 100 cm bgs, may represent an aeolian deposit consisting of a dark grayish-brown, very fine sandy silt with well-sorted sand grains. Extensive root and rodent disturbance was observed throughout the stratum. Although present, lower frequencies of gastropods were noted in Stratum III. Stratum IV is likely a lacustrine sediment composed of a dark grayish-brown clayey silt. Located between 100 and 127 cm bgs, small amounts of carbonate flecking and dendritic filaments are visible in the upper 5 to 10 cm of the stratum; small gastropod and bivalve shells are also present in relatively high densities.
The four lowermost strata (Stratum V to VIII) were only briefly exposed during excavations of one of the water retention basins (Figure 3-1). Brief descriptions of these strata are provided below:
• Stratum V (127 to 150 cm bgs) consists of a silty, very fine sand that was display fine laminations. This stratum may present an aeolian deposit;
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 805 of 1319 6 • Stratum VI (150 to 160 cm bgs) consists of a clayey silt that is likely a waterlain deposit; • Stratum VII (160 to 193 cm bgs) consists of silt sediments that are intermixed with thin bands of clayey silt to very fine sand; and
• Stratum VIII (193 cm to 220 cm) is a relatively compact, silty, very fine sand.
Figure 3-1. Excavated retention basin in the northern portion of the Project area.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 806 of 1319 7 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although a variety of modern agricultural refuse and debris was noted across the Project area, no historical or prehistoric archaeological remains were observed during monitoring activities.
Based on the findings of the monitoring program, no further cultural resource management of the Project area is recommended at this time. However, if further ground-disturbing activity is proposed in additional areas not covered by this and other previous studies within the Project area or if cultural resources are encountered during construction activities for the Project, further cultural resource consultation may be required.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 807 of 1319 8 5
REFERENCES
Clifford, Heather, and Jessica DeBusk
2015 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Las Plumas west Project, City of Indio, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for Desert Mountain Developers, Inc. by Applied Earthworks, Inc., Pasadena.
City of Indio
2006a Resolution No. 9173, Approval of Tentative Tract Map 33876, Las Plumas West Inc., Las Plumas West. City of Indio City Council, Indio, California. 2006b Environmental Initial Study for the Las Plumas Project, Tentative Tract Map 33875.
City of Indio, Community Development Department, Indio, California.
McKnight, Tom L., and Darrell Hess
2000 Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 808 of 1319
APPENDIX A
Daily Work Records and Daily Monitoring Records
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 809 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 810 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 811 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 812 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 813 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 814 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 815 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 816 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 817 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 818 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 819 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 820 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 821 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 822 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 823 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 824 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 825 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 826 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 827 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 828 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 829 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 830 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 831 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 832 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 833 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 834 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 835 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 836 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 837 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 838 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 839 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 840 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 841 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 842 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 843 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 844 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 845 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 846 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 847 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 848 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 849 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 850 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 851 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 852 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 853 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 854 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 855 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 856 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 857 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 858 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 859 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 860 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 861 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 862 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 863 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 864 of 1319 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Indio Coco Palms/TTM 38072
August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 86 Appendix D
Paleontological Monitoring Report (2015)
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 865 of 1319
PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT
FOR THE LAS PLUMAS WEST PROJECT, CITY OF INDIO,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs: 612-260-004, -006, and -012 and 612-280-003 and -004 Prepared for:
Roy Ziegler
Desert Mountain Developers, Inc.
55075 Monroe St.
La Quinta, California 92253
Prepared by:
Heather L. Clifford and Jessica L. DeBusk
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
133 N. San Gabriel Blvd., Suite 201
Pasadena, CA 91107-3414
March 2015
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 866 of 1319 ii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Description .............................................................................1
1.2 Project Background ..................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Personnel .....................................................................................................1 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .....................................................................................4
2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................................4
2.2 County of Riverside .................................................................................................4
2.3 City of Indio .............................................................................................................4
2.4 Professional Standards .............................................................................................5 3 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY .............................................................................6
3.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................................6
3.2 Geology and Paleontology of the Project Area ........................................................6
3.2.1 Quaternary Surficial Sediments ...................................................................6 4 METHODS .........................................................................................................................9 5 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 11 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................12 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................13 List of Figures
1-1 Project vicinity map .............................................................................................................2 1-2 Project location map ............................................................................................................3 3-1 Geologic units in the project vicinity and the paleontological sensitivity of the Project area ...........................................................................................................................8 4-1 Water retention basin in the Project area; maximum depth of excavation reached approximately 8 ft bgs, view to the northeast ....................................................................10 4-2 Overview of the Project area. Photograph shows scrapers performing grading operations in the Project area, view to the west .................................................................10
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 867 of 1319 1 1
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Desert Mountain Developers, Inc. (Desert), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) provided paleontological resource management services during excavation operations related to the Las Plumas West Project (Tentative Tract Map 33875) (Project) in the City of Indio (City), Riverside County, California (Figure 1-1). The paleontological tasks completed consisted of construction monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities within geologic deposits determined to be sensitive for paleontological resources. All paleontological tasks were performed in accordance to guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) and satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Desert proposes to construct a residential development located at the east side of Jackson Street and south of future Avenue 49 in the southeastern portion of the City. The Project consists of the development of 176 detailed single-family residences situated on 38.03 acres at the east side of Jackson Street and south of future Avenue 49. The Project encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 612-260-004, -006, and -012 and 612-280-003 and -004. Specifically, the Project is mapped within the southwestern quarter of Section 36 in Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Baseline Meridian, on the Indio, CA 7.5ʹ U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The elevation of the Project area averages 30 feet (ft) below mean sea level.
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
According to the City of Indio’s General Plan 2020 and the General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Report, the Project area is underlain by a geologic deposit that has a proven potential to yield significant vertebrate fossils; therefore, its paleontological resource potential (i.e., “sensitivity”) is deemed “high” in accordance to SVP (2010) (City of Indio 1993, 2006a, 2015).
As a result, in order to reduce the impacts of the Project to a level of less than significant, a paleontological monitoring program for grading and earthwork activities was stipulated in the Conditions of Approval (COA) for the Project and adopted by the City (City of Indio 2006b).
1.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL
Æ’s Paleontology Program Manager, Jessica DeBusk, served as Project Paleontologist, and Senior Archaeologist, Dr. Tiffany Clark, served as Project Manager for the Project. Construction monitoring was conducted by crossed-trained archaeological and paleontological monitor, Ken Moslak, from February 11 to March 4, 2015. Subsequent to monitoring, this report was authored by DeBusk and Associate Paleontologist, Heather Clifford. DeBusk provided a quality assurance (QA) review of this report and Clifford conducted the literature and geologic map review and served as the primary author of this report. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist Cari Inoway and Clifford produced all graphics. Associate Archaeologist, Roberta Thomas, served as Monitoring Coordinator. DeBusk has more than 12 years of professional experience as a consulting paleontologist and meets the SVP’s definition of a qualified professional paleontologist. A report detailing the results of archaeological monitoring was prepared separately by Æ (Clark 2015).
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 868 of 1319 505
Miles
505
Kilometers
10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Feet °
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity map.
2 PROJECT AREA
PROJECT
AREA
Service Layer Credits: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEPWCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
SCALE 1:250,000
Date: 3/26/2015 Document Path: C:\Local Cloud\Shared\GIS\RoyZigler-Las Palmas-3067\Projects\Report Figures\Arch Survey Report - Date\Figure 1 Project Vicinity.mxd
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 869 of 1319
0.500.51
Miles
0.5 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Township 5 S. /Range 7 E., Section 36
°
Indio (1956, photorevised 1972), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Figure 1-2 Project location map.
3 PROJECT AREA
SCALE 1:24,000
Date: 3/26/2015 Document Path: C:\Local Cloud\Shared\GIS\RoyZigler-Las Palmas-3067\Projects\Report Figures\Arch Survey Report - Date\Figure 2 Project Location.mxd
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 870 of 1319 4 2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are considered nonrenewable scientific resources because once destroyed, they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded protection under the various state and local laws and regulations.
2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Paleontological resources cannot be replaced once they are destroyed. Therefore, paleontological resources are considered nonrenewable scientific resources and are protected under the CEQA. Specifically, in Section V(c) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the “Environmental Checklist Form,” the question is posed: “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature” (Association of Environmental Professionals 2012). In order to determine the uniqueness of a given paleontological resource, it must first be identified or recovered (i.e., salvaged). Therefore, mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources is mandated by CEQA.
2.2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Paleontological resources are addressed under the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the Riverside County General Plan (2008), policies OS 19.8 and 19.9, which state the following:
OS 19.8: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain biological, paleontological, or other scientific resources, a report shall be filed stating the extent and potential significance of the resources that may exist within the proposed development and appropriate measures through which the impacts of development may be mitigated;
OS 19.9: When existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading activities, with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources, curate any resources collected with an appropriate repository, and file a report with the Planning Department documenting any paleontological [County of Riverside Planning Department 2008, p. OS-37].
The SABER Policy (Safeguard Artifacts Being Excavated in Riverside County) enacted in October 2011 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors mandates that any paleontological resources found or unearthed in the County of Riverside be curated at the Western Science Center in the city of Hemet. This new policy will be included as an amendment to the Multipurpose Element of the General Plan Update.
2.3 CITY OF INDIO
Paleontological resources are addressed under the Environmental Resources Chapter of the Goals and Policies Report in the Indio General Plan 2020, Volume I (1993). Section 4.8 specifically addresses the treatment of paleontological resources for which the following goal and policies are set forth:
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 871 of 1319 5 Goal CR-1: Preserve historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources for their scientific, educational, aesthetic, and cultural values.
Policy CR-1.1: Cultural Resource Constraints. Identify through appropriate research the presence and significance of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources (sites) and encourage land use planning that uses this information during the earliest stage of environmental review and/or during a project’s conceptual design phase.
Policy CR-1.2: Historic Preservation. Encourage the preservation of significant prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, historic buildings or structures, areas of traditional cultural significance, or paleontological formation/fossils.
Policy CR-1.3: Development Review. Ensure that adequate site review and mitigations are implemented for development sites in the Planning Area [p. 4-19 – 4-20].
In addition, the Project is subject to the following mitigation monitoring and reporting condition (COA), which was approved by the City (City of Indio 2006b):
Condition #93: Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a paleontologist prepare a monitoring program to be approved by the project planner that outlines how grading and earthwork will be monitored to protect paleontological resources. This program will identify when and how often a monitor will be on site to monitor earthwork activities. Upon completion of the earthwork, such that a monitor is no longer needed, the monitor shall submit a report of monitoring to the project planner.
2.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
Absent specific agency guidelines, most professional paleontologists in California adhere to guidelines set forth by SVP in “Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources” (SVP 2010). The guidelines establish detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological resource potential of a project area and outline measures to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during project development. In order to prevent project delays, SVP highly recommends that project developers retain a qualified professional paleontologist in the advance planning phases of a project to conduct an assessment and to implement paleontological mitigation prior to or during construction, as necessary. A qualified professional paleontologist is defined by SVP as “a practicing scientist who is recognized in the paleontological community as a professional and can demonstrate familiarity and proficiency with paleontology in a stratigraphic context.” Prior to the development phase of a project, SVP provides standard procedures to ensure an adequate paleontological resource assessment. These standard procedures apply to project areas underlain by geologic units determined to have a high, low, and undetermined paleontological sensitivity. The protocols and procedures for a standard paleontological resources assessment include the following elements: (1) literature search, (2) records search, (3) consultation with others, (4) field survey, (5) reporting, (6) agency confirmation, (7) repository agreement, and (8) pre-excavation meeting.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 872 of 1319 6 3
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Project area is located in the Coachella Valley within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province in California. The Colorado Desert extends from the Mojave Desert to the north, the Colorado River on the east, the Peninsular Ranges on the west, and south into Mexico.
Dominant features within the Colorado Desert include the Salton Trough, the Colorado River, and the Orocopia, Chocolate, Palo Verde, and Chuckwalla mountains (Norris and Webb 1976).
The Coachella Valley is located north of the Imperial Valley, within the Salton Trough, a large structural depression that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass in the north to the Gulf of Mexico in the south (Norris and Webb 1976). The Salton Trough is a graben structure, bounded by roughly parallel northwest-trending faults, including the San Andreas Fault Zone to the northeast, and the San Jacinto and Elsinore faults to the southeast (Alles 2011). During the Pliocene Epoch, the Salton Trough formed due to spreading and subsidence associated with the rift system that opened the Gulf of California, which still continues to undergo ~ 48 mm/yr of spreading.
The Salton Trough, including the Coachella and Imperial valleys, would currently be under water as part of the Gulf of California if not for millions of years of sedimentation from the Colorado River (Alles 2011). During the Pliocene to Early Pleistocene, sedimentation along the Colorado River resulted in the build-up of a substantial delta, which eventually separated the marine waters of the Gulf of California from the brackish and fresh waters of the Salton Trough (Ingwall 2008). Since the Late Pleistocene, the Salton Trough was periodically occupied by the freshwater Lake Cahuilla. The lake formed, drained, and reformed between approximately 37,000 to 300 years before present (B.P.) as a result of fluctuations in the course of the Colorado River, and the subsequent diversion of the river’s mouth from the Gulf of California to the Salton Trough (Deméré 2002; Norris 1979). Lake Cahuilla reached a maximum depth of 300 ft, 105 miles (mi) long, and 35 mi across at its last high stand at approximately 45 ft above sea level in the Coachella Valley.
3.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
The Project area is mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 by Lancaster et al. (2012) and 1:62,500 by Dibblee and Minch (2008). According to these published maps, the Project area is directly underlain by Quaternary age surficial sediments. The geology and paleontology of these deposits are described in the following sections and depicted in Figure 3-1.
3.2.1 Quaternary Surficial Sediments
The Quaternary alluvial deposits in the vicinity of the Project area consist of alluvial basin (valley), beach, aeolian, and lacustrine deposits composed of undissected to dissected, weakly consolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay, with abundant, non-mineralized mollusk fragments (Dibblee and Minch 2008; Lancaster et al. 2012; Norris 1979). Based on previous stratigraphic, archaeological, paleontological, hydrogeological, structural, and seismological studies, Holocene-age Lake Cahuilla lacustrine silt deposits are known to underlie the Quaternary alluvial deposits at shallow depth (Alles 2011; Deméré 2002; Norris 1979; Scott 2014; Waters 1983; Whistler et al. 1995). In turn, older Pleistocene-age ancient Lake Cahuilla deposits underlie the surficial to shallowly-buried Holocene-age lacustrine silt at moderate depth. The
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 873 of 1319 7 depth of the contact between the Holocene-age and Pleistocene-age Lake Cahuilla deposits in the Project area is unknown; however, radiocarbon dating derived from Lake Cahuilla deposits located approximately 5 mi south of Indio, indicate that lacustrine silt sediments at a depth of 20 ft below ground surface (bgs) have an age of approximately 4000 years B.P. (Waters 1983).
Therefore, Pleistocene-age ancient Lake Cahuilla sediments are likely present at a relatively moderate depth below the Quaternary alluvial deposits. The Pleistocene-age Lake Cahuilla deposits are generally composed of weakly consolidated, lacustrine sands, silts and clays, with tufa and travertine rock coatings, coarse alluvial deposits, and beach sands (Norris 1979; Waters 1983). The Pleistocene- to Holocene-age Lake Cahuilla sediments range from several feet deep at the margin of the Coachella Valley to as much as 300 ft thick in the center of the Salton Trough (Arnal 1961; Norris and Webb 1976).
Quaternary-age alluvial and lacustrine deposits derived from ancient Lake Cahuilla have proven to yield scientifically significant fossil mollusk shells within the Salton Trough (Scott 2014; Whistler et al. 1995). Fossil specimens of diatoms, spores, pollen, land plants, sponges, ostracods, freshwater gastropods, fresher bivalves, fish, and small terrestrial vertebrate have been recovered from the Pleistocene-age Lake Cahuilla Beds (Scott 2014). In addition, Holocene-age, non-mineralized (non-fossil) mollusk shells are also found in the Lake Cahuilla silt deposits; their recovery and subsequent dating have helped researchers with studies in archaeology, geology, and seismology (Norris and Webb 1976).
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 874 of 1319 gr
Qe
Qf
Qls
Qoa
Qof
Qsu
Qvof
Qye Qyf
Qyl
Tss
Qw
Qya
1 0 1 2
Miles
1 0 1 2
Kilometers
2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Feet
Township 5S/Range 7E, Section 36
°
Geologic Data: Lancaster et. al. (2012)
Figure 3-1 Geologic units in the project vicinity and the paleontological sensitivity of the Project area.
PROJECT AREA
Legend
Project Area
High Paleontological Sensitivity
Qe, Eolian and Dune Deposits, Late
Holocene
Qf, Alluvial Fan Deposits, Late Holocene
Qls, Landslide Deposits, Late Holocene
Qw, Alluvial Wash Deposits, Late Holocene
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, Mid-Early
Holocene
Qya, Young Alluvial Valley Deposits, MidEarly Holocene Qye, Young Eolian and Dune Deposits, MidEarly Holocene Qoa, Old Alluvial Valley Deposits, Late-Mid
Pleistocene
Qof, Old Alluvial Fan Deposits, Late-Mid
Pleistocene
Qvof, Very Old Alluvial Fan Deposits, Early
Pleistocene
gr, Granitic and other intrusive crystalline
rocks, Mesozoic and older
SCALE 1:80,000
Date: 3/26/2015 Document Path: H:\RoyZigler-Las Palmas-3067\Projects\Report Figures\Paleo Report - March 2015\Figure 3-1 Geology and Paleo Sensitivity.mxd Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, ©
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 875 of 1319 9 4
METHODS
During the course of ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project, a qualified crosstrained paleontological monitor was on site full-time to observe excavations that impacted Quaternary-age alluvial deposits. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project included removal of native sediments and existing pavement (e.g., ripping and scraping), deposition of fill material in order to obtain correct compaction levels, and trenching operations associated with the installation of a water retention basin. Excavation of sediments reached a maximum depth of 8 ft bgs and was primarily conducted by dozers, graders, and scrapers (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Monitoring consisted of the recordation of lithologic and stratigraphic data as well as the visual inspection of fresh bedrock exposures in excavated areas and trench sidewalls for the evidence of fossils or traces thereof. In addition, spoils piles were examined for the evidence of paleontological resources.
Construction monitoring was conducted by cross-trained archaeological and paleontological monitor Ken Moslak from February 11 to March 4, 2015. At the end of each day, the monitor completed a Daily Work Record and Daily Monitoring Record form that summarized daily activities, including the size and extent of ground disturbances and equipment used for excavation and grading; copies of these forms are available in Appendix A of the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report (Clark 2015). The monitor also provided lithologic descriptions of sediments observed during ground disturbances. The monitor was equipped with the appropriate tools and equipment necessary to quickly and efficiently collect any significant paleontological resources and associated data with minimal or no construction delays.
Additionally, the monitor was outfitted with a high-visibility safety vest, hard hat, and appropriate field attire and followed all on site safety rules and regulations.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 876 of 1319 10 Figure 4-1. Water retention basin in the Project area; maximum depth of excavation reached approximately 8 ft bgs, view to the northeast.
Figure 4-2. Overview of the Project area. Photograph shows scrapers performing grading operations in the Project area, view to the west.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 877 of 1319 11 5
RESULTS
During monitoring, ground disturbances associated with Project-related excavation activities impacted the upper strata of the highly sensitive Quaternary-age alluvial deposits to a maximum depth of approximately 8 ft bgs. Portions of the Quaternary alluvial deposits in the Project area were found to be previously disturbed to a depth of approximately 2–4 ft due to past agricultural activities and shallow soil development. Previously undisturbed Quaternary alluvial sediments were composed of unconsolidated, moderately- to well-sorted, massive to poorly bedded, tan to brown fine to very fine sand, silt, and clay with noticeably absent coarse lithic clasts. A mottled texture was widespread within the fine sand deposits as a result of rodent burrowing. Intact and fragmented modern bivalve shells were moderately abundant within the Quaternary alluvial deposits and were particularly common in the silt-rich deposits. Dominant taxa include the bivalve, Anodonta sp., and the gastropods, Tryonia protea and Physella humerosa. No paleontological resources were encountered from within the Project area during the course of construction monitoring.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 878 of 1319 12 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Grading and excavation operations directly impacted Quaternary-age alluvial deposits in the Project area, which were previously determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity; however, no paleontological resources (significant or non-significant) were encountered and the Project did not cause any adverse impacts to non-renewable fossil resources. No further paleontological resource management of the Project area is recommended at this time. However, because of the known sensitivity of the geologic deposits underlying the Project area, should any future site work occur that would impact the previously undisturbed Quaternary alluvial deposits, then a qualified paleontologist should be retained to conduct construction monitoring.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 879 of 1319 13 7
REFERENCES
Alles, D. L., 2011, Geology of the Salton Trough: Western Washington University, unpublished manuscript, 31 p., http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/GeologySaltonTrough.pdf (accessed March 2015).
Arnal, R. E., 1961, Limnology, Sedimentation, and Microorganisms of the Salton Sea, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 72, no. 3. p. 427–478.
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2012, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2012_wo_covers.pdf .
City of Indio, 1993, Indio General Plan 2020, Volume I: Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., adopted October 1993, amended April 20, 1994 and November 2, 1994, http://www.indio.org/index.aspx?page=787.
City of Indio, 2006a, Environmental Initial Study for the Las Plumas Project, Tentative Tract Map 33875: City of Indio, Community Development Department, Indio, California.
City of Indio, 2006b, Resolution No. 9173, Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 33875, Las Plumas West Inc., Las Plumas West: City Council of the City of Indio, adopted December, 6, 2006.
City of Indio, 2015, Existing Conditions Report, City of Indio General Plan Update: Prepared by Project Design Consultants and RECON, http://www.indio.org/index.aspx?page=787.
Clark, T. C., 2015, Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Las Plumas West Project, City of Indio, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for Desert Mountain Developers, Inc. by Applied Earthworks, Inc., Pasadena, California.
County of Riverside, 2008, County of Riverside General Plan, Updated 2008, General Plan Amendment No. 960, Public Review Draft, March 2014,
http://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/GeneralPlan.aspx (accessed March 2015).
Deméré, T. A., 2002, Silent Beaches – Ancient Lake Cahuilla and its geologic setting:
Biodiversity Research Center of the Californias, San Diego Natural History Museum, http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/research/paleontology/lakecahuilla.html (accessed March 2015).
Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2008, Geologic map of the Palm Desert & Coachella 15 minute quadrangles, Riverside County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-373, scale 1:62,500.
Ingwall, R., 2008, Park Paleontology, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, http://www.anzaborregopaleo.org/park_paleontology.html (accessed March 2015).
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 880 of 1319 14 Lancaster, J. T., Hayhurst, C. A., and Bedrossian, T. L., 2012, Palm Springs 30’x60’ quadrangle – Preliminary geologic map of Quaternary surficial deposits in Southern California:
California Geological Survey, scale 1:100,000,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/fwgp/Pages/sr217.aspx#palmsprings.
Norris, R. M., 1979, Lake Cahuilla High Shorelines in A.G. Sylvester, ed., Rifting, Transpression, and Neotectonics in the Mecca Hills, Salton Trough: Fall Field Trip Guide Book, September 25-26, 1999, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Pacific Section.
Norris, R. M., and Webb, R. W., 1976, Geology of California: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 378p.
Scott, E., 2014, Unpublished museum collections records: San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/8f/8fe02e8f-11a9-43b7-9953-cdcfaf4d69e3.pdf.
Waters, M. R., 1983, Late Holocene lacustrine chronology and archaeology of ancient Lake Cahuilla, California: Quaternary Research, v. 19, Issue 3, p. 373–387.
Whistler, D. P., Lander, E. B., and Roeder, M. A., 1995, A diverse record of microfossils and fossil plants, invertebrates, and small vertebrates from the late Holocene Lake Cahuilla beds, Riverside County, California in Remeika, P., and Sturz, V., eds., Paleontology and Geology of the Western Salton Trough Detachment, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California: San Diego Geological Society.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 881 of 1319 14156‐05 Phasing Memo
October 25, 2021
Ms. Nicole Criste
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 38072 TRAFFIC PHASING ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. Nicole Criste:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this traffic phasing assessment regarding the proposed Tentative Tract 38072 (“Project”), which is located east of Jackson Street and south of Odlum Drive (Avenue 49) in the City of Indio. As shown on Exhibit 1, the Project is anticipated to be developed in 5 phases. The focus of this assessment is on the initial 3 project development phases.
This assessment is a supplement to and contains analysis procedures consistent with Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021).
The site plan and development phasesfor the proposed Project are shown on Exhibit 1. Accessto Jackson Street from the Project will ultimately be provided via Plume Feather Drive and Avenue 49. However, phases 1 through 3 may initially be served by Plume Feather Drive (with supplemental emergency access provided if needed).
The Project is anticipated to be constructed as follows:
Phase 1 – 31 dwelling units
Phase 2 – 36 dwelling units
Phase 3 – 32 dwelling units
TRIP GENERATION
In orderto estimate the traffic characteristics ofthe Project,trip‐generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) TripGeneration (10th Edition, 2017)manualforITE LandUse Code 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) is utilized. Estimates of Project trip generation by phase for Phases 1 through 3 are shown on Table 1.
Asshown in Table 1, Phase 1 of the Project is anticipated to generate 293 trip‐ends per day with 23 AM peak hour trips and 30 PM peak hour trips. Phase 2 of the Project is anticipated to generate 340 trip‐ends per day with 27 AM peak hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips. Phase 3 of the Project is anticipated to generate 302 trip‐ends per day with 24 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips.
The total trip generation for Phases 1, 2, and 3 is anticipated to be 935 trip‐ends per day with 74 AM peak hour trips and 97 PM peak hour trips.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 882 of 1319 Ms. Nicole Criste
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
October 25, 2021
14156‐05 Phasing Memo
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the access to adjacent roadways. Exhibit 2 depicts the Project trip distribution pattern with public access initially limited to Plume Feather Drive for Phases 1, 2, and 3.
The resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes associated with Phase 1 are shown on Exhibit 3. Phase 1 adds 200 vehicles per day (VPD) to Jackson Street north of Plume Feather Drive. The Phase 1 volume on Plume Feather Drive east of Jackson Street is 293 VPD, with 23 vehiclesin the AM peak hour and 30 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
Exhibit 4 depicts the Project traffic volumes associated with Phases 1 and 2. Phases 1 and 2 add 500 VPD to Jackson Street north of Plume Feather Drive as shown on Exhibit 4. The Phases 1and 2 volume on Plume Feather Drive east of Jackson Street is 633 VPD, with 50 vehiclesin the AM peak hour and 65 vehiclesin the AM peak hour.
For development of Phases 1, 2, and 3, the resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 5. Phases 1, 2, and 3 adds 700 VPD to Jackson Street north of Plume Feather Drive. The Phases 1, 2, and 3 volume on Plume Feather Drive east of Jackson Street is 935 VPD, with 74 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 97 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
CUMULATIVE VOLUMES BY PHASE
The analysis of peak hour operations at study area intersections is provided for the following analysis scenarios:
Existing plus Ambient plus Project Phase 1 plus Cumulative (EAPC), Phase 1 Existing plus Ambient plus Project Phases 1 & 2 plus Cumulative (EAPC), Phases 1 & 2 Existing plus Ambient plus Project Phase 1, 2, & 3 plus Cumulative (EAPC), Phase 1, 2, & 3 Consistent with the Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021), the following intersections have been evaluated:
ID Intersection Location
1 Jackson Street / Dr. Carreon Boulevard
2 Jackson Street / Avenue 48
3 Jackson Street / Odlum Drive
4 Jackson Street / Avenue 50
5 Jackson Street / Plume Feather Drive – (Future Project Access)
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 883 of 1319 Ms. Nicole Criste
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
October 25, 2021
14156‐05 Phasing Memo
Background traffic volumes (existing, ambient growth, and cumulative projects) utilized in this phasing assessment are consistent with the Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021).
The resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes associated with EAPC Phase 1 are shown on Exhibit 6. On Jackson Streetsouth of Odlum Drive, the EAPC Phase 1 volume is 18,400 VPD, with 1,065 vehiclesin the AM peak hour and 1,418 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
Exhibit 7 depicts the Project traffic volumes associated with EAPC Phases 1 and 2. On Jackson Street south of Odlum Drive, the EAPC Phase 1 volume is 18,700 VPD, with 1,185 vehiclesin the AM peak hour and 1,446 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
For development of EAPC Phases 1, 2, and 3, the resulting daily and peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 8. On Jackson Street south of Odlum Drive, the EAPC Phase 1 volume is 18,900 VPD, with 1,105 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 1,472 vehicles in the PM peak hour.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
For Existing conditions, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS “D” or better) with the exception of Jackson Street / Avenue 50 (#4) according to the Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021). At the Jackson Street / Avenue 50 intersection, implementation of a traffic signal addresses this existing LOS issue. Project participation in the Jackson Street / Avenue 50 intersection improvements are recommended to be addressed through payment of fees in the July 2021 traffic analysis.
At the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive intersection, the Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021) indicates that a traffic signal is warranted in the existing condition.
However, acceptable peak hour LOS conditions occur without the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive signal for existing conditions.
Table 2 shows the intersection analysis results for cumulative conditions with Project Phase 1. At the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive intersection, LOS C is estimated for both the morning and evening peak hours with Phase 1 traffic included. Per the City of Indio’s General Plan, LOS D is the threshold for acceptable peak hour traffic conditions at intersections. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Phase 1 traffic conditions are included in Attachment 1.
Table 3 shows the intersection analysis results for cumulative conditions with Project Phases 1 and 2. At the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive intersection, LOS C is estimated for morning peak hour and LOS D is estimated for evening peak hour conditions with Phases 1 and 2 traffic included. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Phases 1 and 2 traffic conditions are included in Attachment 2.
Table 4 shows the intersection analysis results for cumulative conditions with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3.
At the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive intersection, LOS C is estimated for morning peak hour and LOS D is estimated for evening peak hour conditions with Phases 1, 2, and 3 traffic included.
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 884 of 1319 Ms. Nicole Criste
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
October 25, 2021
14156‐05 Phasing Memo
At the Jackson Street / Plume Feather Drive intersection, LOS B conditions are anticipated to occur for AM and PM peak hours for EAPC Phases 1, 2, and 3 with cross‐street stop sign control. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Phases 1, 2, and 3 traffic conditions are included in Attachment
3. CONCLUSIONS
For Project Phases 1, 2, and 3, cumulative traffic conditions have been evaluated with all public access to the site occurring on Plume Feather Drive. This condition serves up to 99 residential units, with acceptable peak hour traffic operations and without the need for a second full‐service connection along the Avenue 49 alignment.
The Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Report (Urban Crossroads, July 2021) recommends the extension of Avenue 49 to Jackson Street from the Project as well as installation of a traffic signal at the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive (Avenue 49) intersection with full occupancy of the Project. Based upon this traffic phasing assessment, these secondary access improvements and the Jackson Street / Odlum Drive (Avenue 49) signal improvement are not necessary until Project Phase 4 (100 Project residential units and above).
If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375‐2435 or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585‐ 0574.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE Principal Senior Associate
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 885 of 1319
MEADOWLARK PLACE MEADOWLARK PLACE HERON PLACE
AVENUE 49
RAVEN LANE
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 8
91011 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 4344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56575859606162 95 96979899100 101 102 103 104 105106 107 108 145 146 147 148 149150151 6867666564 63 7071727374 80 7978777675 818283848586 90898887 91929394 114 113 112 111 110 109 115 116 117 118 119 120 124 123 122 121 125 126 127 128 134 135 136 137 138139 140 141 142 143 144 130 129 131 132 133 156 155 154 153 158 159 160 161 152 157 27 28 29 30 2231 23 24 25 2019 18 1726 2112131415 16 173 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 69 172 JACKSON STREET ALULA WAY ORIOLE PLACE MOCKINGBIRD WAY
VERIO WAY
PLUME FEATHER DRIVE
FLAMENCO WAY KINGFISHER CT.
TATTLER LANE
PINTAIL LANE
THRUSH WAY SEAGULL PLACE
CUERVO WAY QUILL ROAD
VERDIN LANE SONG SPARROW PLACE 163 162 IN THE CITY OF INDIO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA VICINIT TEC C O N S U L T I N G HEI w w w . h e i t e c i n c . c o m Suite 309 Palm Springs, California 92262 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Phone: 760.340.9060
SITE AV
TTM 38072 APRIL 29, 2021 PHASING EXHIBIT PHASE 5: PHASE 4: PHASE 3: PHASE 2: PHASE 1: 37 LOTS - TRACT NO. 38072 - FINAL 37 LOTS - TRACT NO. 38072-4 32 LOTS - TRACT NO. 38072-3 36 LOTS - TRACT NO. 38072-2 31 LOTS - TRACT NO. 38072-1 5
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 886 of 1319 6
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 887 of 1319 7
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 888 of 1319 8
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 889 of 1319 9
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 890 of 1319 10
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 891 of 1319 11
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 892 of 1319 12
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 893 of 1319 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 varies DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 31 DU 6 17 23 19 11 30 293
31 DU 6 17 23 19 11 30 293
In Out Total In Out Total
PHASE 1:
Single Family Detached 210 31 DU 6 17 23 19 11 30 293
PHASE 2:
Single Family Detached 210 36 DU 7 20 27 22 13 35 340
67 DU 13 37 50 41 24 65 633
In Out Total In Out Total
PHASE 1:
Single Family Detached 210 31 DU 6 17 23 19 11 30 293
PHASE 2:
Single Family Detached 210 36 DU 7 20 27 22 13 35 340
PHASE 3:
Single Family Detached 210 32 DU 6 18 24 20 12 32 302
99 DU 19 55 74 61 36 97 935
F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐04 Phasing Report.xlsx]1 Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour
PHASE 1 TOTAL TRIPS
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
PM Peak Hour
Daily
PHASES 1, 2, & 3 TOTAL TRIPS
Phases 1 and 2 Trip Generation Results
PHASES 1 AND 2 TOTAL TRIPS
Phases 1, 2, and 3 Trip Generation Results
Phase 1 Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
13
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 894 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 22.2 25.5 C C 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 32.4 35.2 C D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. CSS 1* 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 19.1 24.4 C C 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 >80 >80 F F ‐ With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 37.0 36.8 D D 5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.0 13.9 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐04 Phasing Report.xlsx]2 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Level of
Service2
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PHASE 1 PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS #Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
TABLE 2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
14
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 895 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 120120120120 22.3 25.7 C C 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 220220121130 32.5 35.3 C D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. CSS 1* 1002110d000 19.4 25.1 C D 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 110120111110 >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 110120111110 37.0 36.8 D D
5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.5 14.4 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐04 Phasing Report.xlsx]3 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
# Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
TABLE 3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PHASES 1 & 2 PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS 15
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 896 of 1319
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Jackson St. / Dr. Carreon Bl. TS 120120120120 22.9 25.9 C C 2 Jackson St. / Avenue 48 TS 220220121130 32.7 35.6 C D 3 Jackson St. / Odlum Dr. CSS 1* 1002110d000 19.8 25.8 C D 4 Jackson St. / Avenue 50 AWS 110120111110 >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 110120111110 37.0 37.0 D D
5 Jackson St. / Plume Feather Dr. CSS 0 1 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.9 14.8 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; AWS = All‐Way‐Stop F:\UXRjobs\_14100‐14500\14156\Excel\[14156‐04 Phasing Report.xlsx]4 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Left‐Turn accommodated within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right Lane; 1 = Improvement Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
# Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PHASES 1, 2, & 3 PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS 16
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 897 of 1319 Attachment 1
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 898 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 86 212 77 30 294 69 140 601 34 50 377 112 Future Volume (vph) 86 212 77 30 294 69 140 601 34 50 377 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.4 21.0 9.5 20.1
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.3% 35.0% 15.8% 33.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
1-1
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 899 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 212 77 30 294 69 140 601 34 50 377 112 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 212 77 30 294 69 140 601 34 50 377 112 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 244 89 34 338 79 161 691 39 57 433 129 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 294 512 182 302 482 111 175 1471 83 91 1036 306 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2570 913 1781 2867 661 1781 3420 193 1781 2705 799 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 167 166 34 208 209 161 359 371 57 283 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1706 1781 1777 1751 1781 1777 1836 1781 1777 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 0.9 6.6 6.8 5.4 8.7 8.7 1.9 7.0 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 0.9 6.6 6.8 5.4 8.7 8.7 1.9 7.0 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 354 340 302 299 294 175 764 790 91 680 661 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.47 0.49 0.11 0.70 0.71 0.92 0.47 0.47 0.63 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 322 474 455 387 474 467 175 764 790 148 680 661 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.0 21.2 21.3 19.5 23.5 23.6 26.8 12.2 12.2 27.9 13.6 13.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.2 2.9 3.2 42.1 1.8 1.8 6.9 1.9 2.0 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 1.0 1.9 1.9 0.4 2.7 2.8 4.1 3.1 3.1 0.9 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.7 22.2 22.4 19.6 26.4 26.7 68.9 14.0 14.0 34.8 15.5 15.6 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C E B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 432 451 891 619
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 26.1 23.9 17.3
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.8 6.7 16.0 10.4 27.0 8.5 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.9 16.1 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 10.7 2.9 7.2 7.4 9.1 4.7 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
1-2
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 900 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 81 391 150 56 503 60 252 493 77 72 354 89 Future Volume (vph) 81 391 150 56 503 60 252 493 77 72 354 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 40.0 40.0 18.0 36.0 26.0 48.0 14.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 33.3% 33.3% 15.0% 30.0% 21.7% 40.0% 11.7% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 54 (45%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
1-3
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 901 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 391 150 56 503 60 252 493 77 72 354 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 391 150 56 503 60 252 493 77 72 354 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 420 161 60 541 65 271 530 83 77 381 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 111 1441 640 78 1790 212 341 1116 174 133 851 212 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4625 548 3456 3078 480 3456 2816 701 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 420 161 60 396 210 271 305 308 77 239 238 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1769 1728 1777 1782 1728 1777 1740 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 9.6 8.1 4.0 9.7 9.9 9.2 15.9 16.0 2.6 8.7 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 9.6 8.1 4.0 9.7 9.9 9.2 15.9 16.0 2.6 8.7 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 111 1441 640 78 1317 685 341 644 646 133 537 526 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.29 0.25 0.77 0.30 0.31 0.80 0.47 0.48 0.58 0.44 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1441 640 200 1317 685 619 644 646 274 537 526 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 24.1 23.6 56.8 25.5 25.6 52.9 29.4 29.5 54.4 18.3 18.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 0.5 0.9 14.9 0.6 1.2 4.2 2.5 2.5 3.4 2.3 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 3.9 3.1 2.1 3.8 4.2 4.1 7.0 7.0 1.1 3.2 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.0 24.6 24.6 71.7 26.1 26.7 57.1 31.9 32.0 57.9 20.6 20.8 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 668 666 884 554
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 30.4 39.7 25.8
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 53.2 16.3 40.8 12.0 50.9 9.1 48.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 35.5 21.5 31.5 17.5 31.5 9.5 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 11.6 11.2 10.9 7.8 11.9 4.6 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.6 2.5 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4
HCM 6th LOS C
1-4
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 902 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 73 24 7 584 450 18
Future Volume (vph) 73 24 7 584 450 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-5
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 903 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 584 450 18
Future Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 584 450 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 81 27 8 649 500 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1165 250 520 0 - 0
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 665 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 201 751 1044 - - -
Stage 1 575 -----
Stage 2 510 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 751 1044 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 336 -----
Stage 1 570 -----
Stage 2 510 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.8 0.1 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1044 - 336 751 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.241 0.036 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 19.1 10 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.9 0.1 - -
1-6
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 904 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Future Volume (vph) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-7
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 905 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 103
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Future Vol, veh/h 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 60 393 91 93 211 105 166 429 32 63 359 112
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 117.1 65.2 171.7 37.1
HCM LOS F F F E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 67% 0% 100% 52%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 33% 0% 0% 48%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 151 419 55 358 83 85 288 57 218 211 LT Vol 151 0 55 0 0 85 0 57 0 0
Through Vol 0 390 0 358 0 0 192 0 218 109
RT Vol 0 29 0 0 83 0 96 0 0 102
Lane Flow Rate 166 460 60 393 91 93 316 63 240 232
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.526 1.39 0.194 1.21 0.263 0.302 0.958 0.199 0.73 0.685 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.027 11.452 12.467 11.94 11.201 12.875 12.102 12.8 12.27 11.912 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 302 322 290 307 323 281 301 282 297 306
Service Time 9.727 9.152 10.167 9.64 8.901 10.575 9.802 10.5 9.97 9.612 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.55 1.429 0.207 1.28 0.282 0.331 1.05 0.223 0.808 0.758 HCM Control Delay 27.3 223.8 18.1 155.3 17.9 21.1 78.2 18.7 42.1 37 HCM Lane LOS D F C F C C F C E E
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 22.6 0.7 16.3 1 1.2 9.6 0.7 5.3 4.7 1-8
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 906 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Future Volume (vph) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.2 41.0 41.0 17.0 43.8 24.8 48.0 14.0 37.2 Total Split (%) 11.8% 34.2% 34.2% 14.2% 36.5% 20.7% 40.0% 11.7% 31.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
1-9
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 907 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 358 83 85 192 96 151 390 29 57 327 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 393 91 93 211 105 166 429 32 63 359 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 77 439 369 117 301 150 195 867 65 81 1177 362 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.88 0.88 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1575 1781 1174 584 1781 1718 128 1781 2674 822 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 393 91 93 0 316 166 0 461 63 237 234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1575 1781 0 1758 1781 0 1847 1781 1777 1719 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.5 11.0 0.0 19.8 4.2 2.6 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.5 11.0 0.0 19.8 4.2 2.6 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 77 439 369 117 0 451 195 0 932 81 782 757 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.90 0.25 0.80 0.00 0.70 0.85 0.00 0.49 0.78 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 569 479 186 0 576 301 0 932 141 782 757 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 44.5 37.3 55.3 0.0 40.4 52.5 0.0 19.6 54.0 4.2 4.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 14.0 0.3 11.7 0.0 2.7 13.0 0.0 1.9 15.1 1.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 12.5 2.1 3.1 0.0 8.4 5.4 0.0 8.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.9 58.5 37.7 66.9 0.0 43.1 65.4 0.0 21.5 69.1 5.2 5.2 LnGrp LOS E E D E A D E A C E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 544 409 627 534
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.5 48.5 33.1 12.7
Approach LOS E D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 65.1 12.4 32.6 17.7 57.3 9.7 35.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 43.5 12.5 36.5 20.3 32.7 9.7 39.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 21.8 8.2 26.4 13.0 4.7 6.0 21.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0
HCM 6th LOS D
1-10
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 908 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 14 577 1 5 469
Future Volume (vph) 3 14 577 1 5 469
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-11
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 909 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 14 577 1 5 469
Future Vol, veh/h 3 14 577 1 5 469
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 3 15 627 1 5 510
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 893 628 0 0 628 0
Stage 1 628 -----
Stage 2 265 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 296 482 - - 952 -
Stage 1 531 -----
Stage 2 756 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 295 482 - - 952 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 411 -----
Stage 1 531 -----
Stage 2 752 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13 0 0.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 468 952 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.039 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
1-12
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 910 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 359 206 36 295 71 126 562 35 68 723 100 Future Volume (vph) 152 359 206 36 295 71 126 562 35 68 723 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.3 21.0 9.5 20.2
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.2% 35.0% 15.8% 33.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
1-13
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 911 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 152 359 206 36 295 71 126 562 35 68 723 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 152 359 206 36 295 71 126 562 35 68 723 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 408 234 41 335 81 143 639 40 77 822 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 346 507 288 235 541 129 172 1301 81 107 1087 151 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2185 1239 1781 2846 679 1781 3397 212 1781 3134 435 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 331 311 41 207 209 143 334 345 77 466 470 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1647 1781 1777 1748 1781 1777 1832 1781 1777 1792 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 10.5 10.7 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.7 8.6 8.6 2.5 13.9 13.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 10.5 10.7 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.7 8.6 8.6 2.5 13.9 13.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 412 382 235 338 332 172 681 702 107 616 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.80 0.81 0.17 0.61 0.63 0.83 0.49 0.49 0.72 0.76 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 346 474 439 310 474 466 172 681 702 148 616 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.0 21.7 21.8 18.7 22.3 22.4 26.6 14.1 14.1 27.7 17.4 17.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 8.5 10.0 0.3 1.8 2.0 23.8 2.1 2.0 9.7 8.4 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 4.8 4.7 0.4 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 1.3 6.0 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.1 30.3 31.8 19.1 24.1 24.3 50.4 16.2 16.1 37.4 25.8 25.7 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 815 457 822 1013
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 23.7 22.1 26.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 27.0 7.0 17.9 10.3 24.8 9.5 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.8 16.2 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 10.6 3.1 12.7 6.7 15.9 6.7 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C
1-14
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 912 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 135 663 281 72 558 97 269 466 75 189 564 93 Future Volume (vph) 135 663 281 72 558 97 269 466 75 189 564 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 42.0 42.0 17.0 36.0 22.0 43.0 18.0 39.0 Total Split (%) 19.2% 35.0% 35.0% 14.2% 30.0% 18.3% 35.8% 15.0% 32.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
1-15
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 913 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 663 281 72 558 97 269 466 75 189 564 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 663 281 72 558 97 269 466 75 189 564 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 705 299 77 594 103 286 496 80 201 600 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 172 1419 630 98 1569 268 351 983 158 258 897 148 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4387 749 3456 3064 492 3456 3051 502 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 705 299 77 459 238 286 287 289 201 349 350 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1732 1728 1777 1779 1728 1777 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 17.8 16.8 5.1 12.0 12.3 9.7 15.7 15.8 6.7 16.0 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 17.8 16.8 5.1 12.0 12.3 9.7 15.7 15.8 6.7 16.0 16.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1419 630 98 1218 620 351 570 571 258 522 522 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.50 0.47 0.78 0.38 0.38 0.81 0.50 0.51 0.78 0.67 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 275 1419 630 186 1218 620 504 570 571 389 522 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 27.0 26.7 56.0 28.6 28.7 52.8 33.0 33.1 50.1 20.8 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 1.2 2.5 12.6 0.9 1.8 6.7 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 7.4 6.5 2.6 4.8 5.2 4.4 7.0 7.1 2.8 5.1 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.9 28.3 29.3 68.6 29.5 30.5 59.5 36.1 36.2 53.0 24.2 24.3 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E DDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1148 774 862 900
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.1 33.7 43.9 30.7
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 52.4 16.7 39.8 16.1 47.4 13.5 43.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 37.5 17.5 34.5 18.5 31.5 13.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 19.8 11.7 18.1 11.5 14.3 8.7 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.5 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.3 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.2
HCM 6th LOS D
1-16
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 914 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 60 25 21 626 746 74
Future Volume (vph) 60 25 21 626 746 74
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-17
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 915 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 626 746 74
Future Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 626 746 74
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 65 27 23 673 802 80
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1521 401 882 0 - 0
Stage 1 802 -----
Stage 2 719 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 600 765 - - -
Stage 1 403 -----
Stage 2 482 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 115 600 765 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 249 -----
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 482 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 20.5 0.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 765 - 249 600 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.259 0.045 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - 24.4 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 0.1 - -
1-18
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 916 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Future Volume (vph) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-19
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 917 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 154
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Future Vol, veh/h 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 41 305 141 108 367 115 98 423 33 137 549 95
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 68 246.9 225.6 86.6
HCM LOS FFFF
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 76% 0% 100% 66%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 24% 0% 0% 34%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 442 40 296 137 105 468 133 355 270 LT Vol 95 0 40 0 0 105 0 133 0 0
Through Vol 0 410 0 296 0 0 356 0 355 178
RT Vol 0 32 0 0 137 0 112 0 0 92
Lane Flow Rate 98 456 41 305 141 108 482 137 366 278
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.334 1.487 0.14 0.995 0.433 0.369 1.555 0.44 1.125 0.836 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.585 13.002 14.426 13.89 13.14 13.459 12.754 13.803 13.267 13.011 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 266 283 250 262 275 270 289 263 278 281
Service Time 11.285 10.702 12.126 11.59 10.84 11.159 10.454 11.503 10.967 10.711 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.368 1.611 0.164 1.164 0.513 0.4 1.668 0.521 1.317 0.989 HCM Control Delay 22.9 269.2 19.5 94.3 25.5 23.8 296.9 26.9 130.7 57.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C F D C F D F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 23.4 0.5 9.8 2.1 1.6 25.9 2.1 13 6.9 1-20
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 918 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Future Volume (vph) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 10.0 36.6 36.6 19.4 46.0 17.8 45.0 19.0 46.2 Total Split (%) 8.3% 30.5% 30.5% 16.2% 38.3% 14.8% 37.5% 15.8% 38.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
1-21
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 919 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 296 137 105 356 112 95 410 32 133 533 92 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 305 141 108 367 115 98 423 33 137 549 95 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 55 464 391 134 398 125 122 747 58 162 1388 239 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.92 0.92 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1575 1781 1362 427 1781 1712 134 1781 3029 522 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 305 141 108 0 482 98 0 456 137 321 323 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1575 1781 0 1789 1781 0 1845 1781 1777 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 17.6 8.9 7.2 0.0 31.3 6.5 0.0 22.2 8.9 2.8 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 17.6 8.9 7.2 0.0 31.3 6.5 0.0 22.2 8.9 2.8 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 55 464 391 134 0 522 122 0 805 162 814 813 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.66 0.36 0.81 0.00 0.92 0.80 0.00 0.57 0.85 0.39 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 82 500 421 221 0 619 197 0 805 215 814 813 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 40.5 37.3 54.6 0.0 41.2 55.1 0.0 25.3 48.3 2.8 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.8 2.8 0.6 10.8 0.0 17.8 11.3 0.0 2.9 20.3 1.4 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 8.1 3.4 3.5 0.0 15.6 3.2 0.0 9.7 4.4 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.4 43.4 37.8 65.5 0.0 58.9 66.3 0.0 28.2 68.6 4.3 4.3 LnGrp LOS E D D EAEEACEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 487 590 554 781
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.5 60.1 35.0 15.6
Approach LOS D E C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 56.8 13.5 34.3 12.8 59.5 8.2 39.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 40.5 14.9 32.1 13.3 41.7 5.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 24.2 9.2 19.6 8.5 4.9 4.7 33.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 3.7 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8
HCM 6th LOS D
1-22
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 920 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 9 638 4 15 756
Future Volume (vph) 2 9 638 4 15 756
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
1-23
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 921 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 PM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 9 638 4 15 756
Future Vol, veh/h 2 9 638 4 15 756
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 10 693 4 16 822
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1138 695 0 0 697 0
Stage 1 695 -----
Stage 2 443 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 208 441 - - 897 -
Stage 1 494 -----
Stage 2 615 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 204 441 - - 897 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 340 -----
Stage 1 494 -----
Stage 2 604 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 0 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 418 897 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.9 9.1 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1-24
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 922 of 1319 Attachment 2
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 923 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 86 212 78 31 294 69 143 604 35 50 378 112 Future Volume (vph) 86 212 78 31 294 69 143 604 35 50 378 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.5 21.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.5% 35.0% 15.8% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
2-1
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 924 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 212 78 31 294 69 143 604 35 50 378 112 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 212 78 31 294 69 143 604 35 50 378 112 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 244 90 36 338 79 164 694 40 57 434 129 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 294 507 182 303 482 111 178 1469 85 91 1032 304 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2562 920 1781 2867 661 1781 3415 197 1781 2706 797 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 167 167 36 208 209 164 361 373 57 284 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1705 1781 1777 1751 1781 1777 1835 1781 1777 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 1.0 6.6 6.8 5.5 8.7 8.7 1.9 7.1 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 1.0 6.6 6.8 5.5 8.7 8.7 1.9 7.1 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 352 337 303 299 294 178 764 789 91 677 658 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.48 0.49 0.12 0.70 0.71 0.92 0.47 0.47 0.63 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 322 474 455 384 474 467 178 764 789 148 677 658 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.0 21.3 21.4 19.4 23.5 23.6 26.8 12.2 12.2 27.9 13.7 13.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.2 2.9 3.2 41.7 1.8 1.8 6.9 1.9 2.0 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 1.0 1.9 2.0 0.4 2.7 2.8 4.1 3.1 3.2 0.9 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.7 22.3 22.5 19.6 26.4 26.7 68.5 14.1 14.0 34.8 15.6 15.7 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C E B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 433 453 898 620
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 26.0 24.0 17.4
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.8 6.8 15.9 10.5 26.9 8.5 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 6.0 16.0 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 10.7 3.0 7.2 7.5 9.2 4.7 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3
HCM 6th LOS C
2-2
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 925 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 81 391 151 58 503 60 257 500 81 72 357 89 Future Volume (vph) 81 391 151 58 503 60 257 500 81 72 357 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 40.0 40.0 18.0 36.0 26.0 48.0 14.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 33.3% 33.3% 15.0% 30.0% 21.7% 40.0% 11.7% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 54 (45%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
2-3
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 926 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 391 151 58 503 60 257 500 81 72 357 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 391 151 58 503 60 257 500 81 72 357 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 420 162 62 541 65 276 538 87 77 384 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 111 1436 638 80 1790 212 346 1110 179 133 849 210 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4625 548 3456 3063 493 3456 2820 697 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 420 162 62 396 210 276 311 314 77 240 240 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1769 1728 1777 1779 1728 1777 1741 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 9.6 8.2 4.1 9.7 9.9 9.4 16.3 16.4 2.6 8.9 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 9.6 8.2 4.1 9.7 9.9 9.4 16.3 16.4 2.6 8.9 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 111 1436 638 80 1317 685 346 644 645 133 535 524 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.29 0.25 0.77 0.30 0.31 0.80 0.48 0.49 0.58 0.45 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1436 638 200 1317 685 619 644 645 274 535 524 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 24.2 23.7 56.7 25.5 25.6 52.8 29.6 29.6 54.4 18.5 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 0.5 1.0 14.5 0.6 1.2 4.2 2.6 2.6 3.4 2.4 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 3.9 3.1 2.1 3.8 4.2 4.2 7.1 7.2 1.1 3.3 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.0 24.7 24.7 71.2 26.1 26.7 57.0 32.1 32.2 57.9 20.8 21.0 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 669 668 901 557
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 30.5 39.8 26.0
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 53.0 16.5 40.6 12.0 50.9 9.1 48.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 35.5 21.5 31.5 17.5 31.5 9.5 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 11.6 11.4 11.1 7.8 11.9 4.6 18.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.6 2.5 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.5
HCM 6th LOS C
2-4
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 927 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 73 24 7 600 455 18
Future Volume (vph) 73 24 7 600 455 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-5
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 928 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 600 455 18
Future Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 600 455 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 81 27 8 667 506 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1189 253 526 0 - 0
Stage 1 506 -----
Stage 2 683 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 194 747 1039 - - -
Stage 1 571 -----
Stage 2 501 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 192 747 1039 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 330 -----
Stage 1 566 -----
Stage 2 501 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.1 0.1 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1039 - 330 747 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.246 0.036 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 19.4 10 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.9 0.1 - -
2-6
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 929 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Future Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-7
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 930 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 103.8
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Future Vol, veh/h 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 62 393 91 93 211 107 166 429 32 64 362 113
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 117.9 66.2 173.1 37.7
HCM LOS F F F E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 66% 0% 100% 52%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 34% 0% 0% 48%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 151 419 56 358 83 85 289 58 219 213 LT Vol 151 0 56 0 0 85 0 58 0 0
Through Vol 0 390 0 358 0 0 192 0 219 110
RT Vol 0 29 0 0 83 0 97 0 0 103
Lane Flow Rate 166 460 62 393 91 93 318 64 241 234
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.527 1.394 0.198 1.213 0.264 0.302 0.963 0.203 0.735 0.691 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.061 11.486 12.5 11.973 11.234 12.907 12.132 12.825 12.295 11.936 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 300 322 289 307 322 280 302 282 296 306
Service Time 9.761 9.186 10.2 9.673 8.934 10.607 9.832 10.525 9.995 9.636 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.553 1.429 0.215 1.28 0.283 0.332 1.053 0.227 0.814 0.765 HCM Control Delay 27.4 225.6 18.3 156.6 17.9 21.1 79.5 18.8 42.7 37.6 HCM Lane LOS D F C F C C F C E E
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 22.7 0.7 16.4 1 1.2 9.7 0.7 5.4 4.8 2-8
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 931 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Future Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.3 41.0 41.0 17.0 43.7 24.8 48.0 14.0 37.2 Total Split (%) 11.9% 34.2% 34.2% 14.2% 36.4% 20.7% 40.0% 11.7% 31.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
2-9
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 932 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 390 29 58 329 103 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 393 91 93 211 107 166 429 32 64 362 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 80 439 369 117 298 151 195 866 65 82 1177 362 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.88 0.88 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1575 1781 1166 591 1781 1718 128 1781 2673 823 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 393 91 93 0 318 166 0 461 64 239 236 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1575 1781 0 1757 1781 0 1847 1781 1777 1719 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.7 11.0 0.0 19.8 4.2 2.6 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.7 11.0 0.0 19.8 4.2 2.6 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 439 369 117 0 448 195 0 931 82 782 757 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.90 0.25 0.80 0.00 0.71 0.85 0.00 0.50 0.78 0.31 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 569 479 186 0 574 301 0 931 141 782 757 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.7 44.5 37.3 55.3 0.0 40.6 52.5 0.0 19.7 53.9 4.2 4.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.7 14.0 0.3 11.7 0.0 2.9 13.0 0.0 1.9 14.9 1.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 12.5 2.1 3.1 0.0 8.5 5.4 0.0 8.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.4 58.5 37.7 66.9 0.0 43.5 65.4 0.0 21.6 68.8 5.2 5.2 LnGrp LOS E E D E A D E A C E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 546 411 627 539
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.5 48.8 33.2 12.8
Approach LOS E D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 65.0 12.4 32.6 17.7 57.3 9.9 35.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 43.5 12.5 36.5 20.3 32.7 9.8 39.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 21.8 8.2 26.4 13.0 4.7 6.1 21.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.6 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0
HCM 6th LOS D
2-10
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 933 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 30 577 3 10 469
Future Volume (vph) 7 30 577 3 10 469
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-11
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 934 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 30 577 3 10 469
Future Vol, veh/h 7 30 577 3 10 469
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 8 33 627 3 11 510
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 906 629 0 0 630 0
Stage 1 629 -----
Stage 2 277 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 291 481 - - 950 -
Stage 1 530 -----
Stage 2 746 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 288 481 - - 950 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 406 -----
Stage 1 530 -----
Stage 2 737 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 0 0.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 465 950 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.086 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.5 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0 -
2-12
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 935 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 359 209 37 295 71 128 564 35 68 726 100 Future Volume (vph) 152 359 209 37 295 71 128 564 35 68 726 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.4 21.0 9.5 20.1
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.3% 35.0% 15.8% 33.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
2-13
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 936 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 152 359 209 37 295 71 128 564 35 68 726 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 152 359 209 37 295 71 128 564 35 68 726 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 408 238 42 335 81 145 641 40 77 825 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 348 506 292 236 545 130 175 1296 81 107 1077 149 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2170 1252 1781 2846 679 1781 3397 212 1781 3136 433 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 333 313 42 207 209 145 335 346 77 467 472 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1645 1781 1777 1748 1781 1777 1832 1781 1777 1792 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 10.6 10.8 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.8 8.6 8.6 2.5 14.1 14.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 10.6 10.8 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.8 8.6 8.6 2.5 14.1 14.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 348 414 383 236 341 335 175 678 699 107 610 615 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.80 0.82 0.18 0.61 0.62 0.83 0.49 0.50 0.72 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 348 474 439 310 474 466 175 678 699 148 610 615 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.9 21.7 21.8 18.7 22.2 22.3 26.6 14.1 14.2 27.7 17.6 17.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 8.7 10.2 0.4 1.8 1.9 23.1 2.1 2.1 9.7 8.9 8.8 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 1.8 4.9 4.7 0.4 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 1.3 6.2 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.0 30.4 32.0 19.0 24.0 24.2 49.6 16.3 16.2 37.4 26.5 26.4 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 819 458 826 1016
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.6 23.6 22.1 27.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 26.9 7.0 18.0 10.4 24.6 9.5 15.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.9 16.1 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 10.6 3.1 12.8 6.8 16.1 6.7 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.7
HCM 6th LOS C
2-14
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 937 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 135 663 286 76 558 97 272 470 78 189 571 93 Future Volume (vph) 135 663 286 76 558 97 272 470 78 189 571 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 42.0 42.0 17.0 36.0 22.0 43.8 17.2 39.0 Total Split (%) 19.2% 35.0% 35.0% 14.2% 30.0% 18.3% 36.5% 14.3% 32.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
2-15
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 938 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 663 286 76 558 97 272 470 78 189 571 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 663 286 76 558 97 272 470 78 189 571 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 705 304 81 594 103 289 500 83 201 607 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 172 1387 616 103 1541 263 354 999 165 257 915 149 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4387 749 3456 3050 504 3456 3057 498 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 705 304 81 459 238 289 290 293 201 352 354 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1732 1728 1777 1777 1728 1777 1778 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 18.1 17.4 5.4 12.1 12.4 9.8 15.8 15.9 6.7 15.8 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 18.1 17.4 5.4 12.1 12.4 9.8 15.8 15.9 6.7 15.8 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1387 616 103 1196 608 354 582 582 257 532 532 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.51 0.49 0.79 0.38 0.39 0.82 0.50 0.50 0.78 0.66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 275 1387 616 186 1196 608 504 582 582 366 532 532 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 27.8 27.6 55.8 29.2 29.3 52.7 32.4 32.5 50.1 20.0 20.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 1.3 2.8 12.3 0.9 1.9 6.9 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.3 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 4.7 7.5 6.8 2.7 4.9 5.2 4.5 7.0 7.1 2.8 5.0 5.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.9 29.2 30.4 68.1 30.1 31.2 59.6 35.5 35.6 53.7 23.3 23.3 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E DDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1153 778 872 907
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.0 34.4 43.5 30.0
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 51.3 16.8 40.4 16.1 46.7 13.4 43.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 37.5 17.5 34.5 18.5 31.5 12.7 39.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 20.1 11.8 17.9 11.5 14.4 8.7 17.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.5 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.3
HCM 6th LOS D
2-16
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 939 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 60 25 21 636 764 74
Future Volume (vph) 60 25 21 636 764 74
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-17
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 940 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 636 764 74
Future Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 636 764 74
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 65 27 23 684 822 80
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1552 411 902 0 - 0
Stage 1 822 -----
Stage 2 730 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 114 591 751 - - -
Stage 1 393 -----
Stage 2 476 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 110 591 751 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 243 -----
Stage 1 381 -----
Stage 2 476 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.1 0.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 751 - 243 591 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.265 0.045 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - 25.1 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 0.1 - -
2-18
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 941 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Future Volume (vph) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-19
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 942 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 155.3
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Future Vol, veh/h 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 42 305 141 108 367 116 98 425 33 137 551 95
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 68 248.4 228.6 87.3
HCM LOS FFFF
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 76% 0% 100% 66%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 24% 0% 0% 34%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 444 41 296 137 105 469 133 356 270 LT Vol 95 0 41 0 0 105 0 133 0 0
Through Vol 0 412 0 296 0 0 356 0 356 178
RT Vol 0 32 0 0 137 0 113 0 0 92
Lane Flow Rate 98 458 42 305 141 108 484 137 367 278
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.335 1.495 0.144 0.995 0.433 0.369 1.559 0.44 1.128 0.837 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.597 13.015 14.45 13.914 13.164 13.479 12.772 13.829 13.293 13.037 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 266 284 250 262 275 268 290 262 275 281
Service Time 11.297 10.715 12.15 11.614 10.864 11.179 10.472 11.529 10.993 10.737 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.368 1.613 0.168 1.164 0.513 0.403 1.669 0.523 1.335 0.989 HCM Control Delay 23 272.6 19.6 94.4 25.5 23.9 298.7 27 131.8 58.2 HCM Lane LOS C F C F D C F D F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 23.7 0.5 9.7 2.1 1.6 26 2.1 13.1 6.9 2-20
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 943 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Future Volume (vph) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 10.0 36.6 36.6 19.4 46.0 17.8 45.0 19.0 46.2 Total Split (%) 8.3% 30.5% 30.5% 16.2% 38.3% 14.8% 37.5% 15.8% 38.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
2-21
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 944 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Future Volume (veh/h) 41 296 137 105 356 113 95 412 32 133 534 92 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 42 305 141 108 367 116 98 425 33 137 551 95 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 56 466 392 134 398 126 122 745 58 162 1386 238 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.91 0.91 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1575 1781 1359 430 1781 1713 133 1781 3031 521 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 305 141 108 0 483 98 0 458 137 322 324 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1575 1781 0 1789 1781 0 1846 1781 1777 1775 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 17.6 8.9 7.2 0.0 31.4 6.5 0.0 22.4 8.9 2.9 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 17.6 8.9 7.2 0.0 31.4 6.5 0.0 22.4 8.9 2.9 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 56 466 392 134 0 523 122 0 803 162 812 811 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.66 0.36 0.81 0.00 0.92 0.80 0.00 0.57 0.85 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 82 500 421 221 0 619 197 0 803 215 812 811 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 40.4 37.2 54.6 0.0 41.1 55.1 0.0 25.5 48.3 2.9 2.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 2.8 0.6 10.8 0.0 17.9 11.3 0.0 2.9 20.3 1.4 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 8.1 3.4 3.5 0.0 15.7 3.2 0.0 9.8 4.4 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.4 43.2 37.7 65.5 0.0 59.0 66.3 0.0 28.4 68.6 4.4 4.4 LnGrp LOS E D D EAEEACEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 488 591 556 783
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.6 60.2 35.1 15.6
Approach LOS D E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.4 56.7 13.5 34.4 12.8 59.4 8.3 39.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 40.5 14.9 32.1 13.3 41.7 5.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 24.4 9.2 19.6 8.5 4.9 4.8 33.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 3.7 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8
HCM 6th LOS D
2-22
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 945 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 19 638 8 33 756
Future Volume (vph) 5 19 638 8 33 756
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
2-23
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 946 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1 & 2 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 19 638 8 33 756
Future Vol, veh/h 5 19 638 8 33 756
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 21 693 9 36 822
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1181 698 0 0 702 0
Stage 1 698 -----
Stage 2 483 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 440 - - 893 -
Stage 1 493 -----
Stage 2 587 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 188 440 - - 893 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 325 -----
Stage 1 493 -----
Stage 2 564 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 0 0.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 410 893 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.064 0.04 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.4 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
2-24
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 947 of 1319 Attachment 3
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 948 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 86 212 79 31 294 69 145 606 36 50 379 112 Future Volume (vph) 86 212 79 31 294 69 145 606 36 50 379 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
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 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.4 21.0 9.5 20.1
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.3% 35.0% 15.8% 33.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
3-1
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 949 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 212 79 31 294 69 145 606 36 50 379 112 Future Volume (veh/h) 86 212 79 31 294 69 145 606 36 50 379 112 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 244 91 36 338 79 167 697 41 57 436 129 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 294 505 183 302 482 111 175 1467 86 91 1037 304 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2553 927 1781 2867 661 1781 3411 201 1781 2710 795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 168 167 36 208 209 167 363 375 57 285 280 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1704 1781 1777 1751 1781 1777 1834 1781 1777 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 1.0 6.6 6.8 5.6 8.8 8.8 1.9 7.1 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 5.0 5.2 1.0 6.6 6.8 5.6 8.8 8.8 1.9 7.1 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 352 337 302 299 294 175 764 789 91 680 661 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.48 0.50 0.12 0.70 0.71 0.95 0.47 0.48 0.63 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 322 474 454 384 474 467 175 764 789 148 680 661 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.0 21.3 21.4 19.4 23.5 23.6 26.9 12.2 12.2 27.9 13.6 13.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.2 2.9 3.2 50.4 1.9 1.8 6.9 1.9 2.0 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 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.4 2.7 2.8 4.6 3.1 3.2 0.9 2.6 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.7 22.3 22.5 19.6 26.4 26.7 77.3 14.1 14.1 34.8 15.5 15.6 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C E B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 434 453 905 622
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 26.0 25.7 17.3
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.8 6.8 15.9 10.4 27.0 8.5 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 5.9 16.1 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 10.8 3.0 7.2 7.6 9.2 4.7 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.9
HCM 6th LOS C
3-2
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 950 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 81 391 153 59 503 60 262 506 85 72 359 89 Future Volume (vph) 81 391 153 59 503 60 262 506 85 72 359 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 22.0 40.0 40.0 18.0 36.0 26.0 48.0 14.0 36.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 33.3% 33.3% 15.0% 30.0% 21.7% 40.0% 11.7% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 54 (45%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
3-3
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 951 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 391 153 59 503 60 262 506 85 72 359 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 391 153 59 503 60 262 506 85 72 359 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 420 165 63 541 65 282 544 91 77 386 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 111 1433 637 81 1790 212 352 1104 184 133 844 208 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4625 548 3456 3046 508 3456 2824 694 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 420 165 63 396 210 282 317 318 77 241 241 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1769 1728 1777 1776 1728 1777 1741 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 9.6 8.4 4.2 9.7 9.9 9.6 16.6 16.7 2.6 9.0 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 9.6 8.4 4.2 9.7 9.9 9.6 16.6 16.7 2.6 9.0 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 111 1433 637 81 1317 685 352 644 644 133 531 521 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.29 0.26 0.77 0.30 0.31 0.80 0.49 0.49 0.58 0.45 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1433 637 200 1317 685 619 644 644 274 531 521 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.5 24.2 23.9 56.6 25.5 25.6 52.7 29.7 29.7 54.4 18.7 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 0.5 1.0 14.3 0.6 1.2 4.2 2.7 2.7 3.4 2.4 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 3.9 3.2 2.2 3.8 4.2 4.3 7.3 7.3 1.1 3.3 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.0 24.7 24.8 71.0 26.1 26.7 56.9 32.3 32.4 57.9 21.1 21.3 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 672 669 917 559
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 30.5 39.9 26.3
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 52.9 16.7 40.4 12.0 50.9 9.1 48.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 35.5 21.5 31.5 17.5 31.5 9.5 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 11.6 11.6 11.2 7.8 11.9 4.6 18.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 0.7 2.5 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
3-4
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 952 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 73 24 7 614 460 18
Future Volume (vph) 73 24 7 614 460 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-5
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 953 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 614 460 18
Future Vol, veh/h 73 24 7 614 460 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 81 27 8 682 511 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1209 256 531 0 - 0
Stage 1 511 -----
Stage 2 698 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 188 744 1034 - - -
Stage 1 568 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 186 744 1034 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 324 -----
Stage 1 563 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.4 0.1 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1034 - 324 744 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.25 0.036 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 19.8 10 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1 0.1 - -
3-6
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 954 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Future Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-7
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 955 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 104.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Future Vol, veh/h 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 62 393 91 93 211 107 166 430 32 65 364 114
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 118.7 66.7 175.1 38.1
HCM LOS F F F E
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 66% 0% 100% 51%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 34% 0% 0% 49%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 151 420 56 358 83 85 289 59 221 214 LT Vol 151 0 56 0 0 85 0 59 0 0
Through Vol 0 391 0 358 0 0 192 0 221 110
RT Vol 0 29 0 0 83 0 97 0 0 104
Lane Flow Rate 166 462 62 393 91 93 318 65 242 236
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.528 1.4 0.199 1.216 0.264 0.303 0.965 0.207 0.74 0.697 Departure Headway (Hd) 12.088 11.513 12.532 12.004 11.266 12.938 12.163 12.846 12.315 11.955 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 300 318 288 307 321 279 302 281 296 304
Service Time 9.788 9.213 10.232 9.704 8.966 10.638 9.863 10.546 10.015 9.655 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.553 1.453 0.215 1.28 0.283 0.333 1.053 0.231 0.818 0.776 HCM Control Delay 27.5 228.1 18.3 157.8 18 21.2 80.1 18.9 43.3 38.1 HCM Lane LOS D F C F C C F C E E
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 22.8 0.7 16.4 1 1.2 9.7 0.8 5.4 4.8 3-8
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 956 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Future Volume (vph) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.3 41.0 41.0 17.0 43.7 24.8 48.0 14.0 37.2 Total Split (%) 11.9% 34.2% 34.2% 14.2% 36.4% 20.7% 40.0% 11.7% 31.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 14 (12%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
3-9
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 957 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 358 83 85 192 97 151 391 29 59 331 104 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 393 91 93 211 107 166 430 32 65 364 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 80 439 369 117 298 151 195 865 64 83 1176 363 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.88 0.88 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1575 1781 1166 591 1781 1719 128 1781 2671 825 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 393 91 93 0 318 166 0 462 65 240 238 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1575 1781 0 1757 1781 0 1847 1781 1777 1719 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 4.3 2.7 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 24.4 5.6 6.2 0.0 19.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 4.3 2.7 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 439 369 117 0 448 195 0 930 83 782 757 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.90 0.25 0.80 0.00 0.71 0.85 0.00 0.50 0.78 0.31 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 569 479 186 0 574 301 0 930 141 782 757 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.7 44.5 37.3 55.3 0.0 40.6 52.5 0.0 19.7 53.8 4.2 4.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.7 14.0 0.3 11.7 0.0 2.9 13.0 0.0 1.9 14.7 1.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 12.5 2.1 3.1 0.0 8.5 5.4 0.0 8.4 2.1 1.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.4 58.5 37.7 66.9 0.0 43.5 65.4 0.0 21.6 68.6 5.2 5.3 LnGrp LOS E E D E A D E A C E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 546 411 628 543
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.5 48.8 33.2 12.8
Approach LOS E D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 64.9 12.4 32.6 17.7 57.3 9.9 35.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.5 43.5 12.5 36.5 20.3 32.7 9.8 39.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 21.9 8.2 26.4 13.0 4.7 6.1 21.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.6 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0
HCM 6th LOS D
3-10
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 958 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour 5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 44 577 4 15 469
Future Volume (vph) 11 44 577 4 15 469
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-11
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 959 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 AM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 44 577 4 15 469
Future Vol, veh/h 11 44 577 4 15 469
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 48 627 4 16 510
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 916 629 0 0 631 0
Stage 1 629 -----
Stage 2 287 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 287 481 - - 949 -
Stage 1 530 -----
Stage 2 737 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 282 481 - - 949 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 402 -----
Stage 1 530 -----
Stage 2 724 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 0 0.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 463 949 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.129 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.9 8.9 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
3-12
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 960 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 152 359 212 38 295 71 129 565 36 68 729 100 Future Volume (vph) 152 359 212 38 295 71 129 565 36 68 729 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 145 150 145 150 135 150 145 150
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 115
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1076 928 2709 800
Travel Time (s) 18.3 15.8 41.0 12.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (s) 9.5 20.0 9.5 20.0 10.5 21.0 9.5 20.0
Total Split (%) 15.8% 33.3% 15.8% 33.3% 17.5% 35.0% 15.8% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None C-Max None C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 59.5 (99%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
3-13
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 961 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 1: Jackson St. & Dr. Carreon Bl.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 152 359 212 38 295 71 129 565 36 68 729 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 152 359 212 38 295 71 129 565 36 68 729 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 408 241 43 335 81 147 642 41 77 828 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 350 505 295 237 550 131 178 1289 82 107 1068 147 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2159 1261 1781 2846 679 1781 3392 216 1781 3137 432 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 335 314 43 207 209 147 336 347 77 469 473 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1643 1781 1777 1748 1781 1777 1831 1781 1777 1793 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 10.7 10.9 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.9 8.7 8.7 2.5 14.2 14.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 10.7 10.9 1.1 6.4 6.6 4.9 8.7 8.7 2.5 14.2 14.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 350 415 384 237 343 338 178 675 696 107 605 610 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.81 0.82 0.18 0.60 0.62 0.83 0.50 0.50 0.72 0.78 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 350 474 438 310 474 466 178 675 696 148 605 610 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 21.7 21.8 18.6 22.1 22.2 26.5 14.2 14.2 27.7 17.7 17.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 8.9 10.3 0.4 1.7 1.8 22.4 2.2 2.1 9.7 9.4 9.3 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 1.8 4.9 4.8 0.4 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 1.3 6.3 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.9 30.6 32.1 18.9 23.8 24.0 48.9 16.4 16.3 37.4 27.2 27.1 LnGrp LOS B C C B C C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 822 459 830 1019
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.7 23.5 22.1 27.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 26.8 7.1 18.0 10.5 24.4 9.5 15.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 17.0 5.0 16.0 6.0 16.0 5.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 10.7 3.1 12.9 6.9 16.2 6.7 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.9
HCM 6th LOS C
3-14
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 962 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 135 663 291 80 558 97 275 475 80 189 578 93 Future Volume (vph) 135 663 291 80 558 97 275 475 80 189 578 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 205 0 205 0 150 0 140 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 100 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1172 1753 2602 2709
Travel Time (s) 16.0 23.9 39.4 41.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 52216 38 74
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 41.9 41.9 17.1 36.0 22.0 43.8 17.2 39.0 Total Split (%) 19.2% 34.9% 34.9% 14.3% 30.0% 18.3% 36.5% 14.3% 32.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max None Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
3-15
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 963 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 2: Jackson St. & Avenue 48
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 663 291 80 558 97 275 475 80 189 578 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 663 291 80 558 97 275 475 80 189 578 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 705 310 85 594 103 293 505 85 201 615 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 172 1377 612 108 1541 263 358 997 167 257 914 147 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1579 1781 4387 749 3456 3043 510 3456 3064 492 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 705 310 85 459 238 293 294 296 201 356 358 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1579 1781 1702 1732 1728 1777 1776 1728 1777 1779 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 18.2 18.0 5.6 12.1 12.4 10.0 16.0 16.1 6.7 16.2 16.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 18.2 18.0 5.6 12.1 12.4 10.0 16.0 16.1 6.7 16.2 16.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1377 612 108 1196 608 358 582 582 257 530 531 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.51 0.51 0.79 0.38 0.39 0.82 0.51 0.51 0.78 0.67 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 275 1377 612 187 1196 608 504 582 582 366 530 531 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 28.1 28.0 55.6 29.2 29.3 52.7 32.5 32.6 50.1 20.3 20.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 1.4 3.0 12.0 0.9 1.9 7.1 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 7.6 7.0 2.8 4.9 5.2 4.6 7.1 7.2 2.8 5.1 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.9 29.4 31.0 67.6 30.1 31.2 59.8 35.6 35.7 53.7 23.7 23.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E DDDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1159 782 883 915
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.3 34.5 43.7 30.3
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 51.0 16.9 40.3 16.1 46.7 13.4 43.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.6 37.4 17.5 34.5 18.5 31.5 12.7 39.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 20.2 12.0 18.3 11.5 14.4 8.7 18.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.5 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.6
HCM 6th LOS D
3-16
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 964 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 60 25 21 646 780 74
Future Volume (vph) 60 25 21 646 780 74
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 50 100 205
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 590 569 2602
Travel Time (s) 13.4 7.8 35.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-17
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 965 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour
3: Jackson St. & Odlum Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 646 780 74
Future Vol, veh/h 60 25 21 646 780 74
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 50 100 - - 205
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 65 27 23 695 839 80
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1580 420 919 0 - 0
Stage 1 839 -----
Stage 2 741 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 109 583 740 - - -
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 470 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 106 583 740 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 237 -----
Stage 1 373 -----
Stage 2 470 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.6 0.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 740 - 237 583 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - 0.272 0.046 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - 25.8 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.1 0.1 - -
3-18
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 966 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Future Volume (vph) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-19
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 967 of 1319 HCM 6th AWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour
4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 156.8
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Future Vol, veh/h 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 43 305 141 108 367 118 98 427 33 138 553 96
Number of Lanes 111110110120
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2332
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3232
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2323
HCM Control Delay 68.2 250.3 231.9 88.4
HCM LOS FFFF
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 0% 100% 0% 0% 76% 0% 100% 66%
Vol Right, % 0% 7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 24% 0% 0% 34%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 446 42 296 137 105 470 134 357 272 LT Vol 95 0 42 0 0 105 0 134 0 0
Through Vol 0 414 0 296 0 0 356 0 357 179
RT Vol 0 32 0 0 137 0 114 0 0 93
Lane Flow Rate 98 460 43 305 141 108 485 138 368 280
Geometry Grp 8888888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.335 1.504 0.147 0.996 0.434 0.369 1.564 0.444 1.133 0.843 Departure Headway (Hd) 13.62 13.038 14.483 13.947 13.196 13.508 12.8 13.86 13.324 13.067 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 265 285 249 262 275 268 291 262 276 280
Service Time 11.32 10.738 12.183 11.647 10.896 11.208 10.5 11.56 11.024 10.767 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.37 1.614 0.173 1.164 0.513 0.403 1.667 0.527 1.333 1 HCM Control Delay 23 276.4 19.7 94.8 25.6 23.9 300.9 27.2 133.6 59.2 HCM Lane LOS C F C F D C F D F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 23.9 0.5 9.8 2.1 1.6 26.1 2.1 13.2 7 3-20
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 968 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Future Volume (vph) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 250 70 0 200 0 145 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 2729 1208 1075 2241
Travel Time (s) 37.2 16.5 14.7 30.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 74438 52 16
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 10.0 36.6 36.6 19.4 46.0 17.8 45.0 19.0 46.2 Total Split (%) 8.3% 30.5% 30.5% 16.2% 38.3% 14.8% 37.5% 15.8% 38.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50
3-21
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 969 of 1319 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 4: Jackson St. & Avenue 50 WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\302 - EAPC With Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 296 137 105 356 114 95 414 32 134 536 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 305 141 108 367 118 98 427 33 138 553 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 57 468 394 134 397 128 122 742 57 163 1380 239 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.91 0.91 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1576 1781 1353 435 1781 1713 132 1781 3027 524 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 305 141 108 0 485 98 0 460 138 324 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1576 1781 0 1788 1781 0 1846 1781 1777 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 17.5 8.8 7.2 0.0 31.6 6.5 0.0 22.6 9.0 3.0 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 17.5 8.8 7.2 0.0 31.6 6.5 0.0 22.6 9.0 3.0 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 468 394 134 0 525 122 0 799 163 810 809 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.65 0.36 0.81 0.00 0.92 0.80 0.00 0.58 0.85 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 82 500 421 221 0 618 197 0 799 215 810 809 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.6 40.3 37.0 54.6 0.0 41.1 55.1 0.0 25.7 48.2 3.0 3.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.7 2.7 0.5 10.8 0.0 18.0 11.3 0.0 3.0 20.6 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 8.1 3.3 3.5 0.0 15.8 3.2 0.0 9.9 4.5 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 43.0 37.6 65.5 0.0 59.1 66.3 0.0 28.7 68.8 4.5 4.5 LnGrp LOS E D D EAEEACEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 489 593 558 787
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.6 60.2 35.3 15.8
Approach LOS D E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.5 56.5 13.5 34.5 12.8 59.2 8.3 39.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 40.5 14.9 32.1 13.3 41.7 5.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 24.6 9.2 19.5 8.5 5.1 4.9 33.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 3.8 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0
HCM 6th LOS D
3-22
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 970 of 1319 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour 5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 29 638 12 49 756
Future Volume (vph) 7 29 638 12 49 756
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 150 150 50
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 60
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 327 2241 569
Travel Time (s) 7.4 30.6 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
3-23
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 971 of 1319 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC Phase 1, 2, & 3 PM Peak Hour
5: Jackson St. & Plume Feather Dr.
Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_14100-14500\14156\Synchro\Phasing Analysis\202 - EAPC.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 29 638 12 49 756
Future Vol, veh/h 7 29 638 12 49 756
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 50 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 8 32 693 13 53 822
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1217 700 0 0 706 0
Stage 1 700 -----
Stage 2 517 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 - - 2.219 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 186 438 - - 890 -
Stage 1 491 -----
Stage 2 564 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 175 438 - - 890 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 312 -----
Stage 1 491 -----
Stage 2 530 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.8 0 0.6
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 406 890 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.096 0.06 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.8 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.2 -
3-24
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 972 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 973 of 1319 TENTATIVE TRACT 38072
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF INDIO
PREPARED BY:
John Kain, AICP
[email protected]
(949) 375‐2435
Marlie Whiteman, PE
[email protected]
(714) 585‐0574
Janette Cachola
[email protected]
JULY 30, 2021
14156‐03 Report
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 974 of 1319
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 975 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................V LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... IX LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. XI 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Description of Proposed Project................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area and Analysis Scenarios................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Criteria for Determining Significant Impacts ................................................................................ 4
1.5 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Recommended Improvements .................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ..................................................................................................... 11 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Location....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Land Use and Intensity................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Project Access ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Project Timing ............................................................................................................................. 13 3 AREA CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Study Area................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Existing Land Uses....................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Area Roadway System................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Transit Service............................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Active Transportation Facilities................................................................................................... 17
3.6 Traffic Volumes and Conditions.................................................................................................. 23
3.7 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies........................................................... 27
3.8 Required Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................................... 28
3.9 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 29
3.10 Existing Intersection Level of Service.......................................................................................... 29
3.11 Required Roadway Segment Level of Service............................................................................. 31
3.12 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................... 31
3.13 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis.................................................................................................. 33 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC..................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Project Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Modal Split.................................................................................................................................. 35
4.4 Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................................... 38
4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic.......................................................................................................... 38
4.6 General Plan Buildout (2040) Volume Development.................................................................. 43 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 45
5.1 Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................. 45
5.2 EAP (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts.......................................................................................... 45
5.3 EAP (2023) Intersection Operations Analysis.............................................................................. 45
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 976 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
iv
5.4 EAP (2023) Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis....................................................................... 51 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 53
6.1 Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................. 53
6.2 EAPC (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts........................................................................................ 53
6.3 EAPC (2023) Intersection Operations Analysis ........................................................................... 53
6.4 EAPC (2023) Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis..................................................................... 53 7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... 59
7.1 Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................. 59
7.2 General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts.................................. 59
7.3 General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts........................................ 59
7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 59
7.5 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis.......................................................................................... 65 8 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)............................................................................................... 67 9 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 69
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 977 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
v
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 978 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 979 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
vii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1‐1: SITE PLAN......................................................................................................................... 2 EXHIBIT 1‐2: STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 3 EXHIBIT 1‐3: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO .................................. 6 EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS....................... 16 EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF INDIO GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY DESIGNATIONS ............................................. 18 EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF INDIO STREET ATTRIBUTES ................................................................................ 19 EXHIBIT 3‐4: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................. 22 EXHIBIT 3‐5: CITY OF INDIO PLANNED BICYCLE NETWORK.................................................................. 24 EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING (HYPOTHETICAL “NON‐COVID‐19” 2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................... 26 EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION......................................................................................... 37 EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 39 EXHIBIT 4‐3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP ................................................................................ 40 EXHIBIT 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................. 41 EXHIBIT 5‐1: ESTIMATED TIERRA DEL SOL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ORIENTED TO AVENUE 49 .................... 47 EXHIBIT 5‐2: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................ 48 EXHIBIT 5‐3: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS.................................... 50 EXHIBIT 6‐1: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 54 EXHIBIT 6‐2: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS.................................. 56 EXHIBIT 6‐3: INITIAL DRAFT CONCEPT STRIPING PLAN,
JACKSON STREET / ODLUM DRIVE – AVENUE 49 (CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT, 2023) .... 57 EXHIBIT 7‐1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................... 60 EXHIBIT 7‐2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................. 61 EXHIBIT 7‐3: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS.................................................................................... 63 EXHIBIT 7‐4: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 64
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 980 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 981 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 1 TABLE 1‐2: FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS................................................................................................ 9 TABLE 3‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS................................................................... 27 TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS ........................................................ 28 TABLE 3‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS “E” OR LOS “F”....... 29 TABLE 3‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS ............................................ 30 TABLE 3‐5: ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY THRESHOLDS .................................................................. 31 TABLE 3‐6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS .................. 32 TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY............................................................................ 36 TABLE 4‐2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY......................................................... 41 TABLE 5‐1: TIERRA DEL SOL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
(ESTIMATED TO BE ROUTED TO USE AVENUE 49 CONNECTION)........................................ 46 TABLE 5‐2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS .................................................... 49 TABLE 5‐3: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS........................... 52 TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS................................................... 55 TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS......................... 58 TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) CONDITIONS.................. 62 TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) CONDITIONS ................................................................ 66
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 982 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
x
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 983 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
DIF Development Impact Fee
DU Dwelling Units
EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project
EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative GPBO General Plan Buildout
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Tentative Tract 38072
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis
TUMF Transportation Mitigation Uniform Fee
tsf Thousand Square Feet
V/C Volume‐to‐Capacity
VMT Vehicles Miles Traveled
VPH Vehicles per Hour
WP With Project
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 984 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
xii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 985 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Tentative Tract 38072 (“Project”) located east of Jackson Street and south of Odlum Drive (Avenue 49) in the City of Indio.
The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed amendment, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This focused TA has been prepared based in accordance with the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) as the City of Indio does not have its own LOS/VMT analysis guidelines. (1) To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Indio’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff. The approved TA Scope is included in Appendix 1.1.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project consist of 173 single family residential units. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed by year 2023. A preliminary site plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1‐1. Access to Jackson Street from the Project will be provided via Plume Feather Drive and Avenue 49.
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,633 trip‐ends per day with 128 AM peak hour trips and 171 PM peak hour trips.
1.3 STUDY AREA AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
1.3.1 INTERSECTIONS
The following study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐2 and listed in Table 1‐1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Indio staff.
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location
1 Jackson Street / Dr. Carreon Boulevard
2 Jackson Street / Avenue 48
3 Jackson Street / Odlum Drive
4 Jackson Street / Avenue 50
5 Jackson Street / Plume Feather Drive – (Future Project Access) 6 Heron Place / Avenue 49 – (Future Project Access)
7 Camino Rosarito / Avenue 49 – (Future Intersection)
8 Song Sparrow Place / Avenue 49 – (Future Project Access) 1
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 986 of 1319
MEADOWLARK PLACE MEADOWLARK PLACE HERON PLACE
AVENUE 49
RAVEN LANE
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 8
91011 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 4344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56575859606162 95 96979899100 101 102 103 104 105106 107 108 145 146 147 148 149150151 6867666564 63 7071727374 80 7978777675 818283848586 90898887 91929394 114 113 112 111 110 109 115 116 117 118 119 120 124 123 122 121 125 126 127 128 134 135 136 137 138139 140 141 142 143 144 130 129 131 132 133 156 155 154 153 158 159 160 161 152 157 27 28 29 30 2231 23 24 25 2019 18 1726 2112131415 16 173 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 69 172 JACKSON STREET ALULA WAY ORIOLE PLACE MOCKINGBIRD WAY
VERIO WAY
PLUME FEATHER DRIVE
FLAMENCO WAY KINGFISHER CT.
TATTLER LANE
PINTAIL LANE
THRUSH WAY SEAGULL PLACE
CUERVO WAY QUILL ROAD
VERDIN LANE SONG SPARROW PLACE 163 162 IN THE CITY OF INDIO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 38072 2
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 987 of 1319 3
Resolution No. 10276, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti... Page 988 of 1319 Tentative Tract 38072 Traffic Analysis
14156‐03 Report.docx
4 1.3.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Daily volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) roadway analyses have been evaluated for the roadway segments within the study area.
1.3.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Per discussion with City of Indio staff and as documented in Appendix 1.1 of this TA, this study has analyzed the following scenarios:
Existing (2021)
Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2023)
Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) General Plan Buildout (2040) Without Project
General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project
Detailed descriptions of each analysis scenario can be found in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of this TA.
The proposed Project land use is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
1.4 CRITERIA FORDETERMINING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Potentially significant Project traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and roadway segment traffic impacts. Intersections and roadway segments are evaluated for both potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts. The potentially significant Project and cumulative impact criteria described below for both intersection and roadway segments per the City of Indio and County of Riverside traffic study guidelines.
1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
City of Indio and County of Riverside (2) (1)
For the purposes of this study, it was considered that a significant impact would occur (a) if the proposed Project causes the level of service (LOS) to degrade to below LOS D, or (b) if the proposed Project causes the level of service to change from LOS E to LOS F.
1.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Potentially Significant Project Impacts
A potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio increases by 0.02 or more with the addition of Project traffic.
Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the Project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for future traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study 4